"Real" ringworlds

[Fyron]

Jack:

Arbitrary vs. Arbitrary - equivalent; of course, the arbitrary person you refer for the creationist side isn't (in most cases) still around to have their evidence questioned - that doesn't mean that it wasn't there for him/her to view, which you seem to assume.

No, I don't assume that. Their evidence was based off of complete ignorance of the universe. They knew nothing of geology, astronomy (real astronomy, not just things like postions of stars and such), physics, biology, quantum mechanics, etc. While we do not know everything about these subjects today, we know enough to be able to see that the hypotheses about the origins of the unvierse that people came up with 5000 years ago (basis of Christianity) are inherently flawed and can't be relied upon. Even those of 2000 years ago are suspect.

Why not? Many of the great advancements in science have come about from someone assuming something with no empirical reason, checking it against observed evidence, and finding a better fit than previous theories.

You have confused hypotheses and theories. Hypotheses are unproven guesses. Theories are ex-hypotheses that have been backed up by lots of evidence and experimentation. Those hypotheses that ended up being right are the exception, not the rule.

Overgeneralization, Ad Hominin fallacies

No, it isn't. It is a realistic observation of how people operate. Most people do not use reason in crafting their arguments.

Doesn't apply to theories about the past, as they cannot be properly tested. Besides, there is historical precedent for theories to become widely accepted by the scientific community without being subject to this bombardment, as was the early Version of evolution as Darwin wrote it.

Umm... Darwin's theory of evolution was bombarded quite heavily when it was published. It was not simply accepted as fact without contest.

And, Darwin's theory of evolution is as much a thoery of the present as it is of the past.

Aloofi:

Yeah, science is just another religion that demand as much faith as any other religion.

Umm... no. I think I will have to enlighten some of you with the actual meanings of faith from older debates here... but I must get to class, so I will do so later.

There is no way anyone can prove how old is a rock. That is a fact.

The exact date can not be proven, no. But a relative date can indeed be proven. You are just ignorant of the details of the methods used to do so (as am I, though not to the same extent). And, keep in mind that "ignorant" in no way means "stupid", just "lacking knowledge of a particular thing". I don't want to start any unnecessary semantics tangents (faith is not a tangent )...