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

[knowledgeIsPower]

Did you know you can only have a correct guess if you have a conclusion?

aka
I believe pushing with 2 fingers will make that huge oak fall down. [guess]
*Pushes tree with 2 fingers [experimentation]
Tree does not fall down. [conclusion]
End conclusion, this is an 'incorrect guess'.

Actually your guess is correct or incorrect without needing a conclusion because the truth exists regardless of you being able to draw a conclusion. You just won't know whether or not it is correct.

I believe pushing with 2 fingers will make that huge oak fall down. [guess]

Regardless of whether or not you actually check by pushing on that oak tree you're still wrong.

 

[Nostromo]

Are you aware that people believe in different Gods, and lumping them all together is fallacious?

Not if we're trying to ascertain the existence of any god or gods.

When you say "hey all those other guys were guessing, but obviously my god is real", that's just special pleading, and it's a fallacy.

 

[sandwiches]

Are you aware that people believe in different Gods, and lumping them all together is fallacious?

Enough squirming and tell us how we use your own method to determine whether the claim that a god exists is true?

Here's your method:

• Ask a Question
• Do Background Research
• Construct a Hypothesis
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
• Communicate Your Results

You said anything other than this is a guess or, at best, an educated guess.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Regardless of whether or not you actually check by pushing on that oak tree you're still wrong.

Not if someone had cut it to the teetering point.
Again, you use bad logic.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Not if we're trying to ascertain the existence of any god or gods.

When you say "hey all those other guys were guessing, but obviously my god is real", that's just special pleading, and it's a fallacy.

Wrong, it is a straw man for you to falsify an apple by disproving an orange.

 

[Delphiki]

What experiment did you perform that showed evidence that the god you believe in actually exists?

 

[HAPMinistries]

Enough squirming and tell us how we use your own method to determine whether the claim that a god exists is true?

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.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Now, explain to me, why do you believe all life coming from a ROCK is a rational belief?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Now, explain to me, why do you believe all life coming from a ROCK is a rational belief?

Because there's more to support it than Magic Man making us from DUST.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Because there's more to support it than Magic Man making us from DUST.

So a magic man, dumb.
But a magic ROCK, intelligent?

 

[Nathan Poe]

So a magic man, dumb.
But a magic ROCK, intelligent?

Nothing magic about it. Just working with the rules we've observed to be true -- as opposed to concocting a mythical figure who breaks them at your demand.

 

[Delphiki]

Nothing magic about it. Just working with the rules we've observed to be true -- as opposed to concocting a mythical figure who breaks them at your demand.

Also nothing "rock" about it. Of course, HAP still doesn't understand what a straw man argument actually is, which is why he uses them.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Nothing magic about it. Just working with the rules we've observed to be true -- as opposed to concocting a mythical figure who breaks them at your demand.

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

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

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'.

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

The Myth of Abiogenesis

 

[HAPMinistries]

Also nothing "rock" about it. Of course, HAP still doesn't understand what a straw man argument actually is, which is why he uses them.

Of course, 'magic man' is totally viable...

 

[Delphiki]

The Miller-Urey experiment resulted in amino acids. It didn't disprove anything, but did prove that conditions of an early earth could form such monomers, which fits a small part of an abiogenesis model. This is still far more evidence for life arising from non-life by natural means than there is for divine creation.

There are stages of abiogenesis which are shown to be plausible. It's just that so far, there are a few missing steps and disagreement about the order and conditions that took place. This is why tehre is more than one abiogenesis model.

Looking back toward divine creation, however, you have nothing. Well, you have the bible. But what kind of experiments or tests can confirm the bible? Anything?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Of course, 'magic man' is totally viable...

Any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic. - Clarke

 

[Nostromo]

Wrong, it is a straw man for you to falsify an apple by disproving an orange.

How on Earth would I even start trying to disprove anything when you haven't even got a test that we can perform? Like you said, finding God is all just guessing.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

How on Earth would I even start trying to disprove anything when you haven't even got a test that we can perform? Like you said, finding God is all just guessing.

Actually, I think he said that all you can do is have faith there is a god, but you can't test for one.

 

[HAPMinistries]

The Miller-Urey experiment resulted in amino acids. It didn't disprove anything, but did prove that conditions of an early earth could form such monomers, which fits a small part of an abiogenesis model. This is still far more evidence for life arising from non-life by natural means than there is for divine creation.

There are stages of abiogenesis which are shown to be plausible. It's just that so far, there are a few missing steps and disagreement about the order and conditions that took place. This is why tehre is more than one abiogenesis model.

Looking back toward divine creation, however, you have nothing. Well, you have the bible. But what kind of experiments or tests can confirm the bible? Anything?

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?

 

[HAPMinistries]

Actually, I think he said that all you can do is have faith there is a god, but you can't test for one.

Why do you say that?