There is so much wrong in "science"

How do they know what's wrong?

start reading?

actually, the whole of 'science' is deliberately created like a religion.

It has nothing to do with finding truth etc, it has to do with controlling people's minds, from the start.

How do they determine what's wrong? I don't have copy of the book but maybe you'd be able to explain what criterion of truth they use and how they arrive at it.

There is nothing wrong with science........man would say that wouldn’t he....

Isn't man saying there is so much wrong in science?

There is nothing wrong with science but a lot wrong with man’s interpretation of it.Man also remains a spectator of the sciences and refuses to become an active player with it.All sciences are connected/ embroiled together which includes psychology.

Then the OP should have named the thread, "There is so much wrong with people".

Even so...if Palandre hadn’t posted it we wouldn’t be commenting on it.Thank you Palandre.

Science isn't interpreted. It is tested

Unlike religion, science must be tested by experiment. Any belief that is contradicted by experiment must be abandoned.

Whether science is "true" or "correct" is irrelevant. Science is simply what can be tested through observation or experiment. Anything beyond that (i.e. interpretation) is something other than science.

If you say science is "wrong", I have no way to answer that question. You have to define what wrong means, and then devise an experimental test. Likewise I can't say that science is "true". There are many different definitions of truth, and unless there is an experimental test science has nothing to say on the topic.

I will suggest that science is useful. The internet you are using was developed based on science as is your car, airplanes and pretty much everything else you can suggest.

Science has also been used to land robots on Mars and has literally doubled the life expectancy of human beings. That is not too shabby.

Then at very least, we must abandon the theory of abiogenesis. It is an assumption based on circular reasoning. And yet it is accepted as fact by 'Scientists'.

Science does not lie, but scientists often do.

I don't believe that abiogenesis has been contradicted by experiment. I also don't think any model of abiogenesis is considered to be settled science.

Tell that to farmerman.

Abiogenesis has not been experimentally confirmed. That is what science requires.
You cannot prove a negative.

I don't pay that much attention to your beef with Farmerman, nor do I have any expertise in evolutionary biology. I think your argument with Farmerman is silly.

Abiogensis is simply the formation of life from non-life. Are you arguing that this didn't happen? (because there is certainly evidence that it did including the fact that I am typing this).

If you are arguing that there was a deity involved, I don't think that is a scientific question. Deities (particularly sentient deities) don't have to follow scientific laws, or what's the point of being a deity.

Thank you for demonstrating what I said in my initial post. I’ll copy it here for your convenience:


Leadfoot

I don't see what I am "demonstrating" nor do I see any circular reasoning.

Science can't answer every question. It can provide very good answers to questions that can be tested by observation or experiment.

The fact that I am alive is evidence that life developed on Earth. There is nothing circular about that.

It is so much easier for some people to tell themselves God created the universe in 7 days than to believe that the universe evolved naturally over 14 billion years.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Math is a great big lie.