Page 2 of 2

Re: talking of religion, that programme on Ch.4....

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:25 pm
by Pervert
I mean, those guys make trainspotters look like party animals!

Re: talking of religion, that programme on Ch.4....

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:31 pm
by jj
Do you mind? Some of my best friends are trainspotters.
OK, best customers, then.
OK, I'm lying.
Possibly.

Re: talking of religion, that programme on Ch.4....

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:55 pm
by jj
The reason it's still called a Theory (in much the same way as calculations that have been repeated millions of times over many years by different mathematicians, but still lack a formal mathematical 'proof', are called 'Conjectures') is a philosophical one (note the capitals, though).
Karl Popper stated (and most scientists agree) that you can never actually unequivocally, and beyond peradventure of a doubt, PROVE an hypothesis, you can only DISPROVE it, by presenting experimental evidence that does not fit with the theory. So when a scientist designs an experiment, he methodologically (if not actually- scientists are, after all, human, and often still think in terms of 'proof') sets it up in order to falsify the theory rather than the opposite. If he then fails in his aim of 'disproof', this is then taken as further evidence in support of that theory- but the corollary here is that the search for such 'disproof' (or support, depending on one's viewpoint) is of course never-ending.
With Evolution there is so much of an absence of 'disproof' that it has come to be accepted much as dogma- which in itelf of course is inherently dangerous, but that's another discussion. That is not to say that there aren't many disputes about the actual mechanisms behind the theory (Gould's 'punctuated equilibria' and the like), but the overarching generality is only seriously challengeable by non-scientific means, which in the context of the search for 'scientific truth' are irrelevant.

Re: talking of religion, that programme on Ch.4....

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:01 pm
by Deuce Bigolo
I don't believe that theres a God or a Devil

I do believe that the many Prophets that the Religions are based on did exist and but were mortals

One interesting proposition that one religion states is that the Devil is in control of the Earth.Would certainly explain a lot if true

Personally I think its just a case of good & evil residing in each and every one of us.We have the power to be both

As to wether we came along after the Big Bang
I'll leave that to the experts to work out
Doesn't interest me one iota and is about as useful as the alltime stupidest question...What is the meaning of life?

cheers
B....OZ

Re: talking of religion, that programme on Ch.4....

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:46 pm
by jj
Many scientists would argue that there are questions about the nature of reality that science simply isn't equipped to address, and therefore doesn't try.

Re: talking of religion, that programme on Ch.4....

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:03 pm
by stripeysydney
Its funny you know, i always thought Keith Richards was God and cliff richard was the antichrist.Is that libellous?

Re: talking of religion, that programme on Ch.4....

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:15 pm
by jj
Only to the Antichrist.