Biert wrote:I don't believe in atoms. They (and even moreso what they consist of - ions and neutrons and whatnot) are merely a model scientists came up with that explains a number of phenomena that we see in physics. But it also fails to explain a whole lot of things - how can light have properties of both a wave and a particle, for instance?
Also I think evolution is in a different ball-park, people who deny it do so from religious backgrounds so it would be ok for them to say they don't believe it. But I'm fucking mosquitos as we say here
I think in general, soundsofentropy has it right.
But I agree! I really shouldn't have put atoms in that list. There are so many other (some better) ways to explain things. Self-constructing spacetime building blocks? Spacetime as a fluid, anyone?
I don't think evolution is in a different ball-park, but it has been put there. Evolution is a scientific theory based on observations, and creationism is a myth. You can believe in the myth, and consequently disagree with evolution, but that gives you no right to start trying to put an implied "myth" label on a theory. Besides, I see no reason to abandon a theory because it disagrees with a mythical text written by centuries-old men, known to be self-contradictory, with which no other texts really agree. That's how I draw the line. It's like saying that history could have happened differently because Tolstoy or Dickens wrote it so.
No offense intended to anyone...
who makes that?
