Schrödinger's cat was nothing more then a paradoxical thought experiment. It wasn't intended to lead people to actually think thing's don't exist untill they're observed lol. Particle's in a state of supperposition still exist, it's just not known in what state they exist until observation's are made to determine that state. All Heisenberg teach's is that you cannot know the position and velocity of a particle at the same time. Neither of these two theories give rise to the belief that physical matter doesn't exist in reality. Well, except maybe in your own interpretation of the theories.

resistor
People believe in evolution because they are told by respected and immanent personages that it is true

Nygdan
This is bollocks. I don't know a single person that says 'Darwin was so smart, so I must accept evolution on his authority'. Rather, I do see religious people accepting the statements of religious authorities on that authority all the time.

Of course no one is going to say 'Darwin was so smart....' Why would anyone want to make themselves look so easily influenced? Yet the influence that college professors, famous scientists like Carl Sagan, etc. and of course the media at large have on folks is unarguable. Very few people have the wherewithal to actually prove out scientific axioms for themselves, and accepting the popular view is much more appealing than going against the stream.

Your comparison of scientific and religious authorities is quite apt in this respect. The layman is apt to believe whatever he is told by either, and to believe that which is most convenient at the time. Currently it is more accepted to believe in evolution, but what does not change is mans tendency to deceive others in order to benefit himself, and that by whatever means are most expedient, whether religion or science, or religion masquerading as science. It's well known that preachers often intentionally deceive their flock, that scientists would however, is gross heresy.

[edit on 13-3-2006 by resistor]

[edit on 13-3-2006 by resistor]

Of course no one is going to say 'Darwin was so smart....' Why would anyone want to make themselves look so easily influenced? Yet the influence that college professors, famous scientists like Carl Sagan, etc. and of course the media at large have on folks is unarguable. Very few people have the wherewithal to actually prove out scientific axioms for themselves, and accepting the popular view is much more appealing than going against the stream.

True, the average layman doesn't have the necessary funding to just go out and experiment on the nature of thing's and so, do tend to accept what those who do have to say. Then again, there are numerous scientist's who go against 'mainstream' theories. There are many different model's for how the universe came into being, the only reason the big bang seem's to be the most widely accepted in the scientific community is due to the ammount of evidence in favor for it.

and to believe that which is most convenient at the time.

One could easily argue this is more true for religous minded folk. It's more convienent now to just 'accept' evolution or the big bang model, an old earth and a heliocentric solar system. You won't find any of these belief's within the religous structure 2,000 years ago, or even 400 years ago really.

Currently it is more accepted to believe in evolution, but what does not change is mans tendency to deceive others in order to benefit himself, and that by whatever means are most expedient, whether religion or science.

Actually, it's more sociablly acceptable to believe in a diety of some form, doesn't really matter which. Although, in america it's more acceptable to claim to be christian. How many christian's or psuedochristians on ATS alone equate atheist's as being bad people? Nearly all, either directly or indirectly. Hell, I got fired two days after arguing that there was no god with my christian boss. My sister in law had trouble getting birth controll from her christian doctor. I'd probably still be working at that place if I just easily claimed to be 'of faith'. The majority of people on this planet are 'of faith', and most equate 'goodness' with godliness, and yet the opposite is actually true. I've yet to see a war waged in the name of science.

Originally posted by resistor
The layman is apt to believe whatever he is told by either, and to believe that which is most convenient at the time.

The critical difference is that the layman is given the scientific evidence for evolution, whereas he is expected to accept on authority religious pronouncments. If the general public ignores the evidence, and merely accepts evolution because their high school science teacher told them to, well, thats their problem really no?

but what does not change is mans tendency to deceive others in order to benefit himself,

This is irrelevant however, since evolution has scientific support for it. If someone wants to use the idea of 'evolution' to deceive another person, it doesn't affect the evidence that supports it.

that scientists would however, is gross heresy.

I think its generally understood that scientists are people and they are capable of lying. But what does that have to do with the accuracey of and evidence in support of the theory of evolution?? its really a seperate issue no?

Sun, why are you talking to yourself?

I know many think religious beliefs are a delusion, but that's taking it a bit far...

Do you want someone to disagree with you?

I can't really, because hydrogen doesn't turn into people. It can turn into heavier elements over time. These heavier elements can form complex compounds. Then these complex compounds form more complex organic compounds. And so on, and at some point until we have some very basic replicator.

Then this replicator will change over time and become more complex, reproducing as it goes. Eventually we likely have single celled organisms.

You probably know the rest...

Originally posted by melatonin
Sun, why are you talking to yourself?

LOL.......forum experiment.

Then this replicator will change over time and become more complex, reproducing as it goes. Eventually we likely have single celled organisms.

You probably know the rest...

Yea, I know the rest. There are those that believe if you wait long enough hydrogen turns into people.

Bingo.

Originally posted by Sun Matrix

Yea, I know the rest. There are those that believe if you wait long enough hydrogen turns into people.

Bingo.

Aye, if you say so. By small gradual steps through a growing complexity, result of the physical laws of the universe.

However, there are also those who believe a book from a bunch of goat-herders that says some really mega-complex invisible magic-man, who just is, think n' poofed complex organisms into existence from dust. But happened to think n' poof a female human from a rib of a male human.

Sorry if this goes beyond my interpretation of the thread but Science and physics are only reconfirming what Buddha and Hindus have been saying for thousands of years. Our mistake is that we think of ourselves as separate and independent of the universe, but we interconnected, interdependent, and inter penetrating. As for waiting around and hydrogen turns into a human? I have no idea, but humans a made up of non-human elements.

Originally posted by melatonin
Aye, if you say so. By small gradual steps through a growing complexity, result of the physical laws of the universe.

However, there are also those who believe a book from a bunch of goat-herders that says some really mega-complex invisible magic-man, who just is, think n' poofed complex organisms into existence from dust. But happened to think n' poof a female human from a rib of a male human.

LOL..........I confess to being one that subscribes to the goat herder theory............as I used the instruction manuel to verify it's truth.

Can't deny the fulfilled prophesies.