If you were God..............

[drummindefender]

I can see what you're trying to get at dd, but you are confusing faith in a higher power with organised religion & its use of scripture as a political device.

This thread hasn't been about the use of science to debate faith.

tbh it has been at times-i'll find examples later but im meant to be doing an essay on iran and its desire for nuclear weapons at the moment :icon_cry:

 

[homer]

If I were God, I would make it so this thread has never existed

That and Leeds United, the whole City of Coventry, Jade Goody and the TB Inner Circle

 

[Dour]

for which of his theories? the selfish gene theory? memetics or the extended phenotype theory?

i think you'll find they all produce testable predictions and the theories have stood the test of time, that's how science works

I think you'll actually find that most biologists don't hold to the selfish gene/extended phenotype theory and that memetics is largely treated with derision - an example of Dawkins hatred of religion driving him to make some particularly stupid comments.

 

[Darth Vodka]

I think you'll actually find that most biologists don't hold to the selfish gene/extended phenotype theory and that memetics is largely treated with derision - an example of Dawkins hatred of religion driving him to make some particularly stupid comments.

i take it that's a piss-weak joke? there sure was a lack of a smiley there

 

[Disco Bob]

If I were God I'd make ginger people objects of hilarity.

 

[Dour]

i take it that's a piss-weak joke? there sure was a lack of a smiley there

Sorry - I should have realised you were taking the piss originally.

 

[Darth Vodka]

Sorry - I should have realised you were taking the piss originally.

originally when?

 

[Dour]

originally when?

When you were suggestings Dawkins was right.

 

[Darth Vodka]

When you were suggestings Dawkins was right.

oh i see, you're taking a contrary position and then mimicking what i say

i shall review your original statement, given the lack of humour

 

[Darth Vodka]

I think you'll actually find that most biologists don't hold to the selfish gene/extended phenotype theory and that memetics is largely treated with derision - an example of Dawkins hatred of religion driving him to make some particularly stupid comments.

are you referring to the late great Stephen Jay Gould? if so we are talking about two great intellects debating the finer points of evolution... hardly a case for God

and as for memetics, what are you on about? source...?

and as for Dawkins making "stupid comments"

you mean Professor Dawkins, the Head of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, who (along with Umberto Eco and Noam Chomsky) has been described as one of the "top three public intellectuals in the world"

yeah, thick as pig shit him, Jade Goody does his long words for him

 

[Jeff]

has been described as one of the "top three public intellectuals in the world"

You should know better than to quote an un-named source to back up your argument

Could have been anyone who said that. And we know it's only true if it's in the bible.

 

[Darth Vodka]

You should know better than to quote an un-named source to back up your argument

Could have been anyone who said that. And we know it's only true if it's in the bible.

it was Prospect Magazine

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article578859.ece

:icon_bigg

 

[homer]

it was Prospect Magazine

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article578859.ece

:icon_bigg

Well if it was voted for in a magazine, then it simply has to be true

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/11/06/ufnstats106.xml

 

[Macky]

I think you'll actually find that most biologists don't hold to the selfish gene/extended phenotype theory and that memetics is largely treated with derision - an example of Dawkins hatred of religion driving him to make some particularly stupid comments.

I know nothing of biology or biologists but who has derided memetics & on what basis?
It's a widely used term & concept.

 

[Dour]

are you referring to the late great Stephen Jay Gould? if so we are talking about two great intellects debating the finer points of evolution... hardly a case for God

Ain't arguing for God at all. Just pointing out that Dawkins' work isn't what you seem to think it is. If you were to look at something like Morange's, The Misunderstood Gene or Rose's Lifelines then you'd get more of an understanding of current thinking.

and as for memetics, what are you on about? source...?

Plenty of sources for that - not least Dawkins' mealy-mouthed retractions. Compare memes in The Selfish Gene to Unweaving the Rainbow. And since you're at Uni, why not check to find how often articles on memetics have been published in reputable scientific academic journals in the 30 years since Dawkins kicked this idea off.

and as for Dawkins making "stupid comments"

you mean Professor Dawkins, the Head of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University

Personal, sponsored, chair in Public Understanding of Science, I think you'll find. So not one gained solely on academic merit, nor one in science.

 

[Vince Noir]

so just to recap, the unanswered questions for foxin_oz are:-

1) this Pompeii thing is bullshit. prove it, even a nutter religous website, but a respectable one would be better (Darth Vodka & Disco Bob)

Was there ever a definative answer on this?
I was questioning it about 10 pages ago, and a lot of craps been written since then

There is a God - his name was Hicks

Lovely stuff.

 

[Jeff]

it was Prospect Magazine

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article578859.ece

:icon_bigg

David Goodhart, the editor of Prospect, describes the exercise as a “bit of intellectual fun, a parlour game. It’s not meant to be entirely serious.

 

[Vince Noir]

Well if it was voted for in a magazine, then it simply has to be true

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/11/06/ufnstats106.xml

Except in that example they're not actually voted for...

 

[Darth Vodka]

Ain't arguing for God at all.

then you're on the wrong thread

i'm not saying everything Dawkins writes is gospel (pun intended) the point is, he's a scientist and comes up with theories that can be tested. maybe a few things are wrong, he'd be the first person to debate the finer points

Plenty of sources for that

go on then...

Personal, sponsored, chair in Public Understanding of Science, I think you'll find. So not one gained solely on academic merit, nor one in science.

after a degree, a masters, a D.Phil and a DSc and being a professor, he takes a sponsored chair

the part that wasn't purely academic about the chair is that Simonyi is obviously a big fan

 

[Darth Vodka]

Was there ever a definative answer on this?
I was questioning it about 10 pages ago, and a lot of craps been written since then

i found a quote about it on the internet

no hard evidence though

the timing of the eruption means christians could have been in the city

it sounds like a Christian myth though, surely a photo of it would have travelled the world