How reliable is science?
Offline The number one argument I hear for Athiests against Christians is they believe that science is so accurate that it must contradict the Bible. They love to talk about Newton's law of how matter cannot be created nor destroyed. They also love to talk about carbon dating which can record fossils that are millions of years old, supposedly discretting the Bible.
While Science has definitely come a long way and has provided some answers to many questions, I ask you Athiests how reliable really is science? Let's start with Columbus. It took scientists thousands of years to realize the world is round. Every scientist who studied and made claims about the earth was wrong until then. Granted that was a long time ago, but my point is that science is always changing. Everything we know now that scientists are so confident in will probably be disproven in 500 years. Albert Einstein is considered a greatly intelligent man, but yet many of his theories have been proven false over time. Even today with all the knowledge that humanity has we still cannot answer so many questions. There are scientific questions like: is time travel possible, do loopholes exist, how infinite is the universe, is there an end to it, are there many universes, could there be other universes with their own planets? There are philisophical questions, most importantly, what happens in death?
Everything that we know now will most likely be disproven or refined in the future. This includes carbon dating and Issaic Newtons theory. While I agree that the Bible takes much faith to believe in I think we can all agree that it takes more faith to be an athiest.
- Login to post comments
I disagree 100% with that statement. Also atheism has absolutely nothing to do with science for starters, as your post tries to tie the 2 together. Atheism is not a 'faith' based system like belief in fairy tales such as the BuyBull. The reason I personally am an atheists is because I've seen the religious claims and they can not be verified (NO EVIDENCE).
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."--Stephen F. Roberts
Accepted and proven scientific theories don't get "disproven", only proven incomplete. Modern scientists are often more aware than anyone what data is missing, and finding that data is probably what constitutes the majority of scientific work done at any given time.
In short, science doesn't deal in absolutes. That's the domain of religion. It deals in probabilites that are usually determined from observable and demonstratable facts.
You should listen to some science podcasts. They can be very enlightening, not to mention fun, and don't often talk a lot about things that would threaten anyone's faith
"Skeptics Guide to the Universe" is a good one http://www.theskepticsguide.org/
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."--Stephen F. Roberts
Science is extremely reliable.
Atheism is not essentially a "faith". However, certain atheists can exhibit just as much of a fundamentalist, blind, faith-based mentality as the theists they chide. On the other hand, both atheism and theism can be very rational at times. There are extremely intelligent and rational people on both sides; this is because rationality involves the way in which one comes to believe something, not the truth or falsity of the belief itself.
Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.
I was also going to edit my last post to note that the flat earth idea actually came, at least in part, from mythology - http://thevanitypress.blogspot.com/2007/05/flat-earth.html - and that when scientists stepped in and looked at the problem, they not only showed that the earth is round, but were also able to explain why it appears like it does.
That's what science does - explains previously incomplete ideas more fully, and making sure it's accurate and not subject to personal bias. There's no faith involved; if it can't be proven correct by anyone, regardless of what they wish to be true, then it's not science. I heard a scientist put it once that scientists that just agree with all the other scientists don't get carreers in science. Any new idea is subjected to extreme scrutiny.
i like your post kean. i think you did jump to a few conclusions and i would have to agree that science is more reliable now than it once was. it now kind of grows rather than replaces.
i feel there still could be some mystery and even some break through discovers left that could make us question our current thought.
the universe is amazing, does it have an end? i wonder if there is life on other planets. surely if the earth spawned all sorts of different lifeforms you would think that life would find a way to exist on other planets. i know they have such extreme atmospheres but it seems like life would adapt to these changes.
what if we figured out that one day our solar system is like a really large atom a part of an incredibly large object. i think science is a beautiful thing and to day dream about the possiblities is good fun. as a christian, i feel that scientist are only discovering what God has already created and there is no limit to what He may have done.
thanks for the post.
May God bless us and give us the words to express our ideas in a creative and civil manner, while providing us an ear that we may truly hear each other, and a voice to clearly project our thoughts.
An important aspect of science is predictions. This allows a scientist to give significant evidence to his claims via experiments and also indicate the accuracy of established theories. This is how science becomes much more robust than religions.
Try making yourself some pendulums (with different weights/length) and do some predictions about how they might oscillate.
This is something Galileo did in the 1580s....The story goes that he had his first ideas on the matter as a teenager in Church by watching a chandelier and timing its swings using his own pulse as a clock.
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
Ahem. Newton's laws were descriptive of motion. The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy is a law of thermodynamics, written first by Lord Kelvin, not Newton. Also, with regard to quantum events, the first law of thermodynamics is not entirely accurate, as shown here.
Mod: Renamed the link to un-stretch the page!It is actually theists who use the FLT to try and support the Cosmological Argument. However, as shown here, this is invalid.
This is the sign that I can disregard your entire post. Because you show you are ignorant of science. Carbon dating is a technique which can only measure back about 60,000 years. After that, the half life of the isotope has been slashed 10 times and it's emissions are too weak to be detected by the Geiger counter.
You're thinking of Magellan.
Actually, most of Newton's theories have been debunked at the quantum level, yet all of his and Kepler's laws hold like iron at the level of the macroscopic.
Your argument seems to be as follows
P1: Science cannot provide definite answers
P2: Scientific theories get disproved
C: Science is unreliable.
This is shameless question begging. For one, science, as an empirical epistemilogical system, never claimed to provide definite answers. The answers of science are cogent but non-binding, second, seeing as disproval of pre-existing theories is done by improvement of the scientific method, to state science as unreliable would be circular reasoning. Science is a self-sufficient engine. It elaborates on and improves itself. That is how the scientific method works. The process and body of knowledge accumulated is highly fluid. More to the point, ever since the Enlightenment era, the paradigm shift of scientific thought has led to a revolution where theories are not disproved so much as they are improved. The epistemology is progressive, not relative.
Tell me: Have you ever actually studied the scientific method?
Why? You haven't even remotely shown why this is true. It's an argumentum ad nauseam.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
By the way, the Ancient Greeks knew the Earth was round.
Well, I don't see much to add that hasn't been said already.
Science is a process. As mentioned above, it is self-correcting, so the longer it continues, the closer we get to knowing how things work. The predicting power of science is tremendous, testable, and retested constantly. Science is somthing everyone has access to, and can test and see for themselves. We also have agreement between independant fields that adds to the reliability. We're certainly wrong on some things, but not wrong enough to make any everyday calculations show problems.
The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is true.
This sentence doesn't care.
science is only as reliable as the ones practicing it.
I was sort of half-nodding, in semi-agreement, until I read the last sentence. Poor form.
It's the best we can do.
Okay but no one has really answered the question i was getting at. I'll expand it a little bit. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. Why then are teachers and professors teaching it as though it's absolute truth? Also athiests are always trying to use science to disprove the Bible. I have often heard people say that God can not be eternal because according to the laws of thermodynamics matter can neither be created nor destroyed. My point is, is our limited knowledge of the universe which is constantly evolving enough to try and challenge what christians believe to be the word of God?
Science is a method of learning about the world in which we live.
You seem to be attacking certain findings that have come from the scientific method. I am not going to deal with those misconceptions here, only your unfortunate misunderstanding of what constitutes science.
Like I said science is a METHOD, and by using this method we learn about the world. As the user 'Eight Foot Manchild' has pointed out, it is the best we can do. It is always better to learn about the world through reality than using a book of mythology as a guide. There are checks and balances that work very well in science and discussion is encouraged. In religion one is told "This is the word of god, there is no room for disagreement and no room for questions. If something you know to be true in reality contradicts the bible, the bible is still the 'truth'", this is not the method by which humanity has progressed. Rather, all of the technology in health, business, entertainment, household conveniences, transportation and almost every aspect of our lives has been improved by science!
That is a very false statement about Christians. I was raised in a Christian home, going to a Christian school, and raised in a youth group. However, I am in no way a fundamentalist christian. From a young age, I think about 10, I was told, "if you aren't sure this is what you truly believe, then try out other churches and other faiths. Ask questions and research other religions and find out which one is truth." I don't believe Christianity just because i am told to and nobody should.
I know that both the Catholilc and Mormon churches teach to trust your religion and never question it, but Christianity is opposite of that. The reason is if you are not sure why you believe in the Bible and God then you might not be truly saved after all.
Christians are taught to always question their faith, not just believing it because their parents do or whatever. And I agree about your statements of science. They have greatly improved civilization. I just don't believe it should be taught as absolute truth, when science is more theories than anything else. There is much evidence in science, as there is much evidence in the Bible. Both athiests and christians need faith. Athiests need faith to believe there is no God, and Christians need faith to believe there is a God. But neither side has irrefutable evidence to disprove the other.I'd go one step further than this: science is a method of discovering reliable facts. You can learn about the world in which we live by studying religious texts; it's just that what you learn doesn't automatically have value outside your own head.
Have you ever noticed that theists of a certain type (I'm looking at YOU, Comfort) attack science in a way that shows their own fears? They act like science having to reconsider ONE THING because of a new discovery means the whole thing has to go (just the wrong thing has to go, and anything based on that wrong thing will have to be considered). It is, however, true of faith. Judeo-Christian belief has a single lynch pin holding the whole thing together; if that fell, the religions as a whole would be baseless.
Projection at its finest.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
The Theory of Graviy is also "just" a theory. Teachers and professors teach it how it is. There is an overwhelming abundance of evidence to support the theory, and that is what is taught.
There is no evidence to support the idea that the Bible is 100% accurate or true. In fact, there is evidence to support the claim that large parts of it are false or don't make any sense.
The answer is yes.
Ay yay yay.
Some day I'm going to invent a time machine for the sole purpose of persuading scientists to use a different word than "theory".
Theory is the word used to denote the best model we have. Other theories we have are germ theory (or do you think sickness is caused by bad humours?), gravitational theory (the stuff that allowed us to put people on the moon and know where they'd land within six feet) and number theory (the stuff that makes math work). To paraphrase someone from I don't remember where: scientific laws tell you WHAT is going to happen, scientific theories tell you WHY.
Cut out the middle man: head over to the Bible Errancy forum and you can see the bible disprove itself.
Thank you for admitting you do not have perfect knowledge that the bible is the infallible word of god. Also, do you really think you need to know everything before you can know anything?
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
Great clarification! Thank you. I like this and may use it in the future.
Kean, please do yourself and us a favor by looking up ‘logical fallacies’, your posts are riddled with them. Heck, I’ll even provide you a link:
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
This is a ‘straw man argument’ and ‘hasty generalization’, this is not what science teachers do and this is not an accurate description of the term ‘theory’ in science.
Another strawman argument and hasty generalization, SCIENTISTS are using science to find out about the world, not to disprove a religious text.
This is an argument from ignorance and an appeal to popularity.
This is anecdotal evidence it was not stated ALL RELIGIONS squelch questioning, just that it is the more popular tactic.
This is the ‘no true scotsman’ fallacy. I would like to inform you that catholics and mormons are indeed christians and if you would like to dispute that topic you should start a new thread. They believe in christ and therefore they are Christians.
This is not true across the board and again another hasty generalization.
Thanks, those points I made were almost indisputable. It would be very difficult to deny science’s effect on society.
Again this is the strawman fallacy and the hasty generalization fallacy.
This is a strawman and a weak analogy because you are misrepresenting atheism. It takes no ‘faith’ to lack belief in god. Atheists are not exhibiting faith by saying “I don’t believe”; this in fact is the default position.
P.S. – It is spelled atheist, not athiest.
kean, the error you seem to be making is that science doesn't claim to be an infallible belief system.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
wow, you guys are getting so far off the subject. You argue that Christian and Catholic are the same. I can argue against that all day, but seeing how i'm assuming none of you even believe that the Bible is truth, isn't it kind of irrelevant? Posting spelling errors and mentioning small, insignificant errors in my comments is just avoiding the subject. And by the way, i can do the same thing with many of your comments.
I dont claim to be a scientist or know everything about physics. Oh, and in response to some of the comments, I know that being atheist and beliving in the theory of evolution do not alway go hand in hand. I mention it because of the video of the way of the master debating rational responders. Every argument in there, at least that i can remember was about them trying to disprove the Bible scientifically, in particular the theory of evolution and thermodynamics.
First off, I didn't see any points that in any way disproved Christianity. Definitely some questions were raised, but nothing in there was concrete evidence that God doesn't exist. The Bible does have a lot of evidence supporting itself. I agree that the evidence is not neccessarily concrete, that's why Christianity takes faith. Do you guys really believe though that the words of Charles Darwin and theories and laws that science has created has enough supporting evidence to discredit the Bible entirely? I'm not talking about trivial matters, like arguing whether Adam and Eve were born in Africa or the Middle East, because obviously no one can prove it either way without a doubt. If so I would like to hear one of these theories. The points in the video failed to prove without a doubt anything.
And remember, I don't care about spelling errors or subjects off the topic.
Just for the record, as I have no desire to jump into this melee, people weren't pointing out insignificant errors in your comments. They were pointing out logical fallacies. When one commits a logical fallacy, it essentially renders their particular argument useless. These people were simply stating that your arguments were not valid. That is something significant and if you want to make a valid point, fallacies should be avoided in the future. We all commit them from time to time, as we all commit spelling errors.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
You've got it backwards. You're the christian, therefore YOU have to prove the veracity/accuracy of christianity. If I claimed my awesome new car ran on rainbows and happiness, would you believe me until it was disproven? If you required proof, would it make more sense for someone to ask me to prove it or for me to ask others to disprove it?
Can you clarify what you would consider to be non-trivial? Also, what would be sufficient to discredit the bible "entirely"? I ask because some things in the bible can't be discredited because they happen to be true (the sun rises, people die, Rome had emperors, etc), so if your list includes those things, your request is designed to be impossible to meet.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
The Bible is fiction until proven otherwise. We don't need to disprove it. You're the one who has to prove it.
Of course we do. Science is, well, the study of nature. It gets the facts and makes conclusions based on the observations. Creationists, on the other hand, because they already have "the answers" from the Bible, just sit around all day trying to make the facts fit with the Bible. How many degrees do you have in science that you can make such claims? I'm guessing 0.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
I would like to see how you could argue against catholics and mormons being christian. Please start another thread on this because I am sure you will get many theists and ex-theists who would like to argue that topic.
The subject was not avoided, the subject has to do with your mis-representation of science. The logical fallacies show where your thinking has gone a stray and you are not fully understanding the subjects you are trying to argue against. None of this was pointed out maliciously, but rather to help you understand where the arguments are flawed. The notice on the spelling error was just a tip. Some people here notice these things and point them out, not to make you feel stupid but to let you know there was an error. If you are going to be visiting a message board filled with atheists it would be courteous to at least spell the word correctly.
Then you missed the premise of the debate. Kirk and Ray challenged the members of RRS to a debate, they claimed to be able to scientifically prove god exists without using the bible. The debate was not about the bible, it was supposed to be theists 'proving' evidence for god. It was their choice to use science and it became an attempt at which they failed miserably.
Again, it was Ray and Kirk who issued the challenge to prove god, not Brian and Kelly claiming to dis-prove god.
Are you really that sensitive about your spelling? It was just a bit of advice, hell you can type it 'aitheiststsers' for all I care, I was just pointing out a common spelling error many people make without realizing it.
You're absolutely right, I have 0 degrees in science. Thanks for stating what I already told you. I'm not trying to argue scientifically. My background isn't in science. I was asking if any of you could argue scientifically that the Bible is not true, and apparently you can't.
About the video. You're right in the sense that they did not prove to you without a doubt anything. You say that they lost miserablly, but you're forgetting one important detail. The way of the master took the offensive and tried to prove God exists without invoking faith. Seeing how faith is a pivitol part of Christianity, much of their issues and arguments could not be raised. Secondly, RRS was on the defensive, trying to argue against the points of kirk and ray. It's a lot easier to argue against something than to argue for it. In the same way that kirk and ray failed, you failed to prove God doesn't exist, concluding that the debate was a tie.
Proof that God exists? Well there is much evidence, but my favorite are the two of the most common arguments. #1 the complexity of the human body. Just look at how extraordinary the body is. The heart, the brain, the eyes, etc.
#2, the earth and universe. Nothing in the theory of evolution or any argument i have heard from an atheist proves how we got here and how the universe was made than the Bible. Why I agree that this isn't concrete evidence of some sort of a creator, I find it much more evidence than I have ever heard from an atheist. So with that, I conclude that there is some sort of a creator. There's my evidence, now prove that there is no creator.
Evolution can account for those. I showed that here (and before you ask, I have multiple scientific qualifications in classical and quantum mechanics, molecular and anatomical biology, as well as neurology).
http://www.rationalresponders.com/proteomics_and_its_applications_for_evolutionary_mechanisms_indisputable_proof_of_evolution_and_...
Also, a posteriori arguments for God are invalid. I showed that here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/all_a_posteriori_arguments_for_the_existence_of_god_are_intellectually_bankrupt
Also, Irreducible Complexity is invalid. I showed that here (includes example of how complex biomolecular functions can evolve):
http://www.rationalresponders.com/blood_clotting_and_evolution_a_critique_of_one_of_behes_four_arguments_of_irreducible_complexity
That seems to me an argumentum ad ignoratium. read this:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/lies_damn_lies_and_false_beliefs_about_ex_nihilo_aka_how_to_pretend_you_know_cosmology_without_r...
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Let me see if i can clarify some of these misunderstandings/ignorance of scientific terms, and hopefully provide a better definition:
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Scientific Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Scientific Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.
Hopefully this helps in some clearing up some of misunderstanding of scientific terms.
The point is not how reliable science is. It is that science is the best tool/method we have.
As for science changing… this is a bad thing!? It’s part of he beauty of science.
Science, or past scientists, have been completely wrong on some issues in retrospect, in comparison to today’s insights, but the point is not whether they were right or wrong, but their approach – what they were trying to do, and what they did do – they were trying to progress, these scientists were trying to learn and make to discoveries about the universe. This is the heart of science.
Carl Sagan discusses this best…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMsdEkGQL0U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLlVnKOb4Mk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NijiYIGdIyQ
As for the claim that it takes faith to be an atheist… it’s quite apparent from that comment alone that you don’t know what ‘faith’ or ‘atheism’ actually is.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
I'm sorry, that earns you an Anakin:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Sometimes Occam's razor is not good, especially when it's being wielded by a blind man.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
As for the claim that it takes faith to be an atheist… it’s quite apparent from that comment alone that you don’t know what ‘faith’ or ‘atheism’ actually is
One of the definitions of faith (yes there are a few) is "something that is believed especially with strong conviction." Perhaps it's you who doesn't understand what faith is.
I wonder if that's what you'll be saying when you die someday and meet God face to face. "Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."
ad baculum fallacy. The true shameful mark of an idiotic sophistry conjurer. By the way, are you going to continue to pretend I did not rip all your arguments to pieces?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
To be completely honest, i didn't read your arguments. My major is accounting not physics. I couldn't get through two sentences of that without falling asleep. I would imagine though that even if i read that it would be the same argument that i hear from all atheists. By the way, if i took your argument and handed it to my physics professor who is going up for a noble peace prize this year, he would rip your argument to pieces.
I'm familiar with the arguments of Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins and they both failed to prove really anything substantial. There are simply too many holes in their research to be taken seriously. So unless you have something to offer that they don't i really don't think i would gain any insight to your writing anyway.
Do you know that or are you guessing. Clearly you are guessing. I am a molecular biologist who studies evolution and protein science. That was my research, you intellectually dishonest prat. How dare you suggest that I would rip off the research of a man who died 100 years ago, or a man who studies zoology and animal behaivor as opposed to molecular biology. You continue to make ad nauseam fallacies while at the same time, you have no idea what you are talking about because you haven't read that which you are claiming to preemptively know about.
1. You refuse to read an argument
2. Then you announce unswayed by it
Ladies and gentlemen, a theist.
Like what? Please do tell, you ignorant fool. I did my MSc in physics, and the arguments I presented are not even my own! They belong to the world famous Alan Guth and Victor J Stenger. And it is not an argument for atheism, it is just explaining how natural causes can account for the universe in the context of thermodynamics, which is what you ignorantly invoked. Honestly, you are the most intellectually dishonest human being I have ever met.
Only one of those papers was about physics. Two were about molecular biology (MY FIELD OF EXPERTISE) and one was about neurology, which is also my field of expertise. If you took the time to GLANCE at them you would realize they were my own research, not that of Darwin, or of Dawkins (Dawkins doesn't even study evolution , he studies animal behaivour).
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Why do we even continue to respond to these dumbasses?
First off, name calling? What are you twelve? Secondly, I never said nor implied that you ripped off any of your information from either of them. My point was that you probably believe in the same basics philosophies, and i've heard those arguments many times.
There are many holes in their research. Watch the video of Dawkins on youtube debating at liberty university. See how such an intelligent man has so many flaws in his reasoning that he fails to account for. As for Charles Darwin, well you can't honestly sit there and tell me that the theory of evolution has no holes in it. You don't have to have a phd in science to understand that.
On a side note, when did i say that dawkin studies evolution? Maybe before you call someone a moron you should read the text and think a little bit. He may not study evolution yet he debates it all the time. He also writes about it by the way. You have to grow up a little, read the text, don't imply things that weren't meant to be implied, and debate without calling names(honestly, i feel like this is first grade again).
Wow, it takes a big man to swear on the internet. Seriously grow up a little bit.
That's a bit rich coming from someone who decides that they can comment on an argument they've never read.
You'll have to do better than an ad nauseam fallacy. Show me what holes are in the basic theory of evolution and I'll shred them for you. Until then, don't assert. And, by the way, I totally disagree with Dawkins evolutionary philosophy of gene-level selection only. Could you not generate absurd assertions please?
I'm aware of that, and that does not make it untrue. The work I and thousands of my colleagues do is indisputable evidence of evolutionary mechanisms, if you actually weren't so lazy as to not bother to read an argument, you would know that. I will expecting something a little more than ad nauseam next time around. If you actually took the time to read my arguments, you would have a right to comment on them.
Did you think I did not know that? That I haven't read The River out of Eden, The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene and Climbing Mount Improbable?
The hypocrisy in this comment is stunning. I believe you were the one whose first comment was "To be honest, I didn't read them..."
I'm not even going to bother to respond until you read my arguments.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Should we take a pool? How many posts 'til he gets out the Crocaduck photo?
Fallacy of equivocation!
You are applying the non-theistic used of the term faith into a theistic setting.
Theistic faith is a belief held independent to argument or evidence.
Non-theistic faith (the colloquial use of the term) is a belief held on probability or trust.
See this essay for a review of this common error: http://www.rationalresponders.com/doesnt_everyone_take_things_on_faith
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
Can you please prove this?
1. What are these errors/holes in their research?
3. And can you provide a better explanation?
You are aware that Darwin was a Christian, and that deludedgod is not.
What are these flaws? Be very specific.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
Pot. Kettle. Black.
You continually say "But they haven't done anything to prove anything" yet you're the one who's quoting a thousand year old text that has no relevance to anything besides faith.
SCIENCE HAS NO OBJECTIVE. SCIENCE IS WHAT WE CALL THE PROCESS OF FINDING OUT MEASURABLE, TESTABLE, RESEARCHABLE THINGS TO BETTER OUR UNDERSTAND OF THE WORLD AROUND US. FAITH AND SCIENCE HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON.
This whole thing is getting a bit old. I have to constantly tell people that science has no mission, goal, or propoganda. There is nothing it does (since it can't do anything) that defutes your religion (besides it coming across something that might contradict what your religion says directly, which is simply coincidence).
Something people need to realize is that science isn't a religion. It's not a faith driven entity.
Something else people need to realize are that theories remain theories untill they become laws... and some things will never become laws simply because of how they can't be tested.
This is why we have things like the Big Bang Theory and the Law of Gravity. One can be tested, the other can not.
What you might want to do is compare the reliablity of science with the reliability of religion. How reliable has religion been in working out how the world works? How many medical cures has religion found? How many Apollo programs have been constructed by consulting the Bible? How many computer chips have been designed by searching through the Koran? In fact can you name me one invention one bit of technology one single discovery that has come from religion? I can't think of one this compares to litterly millions of useful applications of science.
Religion: 0 Science: serval million
Which one would jesus trust?
Seriously? Which one gets the results?
There is no choice is there? Science wins.