RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 3, 2013 at 4:42 pm
(This post was last modified: January 3, 2013 at 4:44 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(January 3, 2013 at 4:38 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote:(January 3, 2013 at 4:03 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: 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.
No place for probability in science mmmh
I see you're as honest in representing me as you are in representing Dawkins.
I never said there is no place for probability in science. If you're going to paraphrase try: Whether God can be part of a scientific theory is a matter of the definitions of 'God' and 'scientific theory', not probability.
I'm losing faith in your good faith.
(January 3, 2013 at 4:40 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote:(January 3, 2013 at 4:38 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I'm using it in its scientific sense because YOU'RE using it in it's scientific sense. Colloquially, a theory is about the same as speculation. That you think I'm using the term in its scientific sense just to exclude God does not reflect well on you. Scientific theories are made of facts, and explain them.
So is a Scientific Theory a fact?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
