Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

[Raikiri]

No matter how many times you breed a dog you will still get a dog at the end.

Yet, they all came from the grey wolf through selective breeding by humans. A separate subspecies.

But they're still birds and they're still moths, are they not?

"Reproduce after its own kind"

But many, many of these small changes, over a long time can produce a/many species that are separate from the initial common ancestor.

Micro and macro evolution are the same thing, over different time scales.

So would you like to show me where a dog has turned into a complete new creature?

Again, wolves to dogs. But it doesn't happen spontaneously like you seem to think we're claiming.

 

[aardvark]

Accepted by who? Care to link or provide some proof of the existence of your accepted Scientific theory?

i'm not going to give my real name on an anonymous internet forum.
accepted for publication by an american peer review scientific journal if you must know - no big deal, just one of many scientific theories published everyday.

 

[estebanrey]

i'm not going to give my real name on an anonymous internet forum.
accepted for publication by an american peer review scientific journal if you must know - no big deal, just one of many scientific theories published everyday.

Can you name one Dawkin's has authored then?

 

[RDM]

Can you name one Dawkin's has authored then?

His Wikipedia page lists over 30 academic papers.

 

[aardvark]

Can you name one Dawkin's has authored then?

all his papers are listed on wikipedia, or you can search pubmed and find them, its not difficult.

 

[Spook187]

Science just observes the laws that God set. I've stated this before. We're just learning stuff God already knows.

Don't be silly, how could god know what things were to come through invention, i suppose you believe the Higgs Boson is the god particle since the religious nutjobs have seemed to bandwagon it, yet they knew nothing about it

 

[estebanrey]

His Wikipedia page lists over 30 academic papers.

all his papers are listed on wikipedia, or you can search pubmed and find them, its not difficult.

I'll ask again. Can you name me a scientific THEORY that Dawkins has authored. Not research papers, not hypothesis, not other people's theories he has tested but his own scientifically recognized THEORIES that he came up with and introduced to the scientific world.

The theory of evolution is attributed to Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace, so what theories are attributed to Dawkins?

 

[Pudney]

Don't be silly, how could god know what things were to come through invention

That's a stupid thing to say.

 

[aardvark]

I'll ask again. Can you name me a scientific THEORY that Dawkins has authored. Not research papers, not hypothesis, not other people's theories he has tested but his own scientifically recognized THEORIES that he came up with and introduced to the scientific world.

The theory of evolution is attributed to Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace, so what theories are attributed to Dawkins?

you still don't understand what a scientific theory is - every one of his papers is a scientific theory backed up by evidence - thats what scientific papers are! Non-original research would not get past the peer review process, thats how it works.

 

[estebanrey]

you still don't understand what a scientific theory is - every one of his papers is a scientific theory backed up by evidence - thats what scientific papers are! Non-original research would not get past the peer review process, thats how it works.

So your position is a theory in science is no different than a theory in any other field, it's just someone's ideas and findings?

If so can you please explain why this goes against pretty much every definition of scientific theory I've seen (i.e that it is more than just your findings/assumptions and different in context to the use of the word theory in everyday life) and what then is the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?

 

[Pudney]

So your position is a theory in science is no different than a theory in any other field, it's just someone's ideas and findings?

If so can you please explain why this goes against pretty much every definition of scientific theory I've seen (i.e that it is more than just your findings/assumptions and different in context to the use of the word theory in everyday life) and what then is the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?

One's a scientific theory and the other is a Scientific Theory

 

[Inquizitor]

This is now a thread for people made insane by all the drivel on this forum over the past week.

 

[Spook187]

That's a stupid thing to say.

How is it, basically the guy is saying that God would know.

 

[Raikiri]

How is it, basically the guy is saying that God would know.

He (Jason2) believes in a god that knows anything and everything, why would knowing what we're going to invent be a problem?

 

[aardvark]

So your position is a theory in science is no different than a theory in any other field, it's just someone's ideas and findings?

If so can you please explain why this goes against pretty much every definition of scientific theory I've seen (i.e that it is more than just your findings/assumptions and different in context to the use of the word theory in everyday life) and what then is the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?

not just random ideas - it has to be backed up by rigorous empirical data.
I guess to be a theory it has to be repeated and verified by other scientists, maybe i wasn't clear on that - but dawkins theories have been corroborated by other research. he didn't get to the position he got to by just spouting a load of unproven crap,. He is a respected scientist and in his field (evolutionary genetics, which is not my field but i know people who work in that area) he is considered to have been highly influential in its development.

 

[Urgannagru]

That's a good question. If we all just die and rot the what's the point learning anything? We're gonna forget it all anyway. The human race will die out and it shall be like we never even existed. Doesn't sound great.

How isn't there any faith in atheism? Believing the universe came from nothing takes faith, for you have no proof. And anyway, as I've already asked, how can anything be true if atheists believe we are just bunch of atoms? The self is an illusion. Who says you're not hallucinating?

As others have said evolution is not trying to explain how the universe came about or even how the earliest forms of life came about, thats how some people can chose to believe in evolution and a creator, if they are that way inclined; though personally I think thats revisionism and clinging at straws with a "god of the gaps".
The ideal answer for how the universe started from a non-believer is that we do not know yet, we have some ideas but it is currently beyond our means to use them to make observable predicitions. An honest answer from myself is that for the present I'll go with the big bang theory, yes it involves belief because I do not fully understand it. But this differs from religous faith because I can revise it if more evidence comes to light. Plus while mistakes a frauds do occur this are improved on overtime (2 famous examples being Newtonian laws of motions altered to take into account relativity and the "cold fusion" debacle being proven wrong by peer review.

Also whats the problem with us just being a bunch of atoms? We are still a bunch of atoms capable of thought and experience, life is just as precious as it would be if it had be created, if not more now that we can understand how complex and unlikely it is.

Personally I find the thought of there being no after or life very liberating and reassuring. It is most likely when I die I will cease to be aware just as I was before birth, rather than having to endure an eternity (which is going to bore eventually) based around some other beings whim, whether it be heaven or Vahalla; or even worse cast into damnation because I don't live by someone elses creed.
To me life being temporary makes it all the more important to spend time well and learning helps us to do that as well as help those who come after us have a better quality of life.

 

[Pudney]

How is it, basically the guy is saying that God would know.

Because inventing something doesn't create the scientific law which allows said invention to be made without even touching what Raikiri said.

 

[AndrewNR]

I'm not religious but of course God created all them hundreds of billions of stars and planets - ask Ricky Gervais, he did it in the blink of an eye.

 

[estebanrey]

not just random ideas - it has to be backed up by rigorous empirical data.
I guess to be a theory it has to be repeated and verified by other scientists, maybe i wasn't clear on that - but dawkins theories have been corroborated by other research. he didn't get to the position he got to by just spouting a load of unproven crap,. He is a respected scientist and in his field (evolutionary genetics, which is not my field but i know people who work in that area) he is considered to have been highly influential in its development.

Yet you still can't name me a specific theory Dawkins has come up with. Pointing to his Wiki list of books doesn't help, whilst you shouldn't judge a book by it's titles they all seem to be about theology or explaining other people's theories.

So, please name me one theory that was authored by Dawkins. If it's created so many, it must be easy for you.

 

[aardvark]

Yet you still can't name me a specific theory Dawkins has come up with. Pointing to his Wiki list of books doesn't help, whilst you shouldn't judge a book by it's titles they all seem to be about theology or explaining other people's theories.

So, please name me one theory that was authored by Dawkins. If it's created so many, it must be easy for you.

i don't know why you think they come in bitsize one sentence theories. his main theories are concerned with complicated genetics and their role in evolution - go read his books and papers if you are that bothered about it - then maybe you will be at least slightly qualified to question the credentials of a scientist highly respected the world over.