The last two Popes and I would answer "yes". We do have a subtle difference in our approach.So, a question for you all..........is it feasible or possible that Evolution is fact AND God exists? ( or how much has "god" intervened since setting nature in motion?) How did the life force emerge from dead matter?
This pretty much sums up the creationist view.Fuck your peer reviewed links.
If you knew what you were talking about, you would realize there is no such thing as 'scientific fact'. A scientific theory is simply the best understanding we have based on the evidence available. Science is beautiful because it is open to change when new evidence is uncovered.... It is a theory because it has not been completely proven to be true. If it was, it would be classified as a scientific fact...
The funny thing is that you are describing science perfectly here.wigglee said:It could also be said that being a spiritual agnostic and a scientific skeptic is beautiful because anything is possible and nothing is for sure.
Basketcase said, "If you knew what you were talking about, you would realize there is no such thing as 'scientific fact'. A scientific theory is simply the best understanding we have based on the evidence available. Science is beautiful because it is open to change when new evidence is uncovered."
So, are you not saying that science is an evolving religion? If you believe the currently accepted theories are correct, only to find out later that new evidence requires you to adjust your belief, then your previous understanding was faulty and based on faith .
It could also be said that being a spiritual agnostic and a scientific skeptic is beautiful because anything is possible and nothing is for sure.
Sorry wig but either you are trolling or out to lunch.
Science believes what there is evidence for; new evidence, new understanding. Religion believes in things without involving evidence.
I'm sure religion could be beautiful for believers as well but the two are totally different ways of thinking.
The funny thing is that you are describing science perfectly here.
Sorry...this is not how things work. Evolution is a theory the same as gravity is a theory. It is accepted as scientific fact. There is no more proof needed. The earth revolves around the sun. The earth is a globe...not a flat disk. Evolution is how species were formed. Those are all accepted scientific theories, which can be considered facts.Fuck your peer reviewed links. Evolution is the theory which says life evolved by chance according to natural selection of variations, without the help of intelligent design, God or highly advanced aliens. It is a theory because it has not been completely proven to be true. If it was, it would be classified as a scientific fact. "Missing links" was used by me to represent the further proof needed to move from theory to fact. If it is a fact to you, then you are a religious person.
But scientists of an earlier era did claim that the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe...these were also considered facts. Maybe in the future , some of your current facts will be just as outdated.Sorry...this is not how things work. Evolution is a theory the same as gravity is a theory. It is accepted as scientific fact. There is no more proof needed. The earth revolves around the sun. The earth is a globe...not a flat disk. Evolution is how species were formed. Those are all accepted scientific theories, which can be considered facts.
Actually, this is a bit of a misconception. Educated people knew the earth was round since the Greeks demonstrated that was what observable evidence suggested. A better example would be that they thought the planets orbited the Earth.But scientists of an earlier era did claim that the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe...these were also considered facts. Maybe in the future , some of your current facts will be just as outdated.
Of course, that is not strictly untrue, as all movement is relative. The simplest model, however, has the planets orbiting the sun, and the moon orbiting the earth.Actually, this is a bit of a misconception. Educated people knew the earth was round since the Greeks demonstrated that was what observable evidence suggested. A better example would be that they thought the planets orbited the Earth.
Which is of course wrong. The universe revolves around me, I just happen to be on earth. I can understand how some may be mislead.A better example would be that they thought the planets orbited the Earth.
You simply made all this shit up. I caught you before claiming that you read his and other's work when in fact you clearly had not. You are full of shit.Dawkins is an okay scientist, a good science writer, and a real problem for political/social issues.
He is the socially progressive version of far right "culture warriors". He sees only conflict between religion and science, and is so rabid in his beliefs he has been caught out (in his seminal work on the subject) misquoting historical figures and having huge lapses in logic in his attempts to prove how bad religion is. He has allowed his fanaticism to seriously damage his credibility.
He uses non-factual assertions and gross exaggeration as tools in his own private culture wars to satisfy what are clearly some personal needs.
IT is well known that he significantly anti-american, you can see this on the show, a BBC show, with a British scientist who quotes the American rate of believing in creationism rather than any other rate, when something like half of britain does not believe in darwinian evolution. He feels he is on a crusade against America.
He refuses to acknowledge the possibility that science and religion can co-exist, as well as simply ignoring the science showing the value of religion. You can see it in the interview when he simply glosses over the issue of how common cultural concepts, like religion hold a society together.
He is simply another fanatic, on the opposite wing of say Jerry Falwell, or other radical social conservatives, in form, tenor and honesty he is hard to distinguish from them.
It is possible but it is MUCH more likely that one of the hairs on my ass created life. The hair on my ass has been proven to exist, god has not.So, a question for you all..........is it feasible or possible that Evolution is fact AND God exists? ( or how much has "god" intervened since setting nature in motion?) How did the life force emerge from dead matter?
And now EVIDENCE has showed that Newton's theory of Gravity was a good explanation until they found flaws with it. Then Einstein comes up with his theory which fit the EVIDENCE that was problematic for Newton. Currently there are different theories attempting to address EVIDENCE that don't fit Einstein's work. That's the way science works. The different theories on Einstein's flaws will be answered once we have EVIDENCE.But scientists of an earlier era did claim that the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe...these were also considered facts. Maybe in the future , some of your current facts will be just as outdated.
There is plenty of EVIDENCE pertaining to the spiritual realm. It may not be replicatable according to scientific method, but there is enough anecdotal evidence out there that makes many people believe that premonitions are not just coincidence or luck, but something more profound. The notion that spiritual matters have nothing to do with evidence is false.And now EVIDENCE has showed that Newton's theory of Gravity was a good explanation until they found flaws with it. Then Einstein comes up with his theory which fit the EVIDENCE that was problematic for Newton. Currently there are different theories attempting to address EVIDENCE that don't fit Einstein's work. That's the way science works. The different theories on Einstein's flaws will be answered once we have EVIDENCE.
Religion and faith are simply FAITH.
The two are not mutually exclusive; just as I said before are different ways of thinking. It's like arguing who would win a game between the Miami Heat and Garry Kasparov. Two completely different fields.
You do realise, do you, that "anecdotal evidence" generally means the same as "no evidence". At least, no evidence in the scientific sense. Check wikipedia.There is plenty of EVIDENCE pertaining to the spiritual realm. It may not be replicatable according to scientific method, but there is enough anecdotal evidence out there that make many people believe that premonitions are not just coincidence or luck, but something more profound. The notion that spiritual matters have nothing to do with evidence is false.
so you know it is just luck or coincidence, 100% of the time that premonitions are reported? Talk about blind faith in rationality. Glad you have an open mind.You do realise, do you, that "anecdotal evidence" generally means the same as "no evidence". At least, no evidence in the scientific sense. Check wikipedia.
