Any Creationists here?

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

Again if you would read what I said earlier. I doubted Christianity for a good few years, until I actually picked up a Bible and started reading it for myself. I'd recommend the Good News translation to anyone infact. Actually just to add, do you think that the Bible is inaccessible to anyone in this world. It is the most published book of all time, how could anyone not get it. As such Christianity is accessible to anyone whereever they are.

Science likewise.

Jakkass wrote:

Hold up here! It does require someone to believe in the whole Scripture. How could one believe that Jesus existed from Jewish parents, if one doesn't believe they were brought out of slavery in Egypt. (Joseph being brought there and betrayed by his brothers, interpreting dreams, being given land by the King of Egypt is documented throughout the end of that book) Actually, are you sure that you have read Genesis before making comments about it or did you only get to the first chapter describing the creation? One would have to believe that the Jews were brought out of exile in Egypt to the promised land if one is also to believe in Jesus living amongst other Jews in Israel.

Well now, that takes us to one of those interesting points. The Bible clearly states that Jesus is the son of God. Is this to be taken as true? Obviously. Is it literally true? Well, it means exactly what it says. Is it true purely in the same mundane sense that I am my father's son? Obviously not.

Scriptural truth, then, is a many-levelled thing. Your insistence on sticking to a purely mundane reading of it is rather limiting. Still, like you say, they're your beliefs, and you won't change them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dr.bollocko

Gah. This thread has become impossible to follow.
I have to throw in a final two cents. I dont know why and i really shouldnt bother. But I do.
A huge chunk of the educated world knows that creationism is incorrect, Knows it. They see it as the completely arbitrary one size fits all lie that it is. All we can see is a set of nonsensical lies that come twisting from a fictional book where individual quotes are taken out of context and passages are twisted to provide some substance to what is a dangerous, ill-informed and anti-scientific drivel spouted by those who dont deserve an audience. The blinkered view of the world required to actually believe it is so borderline arrogant that you are just bound to annoy people enough to actually tell you what they really think.

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

When I was in High School, we were headed for an ice age. All the experts knew it, all the evidence pointed there. If you didn't accept it, you were foolish and dumb. Well here we are 30 years later and we are in global warming, caused by CO2 emissions by humans. All the evidence points to the CO2 issue, if you don't believe us you are obviously dumb, and how can you not see the evidence.

Meteorology is the most difficult of all the sciences, by far. This is not a far comparison to the rest of science.
Besides a lot of that "you're dumb" stuff is due to the issue getting tied up in politics.

When I was a kid, the Brontosaurus was king of the plant eating dinosaur world, They were in all the books and museums, now science tells us, oops, Brontosaurus really didn't exist.

I take it you went to school prior to 1903 then.

Scientists also told us that the universe was centred around the earth, all the evidence pointed at it. Aristarchus in the 4th century BC deduced that the sun was the centre, he was shutdown and Hipparchus view and of the Earth being centre won out because all the evidence pointed to it as being so.

Lame, that was the ancient Greeks not science as it was practised today and in fact not science at all. It was not based on evidence.

What you have done is cherry pick two examples, one at the extreme end of unpredicatbility, the other a failing of the Northern America's educational system and used it to proclaim something about science in general.
(You're third example isn't even applicable)

In the end science gives me absolutely no cause to trust it, what is todays fact, that becomes tomorrows falsity (don't know if that is a word or not )?

You look at science an odd way, like most Creationists do. Falsifiability is a strength not weakness. It is the only reasonable way to move forward. It isn't about absolute truth.

The only way that I can trust it is when it says 'here is the techcology and it works'.

Well the Big Bang and GPS are linked at the hip, what do you make of that?

philologos

bonkey wrote:

I did read what you said earlier. I just wanted you to remind yourself that you're reading a modern interpretation of an older translation of an ancient text....the original of which isn't even extant.

The Good News translation is taken from the best Hebrew and Greek sources. It is translated directly from the sources, not rewritten from another translation.

bonkey wrote:

But you're telling me you don't have to put blind faith in anyone that what you're reading is what the original text said nor that the meaning you take out of it is the meaning that was intended to be taken.

We believe that Moses dictated the Torah from God, and as far as I know, no Christian would say that God is fallable.

bonkey wrote:

I never said it was inaccessible. I said that the notion that science requires you to put faith in others but trust in the bible doesn't is faulty. The truth is the reverse. To trust the bible, I have to blindly trust the transcribers and translaters throughout history. With science, I have the possibility of verifying anything which is presented as a scientific claim.

I've claimed that that section was dictated from God, whereas the other sections of the Bible are inspired by God.

bonkey wrote:

No, it doesn't. It requires someone to believe most of what is Scripture, and to allow that the remainder is at least allegorical in nature.

That is your opinion. Why is it written in Scripture if it isn't to be believed?

bonkey wrote:

Do you see the irony in asking this question after showing that you're willing to speak from a position of comparative ignorance when it comes to many aspects of science?

AS it happens, yes, I have read Genesis.

I know of the relevant theorems to an extent. But know I don't know every exact in and out of it, I will accept that.

bonkey wrote:

Actually, no, you wouldn't.

One would have to believe merely that Jews lived in Israel in the time of Jesus.

The message contained within the bible does not require that the accounts be literally true.

Coming from a religious perspective, and after reading the Torah. One would have to believe the accounts to be true, as if Moses didn't exist why would you believe in a Law that you didn't believe was dictated in the first place? What kind of religion would that be?

bonkey wrote:

After all, Jesus himself used parable to spead his messages. Does this not suggest that people can be given a message without the story which contained the message eing rooted entirely in fact.

I accept that Jesus did use parables or hypothetical situations to show His followers more about their faith. But when it comes to a piece of religious Law, that cannot be interpreted as not literal. The Torah from Genesis to Deuteronomy is just that, religious Law.

bonkey wrote:

To suggest that the bible cannot have proper meaning unless it is completely factual is to suggest that nothing can have proper meaning unless it is completely factual. That would suggest that when Jesus himself preached to the first Christians, his preachnig did not have proper meaning.

I never suggested that once if you have a quote where I said that the Bible doesn't have proper meaning unless it is fact? So wait. Because I think that the creation account is true means that I can't be a Christian? That's rediculous.

bonkey wrote:

If it was good enough for the son of God, then what, exactly, is the problem with allegory that means its not good enough for mortal man?

I didn't claim there was a problem with allegory. Actually some of the best philosophies use allegory. I never said it wasn't good enough at all. Stop making assumptions.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Sure, I agree. Science that works.

When I was in High School, we were headed for an ice age. All the experts knew it, all the evidence pointed there. If you didn't accept it, you were foolish and dumb. Well here we are 30 years later and we are in global warming, caused by CO2 emissions by humans. All the evidence points to the CO2 issue, if you don't believe us you are obviously dumb, and how can you not see the evidence.

What is it with this? In the 70's scientists realised that the global climate was undergoing a major shift. They got the direction wrong initially, but they were right about the change.

Is it de rigeur for creationists to believe that climate change is a myth/conspiracy/mistake? If so, why?

BrianCalgary wrote:

When I was a kid, the Brontosaurus was king of the plant eating dinosaur world, They were in all the books and museums, now science tells us, oops, Brontosaurus really didn't exist.

You mean, it got reclassified as Apatosaurus? The animal remains the same.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Scientists also told us that the universe was centred around the earth, all the evidence pointed at it. Aristarchus in the 4th century BC deduced that the sun was the centre, he was shutdown and Hipparchus view and of the Earth being centre won out because all the evidence pointed to it as being so.

The Copernican revolution rather precedes science - by about 300 years. Honestly, Brian, this is like me claiming that Christians are cannibals...

BrianCalgary wrote:

In the end science gives me absolutely no cause to trust it, what is todays fact, that becomes tomorrows falsity (don't know if that is a word or not:) )?

The only way that I can trust it is when it says 'here is the techcology and it works'.

Well there you have a very good point. Science is a realm of conditional truth (the word you're looking for is 'falsehood', given the context - 'falsity' is an adjective). Religion claims to deal in absolute truths, science doesn't. For those who like absolute truths, science's conditionality is a mark and measure of its falsity. To the scientist, it is the opposite.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Your intolerance isn't my concern either.

Please save the Christian in front of the lions routine. No one is stopping you from posting anything you want.

But if you post something that makes incorrect, ignorant, or missrepresentive comments about science then expect others posters to respond.

Jakkass wrote:

If I say I'm a creationist then it's just going to give you a warrant to bash what I believe so it seems.

As I said I don't care if you are a creationists or not.

I do care if you post comments like these -

"Darwins theory on Evolution is just that, a theory. It requires the same amount of faith to believe in that than in Creationism."

"Give me one scrap of evidence of Evolution."

"A sophisticated lifeform does not come from slime."

"The Big Bang also requires quite a lot of belief and faith."

"The Big Bang requires just as big a leap in faith as Christianity."

"it could have been more than 6 days but it wasn't millions of years."


Claiming that you should be able to post this nonsense but that others should not point out that it is incorrect or ignorant because they should be tolerant of your right to believe in what you like is a bit rich.

You can believe anything you like, but the nonsense that you believe in itself doesn't have a right to uncritical acceptance in a public arena. If you don't want said beliefs criticised then don't post them in public.

Tar.Aldarion

BrianCalgary wrote:

When I was a kid, the Brontosaurus was king of the plant eating dinosaur world, They were in all the books and museums, now science tells us, oops, Brontosaurus really didn't exist.

It's not that it didn't exist, merely it was a grown up apatosaurus. People seem to keep the name brontosaurus around because it is more recognisible, and really, just a better name!

I loved to build dinosaurs as a child, oh yes.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

"Darwins theory on Evolution is just that, a theory. It requires the same amount of faith to believe in that than in Creationism."

"Give me one scrap of evidence of Evolution."

"A sophisticated lifeform does not come from slime."

"The Big Bang also requires quite a lot of belief and faith."

"The Big Bang requires just as big a leap in faith as Christianity."

"it could have been more than 6 days but it wasn't millions of years."


Claiming that you should be able to post this nonsense but that others should not point out that it is incorrect or ignorant because they should be tolerant of your right to believe in what you like is a bit rich.
.

And you still haven't convinced me that it isn't nonsense. Infact it's comforting to have it from God, rather than feeling burdened to find a solution amongst yourselves (which is the Humanist way of thought).

BrianCalgary wrote:

In the end science gives me absolutely no cause to trust it, what is todays fact, that becomes tomorrows falsity (don't know if that is a word or not )?

The only way that I can trust it is when it says 'here is the techcology and it works'.

That is very very true. A lot of science could be proven false, just like Christianity could be.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

In the end science gives me absolutely no cause to trust it, what is todays fact, that becomes tomorrows falsity (don't know if that is a word or not:) )?

The only way that I can trust it is when it says 'here is the techcology and it works'.

In the 19th century there were a lot of different theories about what was actually going on with light, most of which science itself determined were wrong. Fast forward 150 years and now you have a computer monitor.

To say that you don't trust science is ridiculous. If it wasn't for science you would be sitting in a wooden hut some where writing on a piece of paper by candle light. And you probably wouldn't be in Canada either.

As I said to Jakkass I find that more often than not theists can make claims that they don't "trust" science because they take almost completely for granted anything and everything that science has actually produced for them, or the scientitists and the scientific method that went behind these.

It is easy to pick something that science had little understanding of at any point in time and say "Oh well this is ridiculous most of those theories were completely wrong!" The point is that science self corrected these theories and arrived at one that did work. Which is how we went from a lot of theories on light to a computer monitor.

It is the method that is important.

But if you want technology that works you should have little trouble with Darwinian evolution since there are a vast array of technology that only work if evolution is correct.

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

That is very very true. A lot of science could be proven false

If it couldn't be proven to be false it wouldn't be science. Seriously people.

philologos

Son Goku wrote:

If it couldn't be proven to be false it wouldn't be science. Seriously people.

Then whats the point in having this discussion if both theories are perfectly legitimate?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

And you still haven't convinced me that it isn't nonsense.

Convincing you isn't the objective. If you are interested in learning what evolution is actually about I would suggest you go read a good book on the subject. But I imagine you aren't and that you won't.

Jakkass wrote:

That is very very true. A lot of science could be proven false, just like Christianity could be.

Any time you want to prove biological evolution false there is nothing stopping you or anyone else.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Then whats the point in having this discussion if both theories are perfectly legitimate?

They aren't both perfectly legitimate. Your "theory" has no evidence and cannot be proven false

As Son said "seriously people"

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Convincing you isn't the objective. If you are interested in learning what evolution is actually about I would suggest you go read a good book on the subject. But I imagine you aren't and that you won't.

I'm open to anything. I have a copy of the Qu'ran and continue to read it. Doesn't mean that I'll convert to Islam does it? Infact suggest a book?

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

Son Goku wrote:

If it couldn't be proven to be false it wouldn't be science. Seriously people.

Then whats the point in having this discussion if both theories are perfectly legitimate?

Your comment doesn't follow. Legitimate in what terms? Religiously legitimate? Scientifically legitimate?

The two theories are certainly not equally legitimate, whichever system of legitimacy you use.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

I'm open to anything. I have a copy of the Qu'ran and continue to read it. Doesn't mean that I'll convert to Islam does it?

Given I've now read the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, the Eddas, most of the Greek, Roman and Egyptian tales of the gods, and haven't converted to any of them, I doubt it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

I'm open to anything. I have a copy of the Qu'ran and continue to read it. Doesn't mean that I'll convert to Islam does it? Infact suggest a book?

I will do better than that, this link should get you started

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

I will do better than that, this link should get you started

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Will do. I'd be interested in getting a few books on it aswell, so if you do have any titles it would be useful.

Tar.Aldarion

Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors--by Carl Sagan and Anne Druyan.
Cosmos--by Carl Sagan

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Will do. I'd be interested in getting a few books on it aswell, so if you do have any titles it would be useful.

"The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins was a rather revolutionary book on evolution as it moved the signal unit of selection down to the genetic level (he wasn't the first to suggest this but his book popularised the idea). It is also a good book for understanding how something like morality can emerge from evolution, since most people think that evolution means that an individual should be as selfish as possible, when in fact it is the genetic material that is being as selfish as possible and that often requires cooperation between organisms.

"The Blind Watchmaker" also by Prof. Dawkins details how complexity can develop from simple things without it being necessary for a guiding intelligence to design them. This is a good book to learn about evolution in general, not just applied to the specific form we find in genetic biology.

"What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr is a good introduction to evolution applied to life, that isn't written by Richard Dawkins, just in case anyone started to think he held exclusive rights to the subject. While not as well written as one of Dawkins books, it is still simple enough to follow but detailed enough to outline what is happening.

After reading those books, and assuming you are open to the idea in the first place, you should have a good basic understanding of what evolution actually is and how it works.

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote:

When I was in High School, we were headed for an ice age. All the experts knew it, all the evidence pointed there. If you didn't accept it, you were foolish and dumb.

That may be what you believe, but you are wrong.

The experts did not know it, nor did they claim to. The evidence did not point there, nor did the experts claim it did.

The mainstream media did, to an extent, do what you say, but they were misreporting the scientific community's position.

Do not mistake what the mainstream media report as the scientific position with what the scientific position actually was.

When I was a kid, the Brontosaurus was king of the plant eating dinosaur world, They were in all the books and museums, now science tells us, oops, Brontosaurus really didn't exist.

You are again mistaking the stance of the non-scientific community and the scientific.

Scientists also told us that the universe was centred around the earth,

As did religion. Does that not equally shake your trust in religion?

Indeed, it was science, and not religion, which discovered the error. It was religion, not science, who attempted to suppress this correction until it was obvious that they were standing on dogma which was insupportably wrong.

Science, as has been pointed out, corrects itself. It does so willingly. Despite the imperfection of the system (due to the imperfection of man) the adverserial nature of science means that the two great aims are :

1) Discover something new
2) Falsify something established.

Religion, on the other hand, does not willingly correct itself. Indeed, challenging the established religious position is generally viewed as breaking from religion, potentially to the point of benig branded a heretic.

Its amazing to me that you can have no trust for a system which is self-correcting and progressive, preferring instead a system which resists change and insists on its correctness despite having a history which shows itself to be imperfect and where what constitutes "correctness" is so poorly established that you have any number of religions who believe in different interpretations, despite all calling themselves Christian.

violatom

Evolution is a theory, but also a fact. In the same way that the theories of electricity, gravity, relativity are FACTS. If you look at it long enough, religion is only based on: (i) fear of death, and (ii) ignorance of the unknown, and a huge unwillingness to try and find the truth.
I would direct you toward the letters in New Scientist, 3rd Feb 2007, Diminishing deities (pp21). To quote from it, "Over time, we will inevitably chip away at the mountain of "God did it" assertations - we have been for centuries"
Yours
Violatom

BrianCalgary

Son Goku wrote:

Meteorology is the most difficult of all the sciences, by far. This is not a far comparison to the rest of science.
Besides a lot of that "you're dumb" stuff is due to the issue getting tied up in politics.?

Not at all. Watching any program or listening to any program that talks about the issue has scientists claiming CO2 emissions as the problem are quite open in pointing fingers at anyone that disagrees with them as not really doing science. So no politics, science vs. science.

Son Goku wrote:

I take it you went to school prior to 1903 then.?

Nope. The Royal Ontario Museum on my last visit there in the 1970's had the statue of Brontosaurus. So I guess Ontario scientists firmly believed that our friend was an actual creature.

Son Goku wrote:

Lame, that was the ancient Greeks not science as it was practised today and in fact not science at all. It was not based on evidence.?

So the ancient Greeks didn't practice science? They didn't observe the heavens and measure the movement of the celestial bodies? Here you go, a scientist claiming another isn't really doing science properly.

Son Goku wrote:

What you have done is cherry pick two examples, one at the extreme end of unpredicatbility, the other a failing of the Northern America's educational system and used it to proclaim something about science in general.
(You're third example isn't even applicable)?

Cherry pick or not. They are examples of where science has failed miserably in its observations and hence I don't trust what they have to say. Because their current observations could also be wrong.

Son Goku wrote:

You look at science an odd way, like most Creationists do. Falsifiability is a strength not weakness. It is the only reasonable way to move forward. It isn't about absolute truth.?

If it isn't absolute truth then why should I believe any of it?

You tell me that evolution is an observable fact. Well so was celestial bodies moving around the Earth, so was the Brontosaurus, so was the impending ice age, so was th energy crisis of the mid 70's.

Son Goku wrote:

Well the Big Bang and GPS are linked at the hip, what do you make of that?

The Big Bang has been considered unprovable. So again why should I believe it? Based on current observations?

BrianCalgary

Jakkass wrote:

And you still haven't convinced me that it isn't nonsense. Infact it's comforting to have it from God, rather than feeling burdened to find a solution amongst yourselves (which is the Humanist way of thought).


That is very very true. A lot of science could be proven false, just like Christianity could be.

Then what proof have you got that Christianity is false?

There has been plenty of science over the years that has been shown to be false.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

In the 19th century there were a lot of different theories about what was actually going on with light, most of which science itself determined were wrong. Fast forward 150 years and now you have a computer monitor.

To say that you don't trust science is ridiculous. If it wasn't for science you would be sitting in a wooden hut some where writing on a piece of paper by candle light. And you probably wouldn't be in Canada either.

As I said to Jakkass I find that more often than not theists can make claims that they don't "trust" science because they take almost completely for granted anything and everything that science has actually produced for them, or the scientitists and the scientific method that went behind these.

It is easy to pick something that science had little understanding of at any point in time and say "Oh well this is ridiculous most of those theories were completely wrong!" The point is that science self corrected these theories and arrived at one that did work. Which is how we went from a lot of theories on light to a computer monitor.

It is the method that is important.

But if you want technology that works you should have little trouble with Darwinian evolution since there are a vast array of technology that only work if evolution is correct.

Not at all wicknight. Scientific discovery is fantastic. I can trust my computer monitor, it is testable and buildable and workable.

The theories on evolution in particular and past events in general can not be proven but can only be inferred in varying degrees based on evidence.

It is like a court case, you are taking evidence and trying to piece together a past event, coming up with a viable explanation as to what happened.

You are then asking me to trust you with my eternal salvation. How can I when the story changes?

You are comparing two different branches of science.

Tar.Aldarion

So I guess Ontario scientists firmly believed that our friend was an actual creature.

That is because it was.

philologos

BrianCalgary wrote:

Then what proof have you got that Christianity is false?

There has been plenty of science over the years that has been shown to be false.

I don't believe it to be false. I was basically saying the same point that you have just made. Look back through the whole thread and you'll see that I'm a believer of Christianity.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Not at all. Watching any program or listening to any program that talks about the issue has scientists claiming CO2 emissions as the problem are quite open in pointing fingers at anyone that disagrees with them as not really doing science. So no politics, science vs. science.

Perhaps they are right? Much of what has been put up as "science that debunks climate change" has been either pseudo-science or misrepresentation.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Nope. The Royal Ontario Museum on my last visit there in the 1970's had the statue of Brontosaurus. So I guess Ontario scientists firmly believed that our friend was an actual creature.

It was an actual creature! All that has changed is its taxonomic classification. That is to say, there's nothing wrong with the statue, but the label.

BrianCalgary wrote:

So the ancient Greeks didn't practice science? They didn't observe the heavens and measure the movement of the celestial bodies? Here you go, a scientist claiming another isn't really doing science properly.

The scientific method absolutely postdates the Greeks. There is some dispute over whether Bacon's methods were sufficiently rigorous to qualify as science, but either way, the Greek philosophers are at least a thousand years too early.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Cherry pick or not. They are examples of where science has failed miserably in its observations and hence I don't trust what they have to say. Because their current observations could also be wrong.

Hmm. You are confusing 'observations' with 'hypotheses' - but what the heck.

BrianCalgary wrote:

If it isn't absolute truth then why should I believe any of it?

Because it works?

BrianCalgary wrote:

You tell me that evolution is an observable fact. Well so was celestial bodies moving around the Earth, so was the Brontosaurus, so was the impending ice age, so was th energy crisis of the mid 70's.

At some future date we may well understand something entirely different by evolution to what is currently meant, yes. Most of the rest of the stuff you mention is either your misunderstandings (Brontosaurus), religious dogma (geocentrism), or media hype.

regards,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

bonkey wrote:

As did religion. Does that not equally shake your trust in religion?

Indeed, it was science, and not religion, which discovered the error. It was religion, not science, who attempted to suppress this correction until it was obvious that they were standing on dogma which was insupportably wrong.

Science, as has been pointed out, corrects itself. It does so willingly. Despite the imperfection of the system (due to the imperfection of man) the adverserial nature of science means that the two great aims are :

1) Discover something new
2) Falsify something established.

Religion, on the other hand, does not willingly correct itself. Indeed, challenging the established religious position is generally viewed as breaking from religion, potentially to the point of benig branded a heretic.

Its amazing to me that you can have no trust for a system which is self-correcting and progressive, preferring instead a system which resists change and insists on its correctness despite having a history which shows itself to be imperfect and where what constitutes "correctness" is so poorly established that you have any number of religions who believe in different interpretations, despite all calling themselves Christian.

There is a difference between religion and Christianity, in the context of what you are writing. Religion is an institution that interprets and dictates doctrine, and other stuff in areas that it should or shouldn't be involved in. Christianity is based on the word of God as told through the pages of the Bible.

The Bible has never changed. Where does my faith lie?

Not in a religion or an institution, it lies in God and His word.

Religious institutions are resistant to change I think because they like rules and walls and structure for their comfort. As an individual, show me where my beliefs are wrong, using God's word and I will change my belief and understanding.

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

So the ancient Greeks didn't practice science? They didn't observe the heavens and measure the movement of the celestial bodies? Here you go, a scientist claiming another isn't really doing science properly.

They made measurements, but falsifiability wasn't part of their workings and hence they are largely disconnected from modern science. Do you understand the idea of falsifiability?
I also enjoy how instead of just refuting my point you had to make it out as if I'm out to smear the ancient greeks.

Cherry pick or not. They are examples of where science has failed miserably in its observations and hence I don't trust what they have to say. Because their current observations could also be wrong.

Brian, come on. You are not comparing like with like. An incorrect naming of a dinosaur is not on pair with the kind of evidence for the Big Bang. The Big Bang is an entire field of research. Apatosaurus is one sauropod.

The way evidence is gathered is not even remotely similar in both fields and neither are the conditions.
When palaeontologists classify dinosaurs, they look at its features and fit it in accordingly. Sometimes they get it wrong, big surprise. The Big Bang however makes predictions coming from its mathematical structure. If it ever gets anything wrong it is out. After several millions of readings it is still correct.

If you're going to cherry-pick at least compare like with like and not compare some random fact from one field with an entire specified framework in another just because they both fit in under the heading of science.

A predictive science isn't comparable to a descriptive one. The Big Bang predicted things in advance, where as in the examples above the evidence was used to draw the wrong result. (kind of). You have this habit of dismissing predictive sciences due to the failings of descriptive ones. Do you understand the difference between them?

If the Big Bang says we should observe something and then thats exactly what we observe, then what's wrong with that?

Scientifically the Big Bang is as solid as the science that makes your television work.

If it isn't absolute truth then why should I believe any of it?

Because it has a good deal of evidence, because you live in the real world where we can't be completely certain of things and because it works.

The Big Bang has been considered unprovable. So again why should I believe it? Based on current observations?

:rolleyes:
It's unprovable? As a physicist I'd love to hear how it is unprovable and this better not be just the standard scientific usage of unprovable. You say this in every post you make about the Big Bang, what is the justification?

Plus you still haven't answered my question, the same maths that leads to the Big Bang leads to GPS, what do you make of that?
Also the Big Bang correctly predicts the pattern of fuzz on an untuned television, what do you make of that?