RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 3, 2013 at 4:19 pm
(This post was last modified: January 3, 2013 at 4:23 pm by Mark 13:13.)
(January 3, 2013 at 4:03 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:(January 3, 2013 at 3:44 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: was there something wrong with the maths?
What's scientifically untestable can't be a part of science. Math can't fix that. It's not a theory if it can't be tested. It's not even a hypothesis if it can't be tested in principle. For God to be part of a scientific theory, it would have to be possible to prove that God is NOT the correct explanation. Probability doesn't enter into it at all.
You are using the word Theory in a very tight band in order to exclude GOD. out of curiousity what is the difference between a theory and a fact?
(January 3, 2013 at 4:14 pm)Chuck Wrote: That's like saying people with demonstrated propensity towards stupidity are more likely to rise to the occassion and act stupidity.
It is no surprise that a bullshit holy book calculated to promote and exploit stupidity would be found to contain, Lord bless me, stories about how the holy man who is also not a man fucked his own mother to give himself birth would happen to encoruage acts and thoughts of stupidity so as to make himself easier to sell.
Lets keep this honest at least within the frameworks of our beliefs
"Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." the only corporal being her is Mary, everything else is a spiritual interaction.
