a secular society by 2030

[andyhinch]

Another good point cockney, you seem like a very intelligent man

the flash - I'm not sure what you mean by other personas etc, sorry. And i already stated i'm not hugely religous, the only time you'll ever catch me in church is at weddings, funerals, maybe the odd time at christmas, if you don't like my views fair enough, but i've been polite and said nothing illegal so please try not to be abusive, thank you.

If your not religious why the very fuck are you bothering? You bizzy ****

 

[Weloveyoucitywedo]

I posted to talk about the book 'the science delusion'

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Science-Delusion-Rupert-Sheldrake/dp/144472794X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1359752365&sr=8-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Science-Del ... 365&sr=8-1</a>

The 'god delusion' has been mentioned many times in this thread without people getting abusive, you can't really talk about one without the other.

As for secular societies being so great I don't agree at all.

People from Manchester should know as well as anyone, a lot of mancunians are being moved out and it's been happening for years, the sorts of people moving into the city are helping to make Manchester quite secular, but to me that's not always a good thing.

 

[mackenzie]

Some of the usual responses from the ones who have nothing to add but a personal attack.

 

[cockneycarparkm32]

Another good point cockney, you seem like a very intelligent man

I would`nt say very , but I can read and have learned to appreciate and understand that a lot of religious belief was used to part natives from their earthly goods . I`m not religious myself but I am curious .

Wonder ...........is the seed of knowledge . Francis Bacon

 

[cockneycarparkm32]

Some of the usual responses from the ones who have nothing to add but a personal attack.

A bit like the rag in the Stretford pub analogy Mackenzie .

 

[andyhinch]

Some of the usual responses from the ones who have nothing to add but a personal attack.

If that was aimed at me it's a bit of a rarity, but I do have my moments

 

[lloydie]

I posted to talk about the book 'the science delusion'

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Science-Delusion-Rupert-Sheldrake/dp/144472794X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1359752365&sr=8-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Science-Del ... 365&sr=8-1</a>

The 'god delusion' has been mentioned many times in this thread without people getting abusive, you can't really talk about one without the other.

As for secular societies being so great I don't agree at all.

People from Manchester should know as well as anyone, a lot of mancunians are being moved out and it's been happening for years, the sorts of people moving into the city are helping to make Manchester quite secular, but to me that's not always a good thing.

I'm a bit confused.

What do you understand a secular society to mean?

What sorts of people are moving into M/cr , what sorts are "being moved out" and why?

 

[mackenzie]

Some of the usual responses from the ones who have nothing to add but a personal attack.

If that was aimed at me it's a bit of a rarity, but I do have my moments

It wasn't aimed at you in particular because you haven't ever posted in this thread before your last post, after all I did say the 'usual..'

Then again.......

 

[Weloveyoucitywedo]

As more traditional mancunians move out, there's an argument to be made that Manchester is becoming more secular.

Take salford quays for example, technically it's not manchester but i'm sure most people know the area, at one time it was a docking community and it certainly wouldn't have been secular. Since they closed, new offices have been built, including media city for example, new apartments have been built, people have moved out, new people have been moved in, there's an argument to be made that the area is now a secular area.

Does that mean it's better? For some people yes, for some people no, the same could be argued about places like ancoats and certainly Chorlton, with the influx of 'metrosexuals' for want of a better word, it certainly changes the demographics of a place, i'm sure there's many who prefer the places as they are now, but equally as many who don't.

I went off on a tangent there. However, my original point was, that religion has been under attack for a while, maybe rightly so, who am i to say? Yet science hasn't as yet come under the same scrutiny, certainly not on the same scale.

Once you delve deep into science there are numerous holes, such as in religion that can be questioned, yet it's such a taboo thing to to do and causes great anger, in the way that people like dawkins did when he first appeaared, for example the guy who wrote the book i linked was attacked and stabbed a few years ago, he's perhaps the first person to question it in such a manner, but I don't think he will be the last.

 

[Blue Tooth]

A couple of minutes surfing...a critic and Sheldrake's own site. Make your own mind up.

From a Blog by Jerry A. Coyne, Ph.D


Rupert Sheldrake peddles his woo to Americans

Where else but at PuffHo, the bailiwick of Chopra and Jenny McCarthy? You do remember Rupert Sheldrake, right? He’s a woo-meister, like Chopra, but even worse since he pretends to be a good scientist. Indeed, he was trained as one, though he seems to have gone off the rails.

Author of The Science Delusion (endorsed by both Mary Midgley and Mark Vernon!), Sheldrake thinks that the facts that dogs and pigeons can find their way home is evidence for God. Other evidence for God includes his “demonstration” (not substantiated by other workers) that people know when other people are looking at their backs. His Big Theory is that organisms have “morphic resonance,” a kind of inherited species memory (think Jung) that helps shape their bodies and behaviors. When others have tried to repeat his experiments demonstrating “morphic resonance,” they’ve also failed. He’s a pseudoscientist with scientific credentials.

Sheldrake also sees genes as being of minor importance in shaping bodies and behaviors, and, above all, decries naturalism and materialism as the proper way to do science. He prefers nebulous forms of woo, and that’s what The Science Delusion is about. It’s now been issued in the U.S. under the irritating title of Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery.

For some reason the Brits love Sheldrake (not all of them!), and he’s far more popular in the U.K. than the U.S., proving that Brit(on)s are not immune to woo.

To remedy this situation, and flog his book to Americans, Sheldrake has written a mooshy piece at PuffHo, “Why bad science is like bad religion.” (At least it’s in PuffHo‘s “Religion” section instead of the “Science” section.) I haven’t read his book, and won’t, for I need to read more substantive stuff—like theology. But I’ll reprise Sheldrake’s antimaterialistic contentions in the PuffHo piece. It all comes down to the contention that while a lot of religion is “bad” (Sheldrake cites fundamentalism), a lot of science is even worse.

What does Sheldrake mean by “bad science”? He means materialistic science:

Science at its best is an open-minded method of inquiry, not a belief system. But the “scientific worldview,” based on the materialist philosophy, is enormously prestigious because science has been so successful. . .

Science has been successful because it has been open to new discoveries. By contrast, committed materialists have made science into a kind of religion. They believe that there is no reality but material or physical reality. Consciousness is a by-product of the physical activity of the brain. Matter is unconscious. Nature is mechanical. Evolution is purposeless. God exists only as an idea in human minds, and hence in human heads.

There’s that perennial equation of science with religion. (Don’t these people know that when they make this comparison to debase science, they’re implicitly debasing religion as well?) But we don’t, of course, have faith that there is no reality but material reality: that attitude is simply a good working assumption, and, as Laplace affirmed, we haven’t seen the need to assume otherwise. And if there were evidence for “nonmaterial” phenomena, like ESP or telekinesis, I’d be glad to consider it. In contrast, the Pope won’t consider embracing Islam.

According to Sheldrake, who really wants to believe in woo, science is actually being impeded by its commitment to naturalism:

As I show in my new book, “Science Set Free,” unexpected problems are disrupting the sciences from within. Many scientists prefer to think that these problems will eventually be solved by more research along established lines, but some, including myself, think that they are symptoms of a deeper malaise. Science is being held back by centuries-old assumptions that have hardened into dogmas.

How have we hobbled ourselves by being naturalists? What are the problems that only woo can solve? Here’s his list:

We don’t understand organismal development, which, according to Dr. Sheldrake has made no progress. Anybody who has followed the field will simply guffaw at words like these:

“Despite the confident claim in the late 20th century that genes and molecular biology would soon explain the nature of life, the problems of biological development remain unsolved. No one knows how plants and animals develop from fertilized eggs. Many details have been discovered, hundreds of genomes have been sequenced, but there is still no proof that life and minds can be explained by physics and chemistry alone.”

That’s either sheer ignorance or, more probably, a lie. We’re beginning to understand development in a big way, and it’s materialism (and genetics!) that have helped. Hox genes, anyone? Of course we’re a long way from understanding how one goes from a DNA recipe to an organism, but it’s early days yet. Sheldrake prefers not to ponder the exciting path ahead, and fob our ignorance off on God (he’s an Anglican).

We don’t understand the brain or consciousness.

“Despite the brilliant technical achievements of neuroscience, like brain scanning, there is still no proof that consciousness is merely brain activity. Leading journals such as Behavioural and Brain Sciences and the Journal of Consciousness Studies publish many articles that reveal deep problems with the materialist doctrine. The philosopher David Chalmers has called the very existence of subjective experience the “hard problem.” It is hard because it defies explanation in terms of mechanisms. Even if we understand how eyes and brains respond to red light, the experience of redness is not accounted for.”

This is again a woo-of-the-gaps stance. It will take us decades and decades to understand the brain, for that’s one of the hardest problems of biology (if not the hardest), but the materialist program has already made substantial progress. As for consciousness not being a product of brain activity, that’s hogwash. You can alter consciousness with material drugs. You can remove it by removing brain activity, like killing someone (and there’s no evidence of consciousness with brain death!). You can temporarily remove consciousness with anesthetics, and restore it by removing them. Disease or brain lesions alter consciousness, often in predictable ways. Yes, we don’t yet know the mechanism of consciousness, or how we perceive “qualia” like redness, but should we throw up our hands and cry “God did it!,” or should we get to work?

We don’t understand cosmology.

“In physics, too, the problems are multiplying. Since the beginning of the 21st century, it has become apparent that known kinds of matter and energy make up only about 4 percent of the universe. The rest consists of “dark matter” and “dark energy.” The nature of 96 percent of physical reality is literally obscure.

Contemporary theoretical physics is dominated by superstring and M theories, with 10 and 11 dimensions respectively, which remain untestable. The multiverse theory, which asserts that there are trillions of universes besides our own, is popular among cosmologists in the absence of any experimental evidence. These are interesting speculations, but they are not hard science. They are a shaky foundation for the materialist claim that everything can be explained in terms of physics.”

Yep, physics is full of exciting puzzles, and the answers will no doubt be counterintuitive and a cause of great wonder. But think of all the progress that physics has made using the materialist paradigm! Just to name a recent one, physicists predicted the existence of the Higgs boson and then found evidence for it. The Standard Model of particle physics is a pretty good paradigm. We now know that the universe is about 14 billion years ago and originated in a huge expansion event.

Yes, dark matter and dark energy remain puzzles, but is that a reason to accept God?

In the end, of course, Sheldrake is simply relying on god-of-the-gaps arguments. Because we don’t understand everything at present—and if we did we wouldn’t need science!—there must be a Big Anglican Father in the Sky who does things like create consciousness and dark matter. What a crock! The history of science has been filling in the gaps, one after the other, that used to constitute evidence for God. And that caulking has all been done by materialism. Doesn’t that suggest that materialism will fill the gaps that remain? We haven’t understood a whit more about the universe by relying on deities and spiritualism.

And, OMG, he ends with such a trite admonition:

Good science, like good religion, is a journey of discovery, a quest. It builds on traditions from the past. But it is most effective when it recognizes how much we do not know, when it is not arrogant but humble.

As if we don’t recognize what we don’t know! Every working scientist implicitly admits that, for science is based on ignorance. It is not the scientists who are arrogant, but the faithful, who assert things about the existence and nature of God for which there’s not the slightest evidence. When you see an accommodationist calling for scientists to be “humble,” you know that they have no other cards to play.

Yes, dogs can find their way home, and so can pigeons. And, at least for pigeons, we’re starting to understand how they do it. But I wish Sheldrake would find his way home, to a church instead of science. I despise his ill-conceived incursions into science, for they have no evidential basis and only serve to succor who believe that there is Something Out There besides material stuff. He’s worse than a creationist, because he’s a faith-head in scientist’s clothing, but, unlike Francis Collins, keeps that to himself.


Jerry Coyne PHD
He is a Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago and a member of both the Committee on Genetics and the Committee on Evolutionary Biology. Coyne received a B.S. in Biology from the College of William and Mary. He then earned a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology at Harvard University in 1978, working in the laboratory of Richard Lewontin. After a postdoctoral fellowship in Timothy Prout's laboratory at The University of California at Davis, he took his first academic position as assistant professor in the Department of Zoology at The University of Maryland. In 1996 he joined the faculty of The University of Chicago.

Coyne's work is focused on understanding the origin of species: the evolutionary process that produces discrete groups in nature. To do this, he uses a variety of genetic analyses to locate and identify the genes that produce reproductive barriers between distinct species of the fruit fly Drosophila: barriers like hybrid sterility, ecological differentiation, and mate discrimination. Through finding patterns in the location and action of such genes, he hopes to work out the evolutionary processes that originally produced genetic change, and to determine whether different pairs of species may show similar genetic patterns, implying similar routes to speciation.

Coyne has written over 110 refereed scientific papers and 80 other articles, book reviews, and columns, as well as a scholarly book about his field (Speciation, co-authored with H. Allen Orr). He is a frequent contributor to The New Republic, The Times Literary Supplement, and other popular periodicals.



<a class="postlink" href="http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html</a>

Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world’s most innovative biologists and writers, is best known for his theory of morphic fields and morphic resonance, which leads to a vision of a living, developing universe with its own inherent memory.

He worked in developmental biology at Cambridge University, where he was a Fellow of Clare College. He was then Principal Plant Physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), in Hyderabad, India. From 2005 to 2010 he was Director of the Perrott-Warrick project. , funded from Trinity College, Cambridge.

 

[Weloveyoucitywedo]

I could find numerous critques of dawkins work and copy and paste them, of course the guy has critics, just in the way dawkins did when he first spoke up about religion.

 

[Blue Tooth]

I could find numerous critques of dawkins work and copy and paste them, of course the guy has critics, just in the way dawkins did when he first spoke up about religion.

I'm sure you could. In my opinion though he debunks Sheldrake as a pseudo scientist and makes a pretty sound argument in the process. There are a lot of holes in his work.

I also linked to Sheldrake's site so folk could make up their own minds.
I couldn't find any scientists who were writing in support of Sheldrake.

I met Sheldrake at a symposium once and to be fair he's a bit out there. His work on Morphogenic Fields is interesting as an idea but again hasn't held up to any kind of serious scientific scrutiny.

Most scientists that I have read accept that science is not cast in stone but is ever changing and evolving and our understanding of the world constantly changing and evolving consequently. The work at CERN is a good example.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

I'm no Damocles, but I'm bored and this looks fun.

Why am i on a wum?

The guy is a cambridge educated biologist, author of more than 80 scientific papers. His book 'the science delusion' has sold more than 1 million copies worldwide.

These powerful assumptions, have led science down the wrong path according to Rupert. He explains how originally the scientific field held a kind of Cartesian dualistic view of spirit and matter, which eventually was replaced solely by matter.

According to Sheldrake, the ten dogmas of science hold that:

*Everything is mechanical; only mechanistic explanations will do. Dogs for example are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines 'lumbering robots in richard dawkins vivid phrase with brains that are like chemically programmed computers

This is not inherently an assumption of science or scientists, but it is the only way that science can be successful with our current level of knowledge. Science is, by its very definition, empirical and based upon repeatable experimentation. 'Mechanical' in the context used by Sheldrake is completely ambiguous and has no proper definition. If by 'mechanical' he means, 'things are measurable and describable by mathematics'... well yes... but mathematics isn't a human invention, it is integrated into the very fabric of the universe, we are simply witnessing it as best as our minds can comprehend. We can't measure things empirically in any other way (at the moment). Thus with no maths, we can do no science.

*Matter is unconscious / inanimate.

Science (and scientists) again, make(s) no such assumptions. But if you make an assertion that matter has some sentience then it is your burden to prove it. He doesn't do that here, he places a claim of negative proof upon science. It's a bit like me saying "science says there is no such thing as unicorns". Believe it or not, science doesn't ever say there is no such thing as unicorns, it simply says that as there is no proof of unicorns existing and so it is currently not included in the accepted scientific paradigm. If proof is found of unicorns/matter having sentience, then it will be. It's that simple.

*The matter and energy of the universe is constant, and always the same (with the exception of the big bang where it just suddenly appeared)

This point shows a staggering lack of understanding of the big bang for a Cambridge educated scientist. It didn't 'appear', because the big bang was not a causal event, meaning there was no 'before' it in terms of our own laws, because our laws don't apply the same way at the time of the big bang, they break down. For things to 'appear' there has to be a time before where they weren't there, but in the case of the big bang, no such time exists. Time itself didn't exist until the big bang.

*The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning and they will stay the same for ever.

Now he could mean two things here, if he means 'the human interpretation of the laws of nature' then:
This is absolute brain-curdling bollocks, enough to be insulting and goes against everything science is about. Newton's Laws are called Newton's 'Laws' but guess what? They're wrong! Amazing I know. But they have been superseded by more modern theory. There is absolutely nothing in science which is fixed in the furniture, there is just a lot of stuff which is our best answer until somebody comes up with something better.

If he is talking about the law's of nature themselves then:
We know for a fact that the laws of physics have changed because they break down at the big bang, we accept as scientists that our laws are only necessarily true for our locality in space-time (i.e. our visible universe). So his assertion is false.

*Nature is without inherent purpose, and evolution has no goal.

This is again, not an assumption made by science or scientists (certainly not myself). Science has no opinion on the motive of things. It is just a useful tool for measuring where things are now and where they are going.

*Biological inheritance is a purely material process.

An assertion without proof, much like his 'sentience of matter' bit above. Show scientists that biological inheritance is not 'purely material' (whatever that actually means, again it's very poorly defined stuff), and it will happily be included into the paradigm.

*Minds are located within heads, and are nothing but the activities of brains.

Michio Kaku, one of the world's most renowned scientists often talks about the interesting anomaly of teleportation and the preservation of what is thought of as 'the soul'. i.e if you replicated every cell in your body, and built another one of you, would that 'you' share your intrinsic characteristics and personality? This is something which is far from being disregarded by scientists, on the contrary it's become something of an ethical dilemma. If somebody is teleported down a wire and they come out of the other end a murderous psychopath, then we will know there is something more to it and try to figure it out, until then, the above statement is complete conjecture and puts our level of knowledge at a level somewhat greater than that which we currently possess.

*Memories are stored in the brain, and are wiped out at death.

Again, some proof that this isn't the case, would be excellent. This isn't an assumption of science, naturists or scientists, this is simply something which has never been proven.

*Telepathy and other psychic phenomena are illusory.

I see now that about six of these 'dogmas' have actually been the same one. It all comes down to the roll of negative proof in science. Science/scientists is/are only interested in what can be shown to be true, it says nothing (and I mean NOTHING) of what CANNOT be true.

*Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that works.

And again, I'm not going to repeat my point.

If religion is to be constantly challeneged, then i feel it's important to do the same with science.

So having read through his 'ten dogmas', (which are actually more like two points or maybe even all the same point repeated ten times) I have deducted his umbridge is with the logic that underpins science and not science itself.

Arguing against logic is asinine. Why would I argue against the only thing that helps me distinguish as a human what happens and what doesn't?

I would advise that, in future, you don't base all your opinions on one really badly written book (I read two chapters and it was full of wonderful praise for scientists which is great, but it actually seems to prove none of his dogmas). The whole thing would not stop somebody being a good scientist, because it is the logic under the science which he doesn't seem to grasp and not the science itself.

I think this guy is a genius actually, he knows as a Cambridge scientist that if he makes a book which goes against the grain he will make tons, and he has, so fair play to him...

Point of reference: I am a mathematical physicist, with all of one scientific paper to my name.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Some of the usual responses from the ones who have nothing to add but a personal attack.

Do you mean me?
If so,you should be aware by now that I have attempted to address the various folk of faith on here with logic and reason on every 'religion' thread we have ever had,and have never,ever received anything that remotely resembled a straight answer from any of them.
Now Pauldominic has reinvented himself and is continuing in the same vein as before - posting irrelevant non-sequiturs of quotes of others,links to bonkers people who's worldview could be debunked by the average eight year old within minutes,not answering any dissenting voices,and moaning about how he is treated.
Many of us who profess to be atheists have received some truly appalling pm's from this supposed man of god - messages that would have earned you or I a very long Bluemoon holiday.
I will happily shoot the breeze with anybody about anything,just as long as they are honest and bring an open mind to the party.
PD does neither.
He's a boring busted flush.

 

[tonea2003]

<a class="postlink" href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100200882/breaking-news-richard-dawkins-doesnt-like-religion-well-he-kept-that-one-quiet/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomch ... one-quiet/</a>



Breaking news: Richard Dawkins doesn't like religion or 'Islamic barbarians'. Well, he kept that one quiet




By Tom ChiversReligionLast updated: January 31st, 2013

731 CommentsComment on this article



Richard Dawkins: not a particular fan of Islam

Why are we still surprised that Richard Dawkins doesn't like religion? Also, will people now stop saying about the good professor that "he wouldn't dare say that about Islam"? Please?

I should explain. The latest furore comes after Islamist extremists burned down a sacred library in Timbuktu, Mali, during the ongoing conflict there. Prof Dawkins tweeted "Like Alexandria, like Bamiyan, Timbuktu's priceless manuscript heritage destroyed by Islamic barbarians."

Cue much clutching of pearls and fainting. "He's been mean about a religion!"

A few things worth noting. One, Dawkins is on record describing Islam as "one of the great evils of the world". Not, it's worth noting, "Muslims", but "Islam", the set of beliefs and practices. He feels similarly about the Catholic Church (he's gently fond of the milquetoasts of the C of E), following the Steve Weinberg quote that "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion". Whether or not you agree with Dawkins (or Weinberg), it's frankly silly to get all upset about it now.

Further, as Dawkins pointed out when people started hyperventilating, if you burn down a library, "barbarian" is probably the right term (although it should be noted that the damage to the library now appears to have been less than originally feared). The barbarians in question were Islamic, and, significantly, their actions were driven by their interpretation of their faith: it is reasonable to describe them as "Islamic barbarians". Dawkins said: "Christian barbarians murder abortion doctors. Most Christians are not barbarians. Stalin was an atheist barbarian. Most atheists are not barbarians."

Essentially, the point is this: if you believe, as Dawkins does, that religion has a net negative effect on the world, it's hypocritical to pretend otherwise in a bid to remain politically correct. Dawkins has also pointed out that the God of the Old Testament was capricious and violent and by any reasonable understanding evil – demanding genocide and child-murder, rape and sexual slavery, and any number of horrific slaughters and collective punishments and tortures and cruelties. The relevant passage in The God Delusion was described as "profoundly anti-semitic" by the chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks. But it's ludicrous to say that criticism of the content of the Jewish holy book (or the Islamic or Christian ones which are based on it, for that matter) equates to dislike of Jewish people.

Finally, I hope this finally shuts up the boring, boring Christians (note that I am not saying that all Christians are boring, only that the boring ones should shut up) who say of Dawkins and other atheists "You only say these things about Christianity! Don't have the nerve to say it about Islam, do you?" He does. So did Christopher Hitchens, so does Sam Harris. (The fourth "horseman", Daniel Dennett, is gentler, as befits a man who looks like the love-child of Father Christmas and Charles Darwin.)

I don't know where I stand on the "religion is a net force for good/evil" debate. I think it's too complex to have a simple answer, although I do think that the fact that religions' central claims are false* is a major strike against them: I'd rather teach people dangerous facts than useful fictions. But Dawkins does know where he stands. So do you. Why on earth do we get surprised when he says what we already know he thinks?

* yes, yes, I can't "prove" that God doesn't exist or that we won't live forever. I can't prove anything, down to and including my name or the existence of Leamington Spa. Eventually you just have to admit that if it looks like the absence of a duck, walks like the absence of a duck, and quacks like the absence of a duck, the duck is probably absent.

 

[Skashion]

I'm no Damocles, but I'm bored and this looks fun.

*The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning and they will stay the same for ever.

Now he could mean two things here, if he means 'the human interpretation of the laws of nature' then:
This is absolute brain-curdling bollocks, enough to be insulting and goes against everything science is about. Newton's Laws are called Newton's 'Laws' but guess what? They're wrong! Amazing I know. But they have been superseded by more modern theory. There is absolutely nothing in science which is fixed in the furniture, there is just a lot of stuff which is our best answer until somebody comes up with something better.

If he is talking about the law's of nature themselves then:
We know for a fact that the laws of physics have changed because they break down at the big bang, we accept as scientists that our laws are only necessarily true for our locality in space-time (i.e. our visible universe). So his assertion is false.

You're doing a wonderful impression. That was first class debunking.

May I interject with one point though. I wasn't going to reply to this guy because he's trolling and you don't feed trolls. Although fair play to you, if you want to have some fun as well, by all means. I've done it before, I would be a massive hypocrite if I told someone else not to.

Now, there are good reasons for supposing, for the moment anyway, that the laws of physics are same across the entire universe, whether it's the observational effects of gravity or emission spectroscopy.

However, it's amusing that this 'dogma' (based on the best available current evidence), is being mocked in favour of faith. Oh dear, God's last chance saloon, is the fine structure constant i.e. the idea that the laws of physics are universal, and hence we live in a strange and highly unlikely universe where life is possible. If the laws of physics do vary throughout the universe, and hence somewhere in the universe the conditions for life MUST exist, God is completely fucked. That's it, end of God. You'd believe in God, a highly complex and hence highly unlikely being, for no reason whatsoever.

Oh, and by the way, for any God botherers paying attention, this idea is being challenged: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19429-laws-of-physics-may-change-across-the-universe.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... verse.html</a>

Because the only dogma in science, is observable, measurable, beautiful truth.

 

[SWP's back]

It saddens me that so many people on here see logic as the only form of intelligence

I'm sick of using logic and reason to make decisions as well.

Imagine being able to tap into the 90% of the brain we dont even use , I learned something in science all those years ago :)

You actually got a source for this mythical 90% unused brain?

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

I'm sick of using logic and reason to make decisions as well.

Imagine being able to tap into the 90% of the brain we dont even use , I learned something in science all those years ago :)

You actually got a source for this mythical 90% unused brain?

In fairness any brief visit to the matchday forum would reveal several brains that are clearly operating at much less than 10% of full capacity.

 

[SWP's back]

Imagine being able to tap into the 90% of the brain we dont even use , I learned something in science all those years ago :)

You actually got a source for this mythical 90% unused brain?

In fairness any brief visit to the matchday forum would reveal several brains that are clearly operating at much less than 10% of full capacity.

Do be careful or the holier than thou's will be upset at you Fetters.

 

[johnny on the spot]

[bigimg]http://robproject.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/atheists.jpeg[/bigimg]