The Theory of Evolution

[julie]

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”


― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality

[Risto the Great]

Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God and hence it cannot prove or disprove whether scientific knowledge is the most reliable knowledge about the natural world.

RELIABLE: consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted.
KNOWLEDGE: facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

Are you suggesting theological knowledge is better than scientific knowledge in terms of reliability in understanding the natural world?

I can feel a 16th century fit coming on.

[spitfire]

Tell us more about "evolutionary" medicine (my head nodding again with a look of curiosity on my face)...

No. From now on I will charge my services.

Have you looked up the recurrent laryngeal nerve? How do you expect to go any further? What you are asking is next year's curriculum. You are still in Kindergarten.

It is important to do research on your own. Don't expect everything to be served on a plate. You are not learning this way.

Start with the first video, five in total. You 're on your own now.

Intelligent Design (1): The Human Body | Richard Dawkins & Randolph Nesse - YouTube

[Vangelovski]

RELIABLE: consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted.
KNOWLEDGE: facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

Are you suggesting theological knowledge is better than scientific knowledge in terms of reliability in understanding the natural world?

Only partly. If you can show me how the scientific method would be able to determine the origin of life I'd be very interested. If you don't respond, I'll assume you didn't think your comment through before posting and have since reconsidered your own position.

What I would be even more interested in is if you can prove the assumption that scientific knowledge is the most reliable knowledge we have about the natural world - if indeed you also mean the history of the natural world.

I can feel a 16th century fit coming on.

Those you claim to disapprove of attacking the person rather than the argument should lead by example. Especially those who claim they are perfect.

[Vangelovski]

No.

I'll just assume they didn't teach you that in Greek history, which last I heard, encompasses everything including the stars above the 12 Apostles.

[spitfire]

I'll just assume they didn't teach you that in Greek history, which last I heard, encompasses everything including the stars above the 12 Apostles.

That's the next step downwards in the way of persuasion. Trying to degrade the validity of something by exaggerating something that is hardly a fact. It's not in the curriculum just to let you know.

I 'm always ahead. Do you want to know the next step on your technique of persuasion?
Naaaah, I prefer you show it to us.

[Vangelovski]

That's the next step downwards in the way of persuasion. Trying to degrade the validity of something by exaggerating something that is hardly a fact. It's not in the curriculum just to let you know.

I 'm always ahead. Do you want to know the next step on your technique of persuasion?
Naaaah, I prefer you show it to us.

Tell us more about how there are no assumptions in the speed of light theory or how all of the assumptions have been scientifically proven.

Can you draw a picture as well?

[spitfire]

Tell us more about how there are no assumptions in the speed of light theory or how all of the assumptions have been scientifically proven.

Can you draw a picture as well?

Why would I need to tell you more since I already told you about the supernova? That's free of charge since it's repetition.

If we see a supernova now, this means that the supernova exploded sometime in the past. Because the light of the explosion took time in order to reach us.

Again, you are neglecting fundamental laws. You are very confused indeed.

[Vangelovski]

Why would I need to tell you more since I already told you about the supernova? That's free of charge since it's repetition.

I was amazed by your reasoning with the supernova, but I mean't these specific assumptions noted in the article below:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html

[spitfire]

I was amazed by your reasoning with the supernova, but I mean't these specific assumptions noted in the article below:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html

You asked about the number of assumptions.

The lucky numbers are 6, 17, 23, 25, 33, 41 and 12.

[Vangelovski]

You asked about the number of assumptions.

The lucky numbers are 6, 17, 23, 25, 33, 41 and 12.

And you said you couldn't be bothered counting them but claimed that they had all been scientifically proven.

Can you provide anything to demonstrate your claim that these assumptions have now been scientifically proven?

[Risto the Great]

Only partly. If you can show me how the scientific method would be able to determine the origin of life I'd be very interested. If you don't respond, I'll assume you didn't think your comment through before posting and have since reconsidered your own position.

What I would be even more interested in is if you can prove the assumption that scientific knowledge is the most reliable knowledge we have about the natural world - if indeed you also mean the history of the natural world.

Those you claim to disapprove of attacking the person rather than the argument should lead by example. Especially those who claim they are perfect.

So you are saying the bible explains the natural world partly better than science does? What is the other part you rely on?

Galileo had to deal with his heresies in the 16th century. It seems science has been embraced by "most" since then.

Did you introduce "history of the natural world" as the topic now?

If I was attacking you, I would have said other things.

[spitfire]

And you said you couldn't be bothered counting them but claimed that they had all been scientifically proven.

Can you provide anything to demonstrate your claim that these assumptions have now been scientifically proven?

No you misunderstood. I was giving you the lottery numbers based on assumption.

The link didn't work but I'd still not be bothered even if it worked.

[Vangelovski]

So you are saying the bible explains the natural world partly better than science does? What is the other part you rely on?

Galileo had to deal with his heresies in the 16th century. It seems science has been embraced by "most" since then.

Did you introduce "history of the natural world" as the topic now?

I was hoping you could prove the statement that scientific knowledge is the most reliable knowledge we have about the natural world - if indeed you also mean the history of the natural world.

PROVE: to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument.

(interesting method of debate).

If I was attacking you, I would have said other things.

For someone who claims personal perfection, that was enough.

[Vangelovski]

The link didn't work but I'd still not be bothered even if it worked.

I know. Its probably because you would see things that would ruin your faith in science that no scientist holds.