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

[Delphiki]

Yes, "crooks".

Ever heard that term applied to your prophets?

I don't have any prophets. Not everybody worships something. Not all of us are comfortable grovelling to imaginary beings.

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Cabal http://www.christianforums.com/t7512301-12/#post56126185
Perhaps you could stop avoiding the point now and respond either to my evidence posted a while back, or answer Psudopod's question?
From you guys' perspective, that's not my style.

It’s not just a matter of perspective. I’ve asked a simple question and you’ve ignored it every time. I wouldn’t mind so much but the Pluto thing is something you bring up repeatedly.

 

[Cabal]

From you guys' perspective, that's not my style.

Whatever. Stop copping out and answer the question.

 

[Cabal]

Yes, "crooks".

Ever heard that term applied to your prophets?

More applicable to creationist preachers, really.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't have any prophets.

Yes you do.

Do you know the difference between a prophet and a priest?

• a priest speaks to God for the people
• a prophet speaks to the people for God

God can be any god; including mother nature.

Not everybody worships something.

I know, they are buried in graveyards.

Not all of us are comfortable grovelling to imaginary beings.

So they grovel to mother nature.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Well to address the posted question, yes, science is to blame for the lack of interest. NOT because science is not interesting, but because of the hard anti-God push that has been found over and over and over to be false, only for another false claim to be put in it's place.

There was Piltdown Man, who stood for 'Empirical Evidence' for the evolution of man for 41 years. Funny how things like this are just 'accepted' by the scientific community. Anyways, other false information was 'solidly' in place before they finally let the cat out of the bag on this one.

Nebraska man
Java man
Orce man
Neanderthal

I mean, you keep pulling the same hoaxes over and over and over, and eventually, you will be tuned out.

Science makes such huge assumptions anymore, and does not want to be questioned. There is a constant 'Time of the Gaps' Fallacy that runs through science. Don't have an answer? Throw time at it.

Science has bought into a Naturalism Religion that is incredibly self defeating, and will eventually collapse upon itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

It’s not just a matter of perspective. I’ve asked a simple question and you’ve ignored it every time.

What's the question? so I can ignore it again.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well to address the posted question, yes, science is to blame for the lack of interest.

Nice to meet you, HAP; welcome to CF!

 

[Cabal]

Well to address the posted question, yes, science is to blame for the lack of interest. NOT because science is not interesting, but because of the hard anti-God push that has been found over and over and over to be false, only for another false claim to be put in it's place.

Accepting science does not necessarily go hand-in-had with rejecting God.

There was Piltdown Man, who stood for 'Empirical Evidence' for the evolution of man for 41 years. Funny how things like this are just 'accepted' by the scientific community.

Funny how things like this are always refuted by the scientific community also, no thanks to creationists.

Anyways, other false information was 'solidly' in place before they finally let the cat out of the bag on this one.

Nebraska man

Which was virtually never accepted to begin with.

Java man

Part of which was actually neither modern human nor ape - the problem lay in the remainder of the fossil.

Orce man

Which is not claimed as definitely human, but is potentially important as it would be the oldest known human fossil in Europe.

Neanderthal

I really hope this has nothing to do with rickets.

I mean, you keep pulling the same hoaxes over and over and over, and eventually, you will be tuned out.

Then creationists should probably learn to stop blowing these finds out of proportion long after the science self-corrected.

Science makes such huge assumptions anymore, and does not want to be questioned.

Not at all - just don't complain when people pound the same tired out objections as ever into the ground for the bajillionth time.

There is a constant 'Time of the Gaps' Fallacy that runs through science. Don't have an answer? Throw time at it.

This might have a hope of sticking if the old age of the earth was found after evolution came along, but it didn't, so this objection is fallacious.

Science has bought into a Naturalism Religion that is incredibly self defeating, and will eventually collapse upon itself.

Yawn, equivocating stuff that isn't religion into a religion? In doing so, all you do is devalue religion.

 

[Cabal]

What's the question? so I can ignore it again.

Of course you must keep ignoring it. You couldn't possibly admit that you have no point at all here, only prejudice...

 

[Psudopod]

AV:

If tomorrow there was a vote to lable Fords as brum brum machines, rather than cars it would not change what we understood about the internal combustion engine. Even if it was a fixed vote that no one agreed with, none of our understanding would change.

Do you agree or disagree with the above statement?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV:

If tomorrow there was a vote to lable Fords as brum brum machines, rather than cars it would not change what we understood about the internal combustion engine. Even if it was a fixed vote that no one agreed with, none of our understanding would change.

Do you agree or disagree with the above statement?

I agree.

 

[Psudopod]

Well to address the posted question, yes, science is to blame for the lack of interest. NOT because science is not interesting, but because of the hard anti-God push that has been found over and over and over to be false, only for another false claim to be put in it's place.

What hard anti-God push is there in science? There are a few scientists, sure. But what research is being done that is anti-God?

There was Piltdown Man, who stood for 'Empirical Evidence' for the evolution of man for 41 years. Funny how things like this are just 'accepted' by the scientific community. Anyways, other false information was 'solidly' in place before they finally let the cat out of the bag on this one.

Thanks to those creationists we now know it was a fake. Oh wait, it wasn’t the creationists at all, it was science correcting its errors.

Nebraska man
Java man
Orce man
Neanderthal

I mean, you keep pulling the same hoaxes over and over and over, and eventually, you will be tuned out.

Which of these are actually hoaxes generated by science?

Science makes such huge assumptions anymore, and does not want to be questioned.

What assumptions does science make that are incorrect?

There is a constant 'Time of the Gaps' Fallacy that runs through science. Don't have an answer? Throw time at it.

Examples of this?

Science has bought into a Naturalism Religion that is incredibly self defeating, and will eventually collapse upon itself.

Science is agnostic and can only address evidence.

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by

Psudopod http://www.christianforums.com/t7512301-14/#post56126469
AV:

If tomorrow there was a vote to lable Fords as brum brum machines, rather than cars it would not change what we understood about the internal combustion engine. Even if it was a fixed vote that no one agreed with, none of our understanding would change.

Do you agree or disagree with the above statement?
I agree.

Thanks! Now, considering your answer to that question, would you agree that changing the definition of planet to exclude Pluto did nothing to change our understanding of the solar system?

 

[sfs]

There was Piltdown Man, who stood for 'Empirical Evidence' for the evolution of man for 41 years.

Well, no, it didn't, actually. Piltdown Man made less and less sense as more legitimate fossils were discovered and was pretty much ignored because it didn't make any sense.

Anyways, other false information was 'solidly' in place before they finally let the cat out of the bag on this one.

Nebraska man

No, that was never even remotely "solidly in place". Where did you get that idea?

Java man

Perfectly valid example of Homo erectus. Where did you get the idea that there was something wrong with it?

Orce man

A tiny bone fragment that's always been pretty much unclassifiable. Who told you that it was accepted as a solid example of anything?

Neanderthal

What's wrong with Neandertals?

I mean, you keep pulling the same hoaxes over and over and over, and eventually, you will be tuned out.

You've cited one hoax and four cases of misinformation promulgated by creationists. That doesn't make for a very compelling case.

Science makes such huge assumptions anymore, and does not want to be questioned.

Science makes the assumption that you can learn about the physical world by studying it; it makes no assumption about God. Scientists are fine with questions, but we don't like being lied about.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks! Now, considering your answer to that question, would you agree that changing the definition of planet to exclude Pluto did nothing to change our understanding of the solar system?

What does this line of questioning have to do with the Pluto vote being rigged?

My main beef anyway is how it was automatically accepted here on CF -- w/o question.

I deal daily with self-professed scientists who automatically dismiss miracles in the Bible; and do it because those miracles are not supported by evidence.

I also deal daily with self-professed scientists who not only automatically dismiss miracles in the Bible, but do it with an air of ridicule and/or intolerance toward those who don't dismiss them.

What gets me is when you guys have no idea what we're talking about, yet we're automatically wrong because evidence doesn't exist -- even when evidence isn't supposed to exist -- (q.v. my Apple Challenge).

It doesn't make sense to me; but then, not to brag, I don't think like a scientist.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

My main beef anyway is how it was automatically accepted here on CF -- w/o question.

That is where I think you're wrong. All I've seen are people saying that they don't care, not that they automatically accept it. Just that whatever the world decides to call Pluto they're cool with because it doesn't matter to them.

Don't confuse indifference with agreement.

You're a nutball. Why do you worry so much about things that don't matter?!?

 

[Delphiki]

"Science is so stubborn and never learns anything, even this case where someone tried to hoax a hominid and science ultimately found it out to be a bunch of baloney."



Don't you just hate how AVET just automatically accepts Fords being called "brum brum machines"? Grrrrr.



Jeez, AVET, you sure suck at picking up on simple analogies.

 

[HAPMinistries]

There is a number of responses to my post, so I will make a general response to all.

For those of you who still support the hoaxes I listed, and they were all extreme cases, lets not start with the Lemur or pin the dinosaur tail on the bird games. You are really blind to the evidence, empirical evidence, and frankly you would learn a LOT by simply Googling the subject.

For those that stated science is 'self-correcting'. Obviously, it is not.

For those that claim that no outside forces corrected these things, there are ministers debunking this garbage every day. It is science that is stopping it's ears and closing it's eyes. A good example of this is the 'No Intelligence Allowed' video. Whether you agree or disagree with ID, it is an obvious bias in science - Which debunks the whole there is not anti-God movement in science. Richard Dawkins trumpets it.

And, in conclusion, I only addressed a small, tiny fraction of the problem, from Abiogenesis teaching that all life comes from a ROCK, to the Time of the Gaps fallacy that magically turns a single cell organism into a dinosaur.

Science would be a LOT more respected if it announced, 'We do not Empirically Know', and provided hypothesis, instead of being bias towards a hypothesis, calling it a 'Theory', and trying to shove it down everyone's throat.

Good day!

 

[Delphiki]

You are really blind to the evidence, empirical evidence

Then PLEASE show us the "real evidence".

(here's where they usually break down)