I am saying you cant fill a book with 'the detrimental effects of atheism on science' and remain true to such processes.samcdkey said:Are you saying it does not?
Richard Dawkins
- Thread starter Mythbuster
- Start date
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
"telling blows on an already shaky evolutionary edifice"(Q) said:
ID has delivered no telling blows to anything, nor is it capable of so doing. IDism is a philosophical, or religious position. The latter cannot refute something that is derived through science. (Just as science cannot refute something that is derived through philosophy.)
The evolutionary edifice is shaky. If you think otherwise you have failed to understand the evolution of evolutionary theory. The shakiness of the edifice is one of its immense strength, since it relates to the progressive widening and deepening of understanding of the mechanisms involved. Such progress is a consequence of recognising the inconsistencies and contradictions within the edifice.
why it is "disengenous" of science to seek evidence in regards to the existence of godsFor the same reason that master chefs should not comment upon ressucitation methods, using their experience of preparing sauces.
Or how the reviewer considers atheism as a belief system?Dawkins has certainly turned it into one.
sniffy said:
The argument is not theism.
The argument is: can you use a scientific method in a philosophical argument?
And call it empiricism?
Or to be clearer: is a meme (as a unit of cultural information) equal to a gene (as a unit of heredity)?
Can one use scientific arguments to prove or disprove memetic viruses? the transmission of memes? the cumulative selection process of memes?
Is this science?
oph said:
Really? No I have no desire to waste my time and objectivism to an abstract that is in all likelyhood biasedly critisiced by a kiss ass masquarading as a serious scientist, who should practice before preaching.
Well yes, obviously I can.samcdkey said:
I cant recall what the term means? Briefly, what is it referring to?samcdkey said:
sniffy said:
Then it should be easy for you to answer these questions, that I am opening up for debate, as they are being presented as a science:
Is a meme (as a unit of cultural information) equal to a gene (as a unit of heredity)?
Can one use scientific arguments to prove or disprove memetic viruses? the transmission of memes? the cumulative selection process of memes?
I would also like you to define a meme, its discrete unit and how you would assess for it.
Using a scientific method.
Last edited:
No, Im not referring to Dawkings. Im referring to your agnostic butt.Ophiolite said:
How did you miss that? :bugeye:
samcdkey said:Is it pink?
(we may get to the root of your obsession with pink elephants yet!)
the root was a meme of 'pink elephant'
No! dont have to!samcdkey said: