this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
214 points (97.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
846 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Your premise is incorrect. The burden of proof for quantum mechanics is on the people claiming they exist. They provided those proofs, which is why people believe in them. I haven't studied quantum mechanics, but if you asked somebody who does, they could offer proof or evidence. And if they couldn't, then your claim it doesn't exist (until proof was proffered) would be correct.
It was on them until society generally accepted it. Now if I claim it doesn't exist, the burden is on me.
Or how about this: if I claim dinosaurs never existed and thus the fossils didn't come from them, it's not on you to prove they did.
You're missing the point. It's not a one time thing. Evidence existed, that evidence was found, and that's what made it change to being accepted.
That evidence still exists, so if you claim dinosaurs don't exist, we can just point to the evidence that still exists. That evidence didn't get spirited away like golden plates to heaven. We're still finding dinosaur bones.
If you claim dinosaurs don't exist, I would point to the wealth of evidence that they do. If you were raised in some religious cult that never taught anything about dinosaurs and taught that the Earth was 6000 years old, and therefore didn't think giant creatures existed hundreds of millions of years ago, it would absolutely be on the person claiming they exist to show you dinosaur bones. Which is evidence.
Don't argue with idiots.
I see your point, but the idea here is that, since I'm starting from the assumption that dinosaurs don't exist, I conclude that the fossils came from some source other than dinosaurs, so they can't be used as pro-dinosaur evidence. But at the same time I don't offer an alternative explanation on where they came from.
The existence of dinosaurs is well-established through a variety of scientific evidence. Here are some of the key proofs:
1. Fossil Evidence
2. Geological Distribution
3. Radiometric Dating
4. Comparative Anatomy and Phylogeny
5. Soft Tissue and Molecular Evidence
6. Paleoenvironmental Reconstructions
Collectively, these evidences from paleontology, geology, and biology robustly demonstrate that dinosaurs existed as real, living organisms on Earth millions of years ago. Their study continues to provide valuable insights into the history of life on our planet.
Thanks ChatGPT. Those are all from fossils.
It sounds like you're taking a skeptical stance towards the conventional interpretation of dinosaur fossils without proposing an alternative hypothesis for their origins. This approach can be useful for critically examining evidence but might limit understanding if alternative explanations aren't explored. In scientific discourse, it's typically valuable not only to critique existing theories but also to propose viable alternatives that can be tested and evaluated against the evidence. If the goal is to challenge established views like the existence of dinosaurs, developing a coherent alternative theory on the origin of fossils could strengthen your argument and provide a new perspective for consideration.
Just to address the chatgpt comments, I assumed you were a troll but I now see that you're a real person, deserving of a real answer. My standpoint is that science should enhance religion: as they approach different problems, they should be compatible. Science deals with the workings of the natural world and how things happen, while religion often addresses why the world exists and what our purpose might be. For this reason I'm against dismissing scientific discoveries solely due to religious teachings. Some see new discoveries about the universe as enhancing our understanding of God. Just because the bible was written without the understanding we have today doesn't mean that the progress of all modern knowledge is false. And similarly when specific bible teachings are disproven doesn't mean that the underlying purpose or values are invalid. In summary, ai think the purpose of religion is to improve society and wellbeing by addressing fears, providing a deep need for community and creating a moral code. I think problems and frictions arrive when, the moral codes develop over time due to new understanding of what is right or fair, and knowledge of the world improves. There are religions that accept that they should change over time and accept these new viewpoints, such as evolution, dinosaurs, or to respect womens rights. There are other hardline religions that believe that the world is 6000 years old, that women have no rights, that dinosaurs are false creatures created by the devil, and that technology is evil and should be avoided. Right now you seem to be leaning towards more hardline standpoints, which can anger some people, as you've seen by the down votes. I would encourage you moving forwards to not see new viewpoints and scientific understanding as a challenge to your religion, and instead accept that the world is beautiful and this knew knowledge was a gift to you from God. Gay marriage is legalised, so God accepts that people should be allowed to be happy in themselves, accept that into your religion. Dinosaurs are found and thousands of people work to understand them, God has given those people a gift to work in such an exciting career, accept the gift into your religion. To dismiss knowledge, is to dismiss a gift from God. Ancient wisdom and modern understanding should go hand in hand.
The dinosaur thing was just an example to deal with the concept of burden of proof. So I suppose in a way I was trolling about it, or at least I didn't make it clear enough that it wasn't what I actually thought.
I do believe in science, and I haven't found that scientific discoveries conflicted with the Bible. Interpretations of the Bible do change over time, but the actual text in the Bible does not go out of style. Well, I guess translations do, but you know what I mean. The Bible says God created the planet in a week, and that includes all the plants and animals. We have evidence of evolution, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the creation story. God is fully capable of kicking off, directing, and accelerating evolution so that it still fits within the allotted time.
I take issue with your line of reasoning in the gay marriage sentence, but to be clear, I'm not saying it should be illegal, just addressing the logic. Just to avoid misconceptions, let's apply the same reasoning to alcohol instead. Something being legalized has nothing to do with whether God accepts it. Yes, God ultimately has all authority, and yes, the Bible says to follow the laws of man, but the laws of man are ultimately the laws of man, and there's a clause that the laws of God take precedence in a conflict. But even if that weren't the case, if the laws of man say we're allowed to get drunk, that doesn't mean we have to. The Bible still says it's a sin (which I think is because it leads to unwise choices and other sins that you could blame on the alcohol,) and what mankind thinks doesn't change that.
Also, to be clear, since you think I'm a hardline kind of guy, something being a sin does not mean we have to fight to make the laws reflect that. There's a lot of talk in the Bible, especially in the new testament, about how the laws are not enough to make someone righteous, and that was the whole point of Jesus. I do take hardline stances in that what the Bible says is true, but I'm not going to condemn people around me for working on the sabbath, and I'm certainly not going to try to make it illegal. (Well, a law against employers requiring you to work 7 days a week would be good on its own merit, but it doesn't have to line up with the sabbath.) Another biblical principle is that the way to reach someone is by love, not force.
No. Your claim has shifted; you are now claiming that the evidence is false/incorrect, and now the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is.