Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?

[LifeToTheFullest!]

The Racemic Mix of Amino Acids created by the Urey-Miller Experiment are useless, unless we have a all left handed world.

This is evidence for nothing.

There is nothing plausible of what you call the 'stages', like a polymer creating a self replicating polymer, like what the? Wouldn't it have to 'be' a self replicating polymer to create a self replicating polymer?

Now, looking at the biblical account of Creation, as I said, by faith. I have never claimed it to be 'rational' to my mind, I believe it by faith.

So, I mean, I have faith, and my other option is something just as irrational that 'claims' to be rational.

Really people, where is the incentive?

Incentive? Are you buying a car? Seriously.

Science observes the natural world, provides empircal data with a parsimonious conclusion. That's it. It is what it is. End of story.

Your religious beliefs are for you to work out.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Poe, I know we have our fun, but that is the most absurd thing I have ever heard you say.

Sadly, you've come nowhere near your current record yet.

Do you believe the Urey-Miller experiment created life in 1952?

I neither "believe" it, know it, nor care.

If you did, you would believe wrong. Though I would TOTALLY agree with your way of thought IF what you said was true, sadly, I am amazed and concerned that you tried to pass off Abiogenesis as 'observed to be true'.

Except I didn't -- I was talking about nature in general.

Humans have always sought creatively supernatural solutions to natural mysteries -- we quite literally have a pantheon of gods for just this purpose. What's one more?

The problem, and again, the fuel of the anti-science movement, are these gross assumptions.

The Myth of Abiogenesis

Indeed -- but does that make mythology the solution?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Why do you say that?

Why do you ask?

 

[Delphiki]

Why do you say that?

Ok. Can you test if there is a God? If so, then how?

 

[sandwiches]

One would have to have Faith, which, of course, is irrational and totally un-Methodological Naturalistic, so, you will never find this God by your own method.

In plainer words, a Methodological Naturalistic approach, as is listed, can not prove or disprove anything concerning the God of the bible since:

A - Methodological Naturalism, or ontological naturalism, is a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural things, forces, and causes of the kind studied by the natural sciences.

B - The Christian God of the bible exists outside of our 'natural' universe.

So, the two will never meet.
A different method must be used, the bible states Faith.

I asked: What's a way of "truly knowing" something?
The answer you gave me was that method. So, either you're recanting now and telling me that there is more than one method of "truly knowing" something or you're telling me that you don't "truly know" that there is a god and it's a mere guess. Which is it?

 

[Delphiki]

I asked: What's a way of "truly knowing" something?
The answer you gave me was that method. So, either you're recanting now and telling me that there is more than one method of "truly knowing" something or you're telling me that you don't "truly know" that there is a god and it's a mere guess. Which is it?

I've found that most creationists can't remember more than one of their own points to an argument at any given time, sandwiches. It's pointless to ask the question.

I think this is also where we get "There ain't no contradictions int he bible!". If you make the book big enough, there's no way they can remember all of it at once. lol

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I've found that most creationists can't remember more than one of their own points to an argument at any given time, sandwiches. It's pointless to ask the question.

I think this is also where we get "There ain't no contradictions int he bible!". If you make the book big enough, there's no way they can remember all of it at once. lol

Reminds me of jr. Hovind's "Creation Minute" on his C"S"E site. Creationism does indeed seem to be geared for ADD types.

 

[sandwiches]

I've found that most creationists can't remember more than one of their own points to an argument at any given time, sandwiches. It's pointless to ask the question.

I have to be honest, this is one thing that drives me up the wall with some of the people who debate here. People like AV, Chesterton, mark, dad, etc... they go off on tangents and non sequiturs and usually only address the points after you ask them over and over again, if you're lucky.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I have to be honest, this is one thing that drives me up the wall with some of the people who debate here. People like AV, Chesterton, mark, dad, etc... they go off on tangents and non sequiturs and usually only address the points after you ask them over and over again, if you're lucky.

Reminds me of that quote about debating creationists is like playing chess with pigeons...

 

[HAPMinistries]

I asked: What's a way of "truly knowing" something?
The answer you gave me was that method. So, either you're recanting now and telling me that there is more than one method of "truly knowing" something or you're telling me that you don't "truly know" that there is a god and it's a mere guess. Which is it?

Yes, you asked what is a way of truly knowing something.

Do you believe there is only 'one' way of knowing something?

I am a huge supporter of the scientific method, I believe it is the best method we have to discover things about our environment. BUT, it is not a perfect method, and, as I explained, Trying to find a God that exists outside of the natural realm with a method that rejects that anything exists outside the natural realm, you are spinning your wheels.

Now, you have made your statement.

Now, what does methods of knowing something have to do with scientists being blamed for the anti-science movement?

 

[HAPMinistries]

I've found that most creationists can't remember more than one of their own points to an argument at any given time, sandwiches. It's pointless to ask the question.

I think this is also where we get "There ain't no contradictions int he bible!". If you make the book big enough, there's no way they can remember all of it at once. lol

Is this the part I fall apart again?

First, you are questioning Creationism on a thread about the anti-science movement.
Second, you are fallacious in your logic.
Three, you make a statement about Inerrancy.

As I said before, debating an atheist is like playing chess with a pidgen, they knock the pieces over, crap on the board, and then fly away claiming victory.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Yes, you asked what is a way of truly knowing something.

Do you believe there is only 'one' way of knowing something?

I am a huge supporter of the scientific method, I believe it is the best method we have to discover things about our environment. BUT, it is not a perfect method, and, as I explained, Trying to find a God that exists outside of the natural realm with a method that rejects that anything exists outside the natural realm, you are spinning your wheels.

Now, you have made your statement.

Now, what does methods of knowing something have to do with scientists being blamed for the anti-science movement?

If you were truly a 'huge supporter' of the scientific method, then you would know that science says nothing about god(s). As you stated, supposed supernatural beings are beyond observation and metrics. Science has never claimed to be able to disprove or prove god. What science does do, however, is fill in the gaps. And as time moves on, supernatural explanations and superstitions are jettisoned.

What does tend to make a great case against a supernatural being, is a case supported with reason.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Is this the part I fall apart again?

First, you are questioning Creationism on a thread about the anti-science movement.
Second, you are fallacious in your logic.
Three, you make a statement about Inerrancy.

As I said before, debating an atheist is like playing chess with a pidgen, they knock the pieces over, crap on the board, and then fly away claiming victory.

Get it right skippy.

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

 

[HAPMinistries]

I have to be honest, this is one thing that drives me up the wall with some of the people who debate here. People like AV, Chesterton, mark, dad, etc... they go off on tangents and non sequiturs and usually only address the points after you ask them over and over again, if you're lucky.

If you understood that when a Creationist presents a point, and is faced with a question about their belief, but Atheists never present what it is they hold to be true. None of you bring up Abiogenesis, even though THAT is the science that relates to Creationism.

Then you get asked a question, and asked a question, and then asked a question. BUT when you ask an atheist a question, you get insulted, aka ad hominem, and the many fallacies to 'keep' from answering questions.

THAT is what made me lose respect for atheism, because 90% of you do not know anything other than insult and ask questions without ever answering any. I remember giving complete doctrines, all the time I spent, and then when I ask a question, they are never answered, I am only insulted. THAT pattern has remained here.

The TRUTH is Creationists try to answer questions about the unknowable, trying to give you insight, and return for their effort and work, they get belittled, insulted, manipulated with fallacies, and in the end, lied to.

When the truth is, and has always been, you don't know.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Get it right skippy.

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

And why do you say that?

 

[HAPMinistries]

If you were truly a 'huge supporter' of the scientific method, then you would know that science says nothing about god(s).

Do you even read my posts?

 

[HAPMinistries]

Indeed -- but does that make mythology the solution?

The truth is the best solution.

Sadly, the truth is "We do not know."

Instead of telling the truth, Methodological Naturalism has created another religion.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Do you even read my posts?

Regrettably, yes.

Oh, and if you're going to plagiarize a quote, try and get it right at least.

 

[Delphiki]

Is this the part I fall apart again?

First, you are questioning Creationism on a thread about the anti-science movement.
Second, you are fallacious in your logic.
Three, you make a statement about Inerrancy.

As I said before, debating an atheist is like playing chess with a pidgen, they knock the pieces over, crap on the board, and then fly away claiming victory.

First, I'm not an atheist. I'm an agnostic pantheist. This means that i define God as a sentient universe far beyond what mankind is capable of discovering, thus we can't know that there is a god.

My position is we can't know.

Your position is that you know there's a god, insist you have evidence, and still have failed to produce any.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Regrettably, yes.

Oh, and if you're going to plagiarize a quote, try and get it right at least.

Why are you worried about a quote?