Can you (or indeed he) please demonstrate, with non-recursive evidence, that the assumptions of the scientific method are entirely and exactly the way the universe behaves independent of human perception?
Richard dawkins
- Thread starter NormanPorkinson
- Start date
Can you (or indeed he) please demonstrate, with non-recursive evidence, that the assumptions of the scientific method are entirely and exactly the way the universe behaves independent of human perception?
If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.
The truth? His truth needs as much faith as religion. He deferred science and uses it out of context and says it's fact when it isno more than his own faith. This is why he gives science a bad name as is widely diSliked by the scientific conunity.
There is no truth. Lots of theorys and different frameworks to work with.
There is no truth. Lots of theorys and different frameworks to work with.
The existence of god(s) and the idea that life evolved are not mutually exclusive.
Evidence of god = massive within the religious framework.
Evidence of evolution = massive within the scientific framework.
If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.
Is that Indiana Jones?
/off topic
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 423
The scientific truth!!!! That's the only truth I care about and the only truth that can be beneficial to my understanding of the world! I don't care if he's out of his field in theology, theology has no meaning in my life and conveys no benefit to human advancement in my eyes!
All that evidence comes from 1 book.
Technically the Bible is a lot of different books within one. Plus, if we're talking about god as in a deity, which I assume we are as this is what Dawkins argues against, there are multitudes of deities and therefore multitudes of books on them.
Finally, even if there is only one book, what's the problem? At one stage there was only one book on evolutionary theory. Does that make it any less correct?
Religious frame work = 1 book 2k years old based on known information, which is now considered archaic.
evolution frame work = massive amount of information formulated tested and show in hundreds of books by hundreds of people.[/quote]
Know which I would choose.
No it doesn't but the two books are very different. One tells you something and tells you its the truth, the other tells you something then mentions its downfalls about its teachiing and ask you to go out and see if you can fill in the gaps or disprove it.
Darwins book at the end says he has some doubts, but rather than tell you to to question it and accept it, he instead ask you to help to prove it right or wrong, which it since has.
Which is a better framework to live by
Dawkins - Heres is the info, choose.
Religion - He's what I think, accept.
We can only ever build a picture with the information at hand, the difference is that human beings along the way decided that if you dont understand it, then rather than leave it to one side and consider it unknown, we would create a fictious answer.
It would be a better world to keep trying to find that answer but never saying you know it until the facts are overwelming in its favour.
Even now we live in a world that in 50 years people will think we were silly with one or two theories, but at least we didn't assume and preach that that theory was correct no matter what else comes up. Thankfully we live in a world of theories, and not "truths"
Dawkins just wants humans to progress from the dark ages, and religion imo is whats holding us back.
/rant
Last edited:
That's Doctor Jones to you, short round
Well i can't, but if it comes down to the 'scientific method' or believing that the magic man sitting on his cloud created the world, I'd know what i would choose
Last edited:
The evidence of "evolution" is simply what is used to back up the theory. As has been said, the evidence of its working isn't there. It's still a theory, and an incomplete theory.
That's not a problem. But that's not what Darwkins does. He abuses his scientific standing and tries to hide his faith behind sudo science.
Firstly, as I just pointed out the quantity of literature isn't evidence for factuality.
Secondly, you're correct about the evolutionary framework, there is a lot of evidence for it, as I said when I said there was a lot of evidence in the scientific framework. However, none of the evidence for evolution is evidence for the efficacy of science itself.
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 423
Rubbish - evolution by natural selection has been observed in the lab - it's as proven as gravity!
Religion is also a theory, but put it in a court with evolution and ask them both to produce some evidence, then I'm sure the jury would use their adult brains and not their childish fairy tale brains to judge.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 7,940
- Location
- Glasgow
Who? 