jump to last post 1-30 of 30 discussions (160 posts)

Why is Science so widely accepted?

  1. fit2day profile image84
    fit2dayposted 6 years ago

    There are many religious beliefs out there, but for some reason they seem to all be filtered through science. People will argue that there is no God or that there's no proof that the bible is true, but no one has managed to prove how old the earth actually is. Why is it easier to believe in people developing over billions of years from space dust(where did it come from?) than it is to believe in miracles?

    1. simeonvisser profile image88
      simeonvisserposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Because science does a better job than faith, that's why.

    2. getitrite profile image79
      getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



      http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz186/willisnowell/Gifs/question_marks_bubbling_md_clr.gif

    3. Beelzedad profile image59
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What is a miracle? It's basically an act of 'magic' - something that clearly defies the physical laws of nature and couldn't possibly occur under any circumstances.

      When carefully analyzed and measured, even that which may appear to be a miracle may have a reasonable explanation that is supported with evidence.

      And, that is exactly what the concept of our development over billions of years exhibits; a miracle. Yet, when scientific method is applied, we find that all the evidence aligns and agrees with a number of scientific theories, all supported by the physical laws of nature showing how this development took place and where those characteristics and properties originated.

      What separates a belief in a miracle to the understanding of nature is simply an education, taking the time to form that understanding. smile

    4. ediggity profile image60
      ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Because science has facts, and religion has faith.

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Are we really going to argue the same points --again.
        Science has information they claim are "facts".
        But in actual science there are no such things as facts, only accepted probabilities, and of those probabilities determined methods used in gathering further information.

        Show me the true differences between the "facts" of religion/sensation and the facts of religion/science.

        What non human designed or explained information is provided to prove these "facts" on either side.

        ps, Happy New Year Ediggity

        James.

        1. spookyfox profile image79
          spookyfoxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "Show me the true differences between the "facts" of religion/sensation and the facts of religion/science."

          The difference is not in the facts or claims themselves, it is in the way we've arrived at those observations.

        2. ediggity profile image60
          ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I wasn't trying to "argue" anything.  I was just answering his question.

          I will change my answer for you:

          Because science has, "accepted probabilities, and of those probabilities determined methods used in gathering further information." and religion has faith.smile

          The difference between facts of the two is faith, which is the basis of religion not science.

          Happy New Year to you too.smile

        3. Claire Evans profile image91
          Claire Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Science relies on a faith.  Evolution is one such example.  There is no way to prove a causal link between modern man and supposed common ancestors.  Evolution may even be the result of some alien experiment.  Can one prove otherwise?

          1. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            LOLOL
            So god dunnit then?
            Dear me you religionists are getting so desperate. What difference does it make to you if science does not support your ridiculous beliefs?

            Why cause a fight about it? Is that wot Jeebus wants? wink

            1. Claire Evans profile image91
              Claire Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Mark, why do you assume I'm religious? I don't believe in Genesis, either.  What I stated is a fact: there are many aspects of the theory of evolution that are based on mere faith.   

              I also couldn't give a hoot if science doesn't support my beliefs.  And nobody is fighting here.  It's called a debate.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I did not "assume" you are religious. I made a valued judgment. Although - now I adapt that judgment based on the fact that I now surmise you are going to claim not to be religious, but instead have a personal relationship with Jesus christ. lol

                Specifically what aspects of evolutionary biology are based on mere faith?

                1. 0
                  Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  lol
                  Is that a rhetorical question? lol Dear me!

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                    Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    No James - it was not. I feel certain you can find a religious website to cut and paste something from.

                    Seeing as you are a big fan of using science to make your arguments against it. Like any good religionist, "do as I say, not as I do," is obviously one of your mantras.

                    Tell you what - you line up your evidence for the flood, I will lien mine up for evolution and we can compare notes. lol

                2. Claire Evans profile image91
                  Claire Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  You judgement was wrong but your adapted one is right. 

                  Well, where's our common ancestor? Isn't it mere faith that humans have one? From lemurs and other monkeys and that? Where's the proof? As I said, human beings could be the result of genetic alien experiments.  Can you prove otherwise? Science cannot disprove that hypothesis? It cannot come up with causal link between a common ancestor and modern man.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                    Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes it can. The fact that you are not aware of the proof does not change the fact that it exists. Nature is by definition nonanticipative, and this includes human beings - no matter how special you think you are. Whether humans are the result of genetic experiments by aliens or not - this does not dismiss the DNA and other evidence that we share common ancestors with the great apes and are in fact just talking primates.

                    So - we agree we are primates and some when in the past, we split from the lemurs, monkeys, chimpanzees etc - we have proof of this. These are the facts of evolution and we have a lot of them, plus numerous other disciplines that back this up.

                    But - these are boring facts. Now - if evidence should be uncovered that this evolution was caused by a genetic experiment by aliens - then I have no problem with that.

                    So far, this evolution seems to have been a result of natural  adaptation to environmental and mutational changes - and our development is in line with all other species we see evolving at the same time.

                    Do you have some evidence that our evolution was caused by alien genetic experiments? Because unless you do - - this is not a hypothesis. Perhaps a decent dictionary might help?

          2. 0
            Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I agree, Claire, science is equally a faith based practice of humanism. They are the ones who inspired the concepts of the gods in the first place and called on their feminine side --sensationalism-- to put it into practice. and although today there is a massive hormonal issue between them, the masculine side has overshadowed his wife and is now trying to snuff the life out of her while at the same time trying to use her to propagate his modern exploits.
            If there is another life form in this universe, it validates that Creator is and the gods of man (no matter forehead post-it) a design of their own making.

            1. Claire Evans profile image91
              Claire Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The interesting thing is that Freemasons founded official science.  It was called "The Royal Society" and the occult was one of the studies, that is alchemy.

              Now it was actually Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles, who formulated the theory of evolution.  He happened to be a lunar worshipper, or Satanist, and Freemason.  Freemasons happen to believe extraterrestrials performed genetic experiments on people with the result of what we are today.  It was not a natural evolutionary process.

              1. 0
                Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I was unaware that the Masons established the official modern science --although I should have noted the names and yes! alchemy-- as well as, the practices of the Luciferianism.

                The note about extra terrestrials in also interesting.

                1. Claire Evans profile image91
                  Claire Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  The theory of evolution is actually a gnostic concept, i.e, the quest of man trying to become God.  Freemasons believe that man will eventually evolve into a supreme being from a primitive state. 

                  Consider how many occultists have embraced the theory of evolution like Hitler.  He believed in order to advance evolution, the weak had to be weeded out, hence all the exterminations.

                  1. pisean282311 profile image57
                    pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    @claire evolution is for all to see...yes god is concept...man's desire of universal ideal...concept which cannot be proven nor can be disproven...evolution still happens and so can be understood easily...religion is based on faith and would keep on evolving itself too...we can trace evolution of religion too...from many gods to few gods to one god...now we dont have consensus on one god though..but we do have one god concept...

              2. thisisoli profile image64
                thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You might want to check some historical fact first...

                1. Claire Evans profile image91
                  Claire Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Thisisoli, you need to elaborate.  What facts are exactly in dispute?

              3. 0
                Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                seems that christianity and other religions originated from pagan mythologies like sun worship - so not a whole lot of difference there

                1. Claire Evans profile image91
                  Claire Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Paganism was incoporated into Christianity three hundred years after Jesus with the advent of the Catholic Church.  It was not based on paganism.

                  1. Jerami profile image77
                    Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    This should be considered to be true by anyone's standards.

                       I think that everyone should examine that portion that does derive from paganism and disregard that portion.
                       Doing so would break down Religion to its basic form, making most things much easier to understand.
                      Separating truth from the false.

                       Doing so is much more difficult of a thing than most people care to engage.

          3. Beelzedad profile image59
            Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Ah sorry, I was mistaken, perhaps you need to take the time to understand the scientific method and a few other scientific basics before tackling evolution. Good luck! smile

            1. Claire Evans profile image91
              Claire Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Please explain to me how the mudworm eventually evolved into people and what is the common ancestor of all life.

              1. Beelzedad profile image59
                Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                LOL! Have you read, "The Origin of Species?"

                And, say for the sake of argument that if I could not explain this to you, because of the enormous amount of time and resources on my part to teach you the basics of the scientific method and biology, then moving on to teaching you how evolution works so that you can gain an understanding of our common ancestors and how we evolved from them, would that mean that you would immediately consent to your god as having created everything? smile

                1. Claire Evans profile image91
                  Claire Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  In other words, you don't know.  You could at least tell me what the common ancestor of all life is! I mean, the book you refer to me to is called, "The Origin of Species". 

                  Wasn't Darwin a tad bit embarrassed because he claimed the earth's crust would contain millions of transitional fossils when in fact it hadn't?

                  1. Beelzedad profile image59
                    Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    The book describes the process by which all species originate, it does not indicate what the common ancestor of all life, whatever that is.



                    I suppose it didn't occur to you that only a very tiny fraction of the earths crust has been searched? smile

    5. Stevennix2001 profile image83
      Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Because science is easier to explain than religion is.  Plus, as you said with so many different religions throughout our history, it's impossible to pick the definitive right one. 

      I for one, never saw science as a contradiction to a creator, as even famous scientist, Stephen Hawkins, said his "big bang theory" was not definitive proof to say that there isn't a god.

    6. thisisoli profile image64
      thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Because science explores how things work, religion just says 'god did it'?

    7. Woman Of Courage profile image60
      Woman Of Courageposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Some people accept science believing that it contradicts the creator of all things in the universe.

      1. getitrite profile image79
        getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



        If there is a REAL creator, then science cannot and will not contradict it--but the imposter creator of the bible is absurd, and can only contradict science, because it's based on magic and is outright false.

    8. HerbalMarvel profile image60
      HerbalMarvelposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I find it easier to believe in science than a faith because science is able to be proven wrong - and when it is wrong it changes so it is right.  With faith (I am taking the Christian tack on this) it is not the faith that is wrong it is our understanding of it.

      I find it easier to believe something that constantly feels the need to prove itself than one which when it seems too far fetched even for believers it changes from literal to metaphorical.

      (hope no one was too offended by that, just my view on things)

    9. pennyofheaven profile image81
      pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Since God is in all things why isn't it easier to accept both.

    10. Stump Parrish profile image60
      Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Scientists seem to do a little more to prove their case than simply reading a 2000 year old novel. Faith in science hmmm, I wonder which sunday school classes scientists attended and if there was a sweet little grandmother teaching them about everything about the workings of our planet and every creature on it, past and present.

      1. HerbalMarvel profile image60
        HerbalMarvelposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That's not fair imo.  whilst there are indeed plenty of well meaning clueless idiots that do believe in religion equally there are plenty of well meaning clueless idiots who believe in science above religion.

        There is no point in comparing the well meaning granny who helps at Sunday School to someone with real scientific insight.  I find debates between people who really know what they are talking about on both sides fascinating.  Many top religious experts are very intelligent people worth listening to - because you need both sides of the argument imo.

        Whilst I am science first I am slightly in the pro 'superior being' camp, which also makes me quasi-religious I suppose.  I heard a quote recently (think it might have been on the Big Bang Theory which shows how 'serious' it was wink ) "I am not against the idea of a creator per se, just I find the idea of one that takes attendance ludicrous".

        Pretty much my position on the matter

        1. Stump Parrish profile image60
          Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps that wasn't fair but it sure is realistic. A scientist spends years studying and learning to become a scientist. What does it take to be a religious leader? Simply stand up and claim to be one. Most religious people I know have no interest in learning about that which they preach. Most get their knowledge second hand from others who did the same. When someone does take the time to study religion and attempts to pass this knowledge on, they are labelled as blasphemers by those who didn't finish high school. Religion is the only subject that an absolute moron can be considered an expert.  I have watched it time and time again here in the bible belt. Someone with an 8th grade education will stand up and argue about scientific discoveries with a scientist. I asked a friend of mine what he was using to support his claim that the earth is only 6000 years old. His reply, I believe in god and thats all the proof I need.  Gotta admire the brilliance on exhibit here dont you? The problem with this is that anyone with this level of common sense will believe anything they are told by those who they believe knows best. For example, how many christian conservatives believe Sarah Palin is what this country needs? Enough to keep dragging this country closer and closer to it's demise. The fact that most atheists know more about the religion than those who buy into the crap shows just how interested in the truth the religious are. Tell them anything and use the word god, and they believe it and proud of their level of ignorance. Sorry if this came off a little rude, I've just about had my fill of ignorance today and I am not saying that your statement was included in that bombardment.

    11. Dian'swords4u profile image60
      Dian'swords4uposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      God gives each of us a mind to think with and to use.  I know that he has given us the understanding to understand some things in life, but if we are truly a believer we know that we will not be able to understand all things until he shows us in his time schedule.  I believe he gave us the knowledge to invent and come up with cures for diseases, and this we should be thankful for, but that does not mean that we will ever know everything there is to know until it is time.  That time is on God's schedule.  He is the creator of this universe and he is the only one that knows all there is to know about it and we have to live by faith and faith alone.  That does not mean that  he expects us to bury our heads in the sand and search not more.

      1. Beelzedad profile image59
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        According to your own words, your god created those diseases, and it is science that is trying to find the cures for them.

        Evil scientists going against gods creations. smile

      2. 0
        just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You're right. Science and religion are not at odds. I believe if we're left here long enough science will have to admit that there is some intelligent force that created the universe we live in. Will they refer to that force as God? Highly unlikely, but we will know what to call Him. God gave us curiosity. What better way to use it than learning about His creation and trying to make the world a better place.

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Attention religious folk?

          Is the denseness of thought too much?

          I mean seriously folks. The word 'god' is a metaphor. Get it?

          It is not substance in any manner. The word means something else, other than a creator. You people claim to read your bible and fail to realize there is no god. So much for living the life Jesus wanted you to live.

          Jesus debunked the GOD concept in his teachings about the OT. It's not a physical or even metaphysical entity. You people cannot even tell what's real in your damn book, compared to what is not.

          He specifically told ALL his followers to not follow in religion. Religion is the GOD concept.

          Talk about sad.

        2. Beelzedad profile image59
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          LOL!  Yes, and cold dark caves are comfortable.



          Interesting belief, but clearly no such ridiculous admissions will likely be forthcoming as it shows that the more science understands, the more unlikely your claim will come to fruition.



          Yes, it has been a common occurrence for believers to redefine the world around them to suit their personal belief systems, that hasn't changed and unlikely will.
            smile

          1. melpor profile image89
            melporposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I agree with Beelzedad, we will be still living in caves if it was not for our understanding of science. You will not be able to prepare meals in a few minutes with a microwave oven, you will be still getting from point "a" to "b" riding a horse, you will not be able to fly from your home to some exotic island to enjoy a well deserved vacation. All these things and more are possible because we have a better understanding of nature through science. Science is not a belief and I do not know how that got into the picture. Religion is a belief. You do not have to accept science, the products of it is already all around you.

        3. Woman Of Courage profile image60
          Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          just_curious, I agree with you.

    12. melpor profile image89
      melporposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Fit2day, It is easier to accept facts when they are proven. We are the products of star dust because it has been proven that all the elements in the periodic table had their beginnings in the stars. Therefore, every atom in the universe and including the earth came from stars through the process of thermonuclear fusion starting with the simplest element Hydrogen. The problem I am seeing from reading some of these comments is that a lot of people do not know their science or they getting the information or facts completely wrong.

  2. kess profile image60
    kessposted 6 years ago

    It is not of  which is easier to believe.

    It is what a person can identified himself as.

    And because he is ignorant of himself, he therefore chooses from what is available and widely accepted.

    So we see people apply belief to an identity which they have chosen.

    Their belief become the truth to those with the same identity, and is justifiable because of their numbers.

    Meaning that because we are many , this is an acceptable Truth.

    real though is unlike this cause the one with Truth is willing to stand alone for that Truth.

    1. simeonvisser profile image88
      simeonvisserposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      This description would exactly fit religious people who grow into a belief system from birth...

  3. Sue Adams profile image93
    Sue Adamsposted 6 years ago

    Because science is what tries to make sense of the world. I don't believe in Truth with a capital T. But then I shouldn't be on the religion forum. Help! get me out of here smile

    1. andycool profile image70
      andycoolposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Science is based on facts... not on myths. Science trys to extract facts from beliefs. Science invents technology to live a good (and/or bad) quality life... so the role of science is visible unlike the role of religion. That's why science is so widely accepted. smile HNY

      1. 70
        paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Nothing bad about it; but science is valid in physical realm only; eithical, moral and spiritual realms are beyond its domain; and life is a whole not just one realm.

  4. wilderness profile image97
    wildernessposted 6 years ago

    Science is the study of the world around us.  Man is a curious animal and desires to understand the why's and how's of what he sees around him.  Science attempts to find these answers, often with some success.

    On the other hand, religion states simply "God did it with magic" which offers no explanation and no indication as to what will happen in the future.  It is quite unsatisfactory as a description of what we see and completely inadequate as far as the possibility of new discoveries.  We will never find, for instance, a new improved teflon coating by simply accepting that it is due to magic instead of trying to find details.

    Science attempts to describe the world; religion provides a complete total explanation of everything, but one that is worthless for understanding anything.

    1. 70
      paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Science does not mention purpose of life; such an important dimension. Does it?

      1. Mark Knowles profile image61
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes - science does mention the purpose of life. And has actually proven there is a purpose, and what that purpose is.

        Important? Only on a subjective level to human animals. Us talking monkeys do like to think we are more important than we actually are.

        1. kirstenblog profile image78
          kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Mark, are you talking about the purpose of replicating DNA (ie passing it on to the next generation) or are you referring to something else that I am currently unaware of? If so please do share what you know big_smile

          I would be very interested in a scientific purpose for talking monkeys like you and me big_smile wink lol

          1. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Nope, that is the one. Sorry. wink

            1. kirstenblog profile image78
              kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Awww Shucks! and I was hoping our purpose is to get off this mud ball we call earth and spread our particular brand of life across the universe or something equally important, as backed up by scientific study of course wink

              1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                That is the next logical progression, for sure. In fact - there is a good argument that we have no choice but to do this. We already have the technology to break orbit. All we need now is an FTL drive and we are good to go. big_smile

                1. kirstenblog profile image78
                  kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  That would actually be really really cool! I do wonder if we would start to evolve into different species types as we settled on other worlds that have slightly different gravity, length of day, maybe more oxygen rich atmosphere etc. I know that by being in a no gravity situation has a major impact on our bone structure (hence having to take care to get lots of exercise).

    2. 70
      paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Quran does not mention any magic that Allah- the Creator God does.

  5. 0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    Science is the "logical" approach to the same fundamental elements of the human condition. Again, the approach is slightly different.
    Sensation (often called religion) is simply the feminine approach. Equation (often called science/logic) is the other.

    It is often forgotten or ignored by both sides, that the two sides were once united and have caused each other to maintain their existence --collectively or individually.

    Science once believed the earth was the center of the universe and flat until they found out it wasn't. Religion once believed there were many gods until they found out there wasn't.

    Science never clarifies their explanations with absolutes, because they themselves admit, there are no absolutes based on the process they use to discover the things of this world.

    I have said before it is by HUMAN methods that science measures time, dates, age, etc. There is no way to prove these calculations are true as there is no one or thing apart from humans to agree to it or show an alternate method. Hydrogen is not actually hydrogen but an element of the universe MAN named as so. Same as man named a supposed entity a god -Zeus.

    Doing anything "religious" using sensation or equation results in the same questions or end result. Both are simply illuminated agents of apathy within the humanism, man designed himself.

    Like any couple, sensation and equation have issues. They easily dismiss each other yet need/desire each other to cause, to effect, to purpose. The ironic duality of the human mind --by senses or common sense. It is the limitation, loss of appreciation for the universe and immediate planet humanity is on. Else, humanity would not be doing what he is doing to the planet --consciously-- on both sides of the fence. Humanity would be listening to Creator and learning things he has never even conceived probable.

    James.

  6. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    There is no need to 'believe' in science.  It is what it is, every aspect laid bare and explained--available to any observer.  You either consider evidence and rationality important, or you don't.

    1. 0
      just_curiousposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, that isn't entirely true anymore. Theoretical science is huge now. There is a lot in science that is taken for a truth, until it is proven wrong. And when it is, there's no harm no foul.  So in many says, belief in science can be seen as a religion of its own. Which makes hard core atheists closely related to fundamental Christians. Not in belief, but mind set.

      1. melpor profile image89
        melporposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Science is not a religion. It is not a belief. Yes, some of it starts as a theory but theories are ultimately proven by supported facts. Evolution is a good example of what I am talking about. Evolution is no longer a theory. It is happening all the time and there are hundreds of facts to support it. The fact that you are alive is proof of evolution. People simply accept science because it explains a lot of phenomena in the world and facts of science is what drives our civilization forward and without it we will be still in the dark ages.

        1. 70
          paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  7. spookyfox profile image79
    spookyfoxposted 6 years ago

    Because it works.

    1. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      spoken like a true follower of your religion (in this case, science)

      big_smile

      1. spookyfox profile image79
        spookyfoxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You don't need to follow anything to realize that you're posting here thanks to science.

        "Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings."

      2. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Also, because it does work. We didn't discover vaccination, x-rays, space flight etc by accident or divine inspiration. Science does what it aims to do, no more and no less.  It works just as well for atheists and religious people. In fact, most scientist are deists.

        1. 0
          Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          And how is that different from the sensationalism?
          Science was once the greatest religion on earth.
          It is from such experimentation that gold was found, forged, purified, molded, crafted, engineered to build the temple to Ra, to Zeus. Sensationalism is not a belief in chance, but rather a belief based on a set of determinations they also designed, so I don't see the value of your claim there. Fate or chance is simply the apex on the roof that connects the common to the senses.

          And, again, I will note anything done consecutively, by a set of rules or practices is defined a religion or religious. By all accounts, the scientific method is more religious than the theologies of sensationalism. It is highly organized and lacks the "woo-hoo" effect in many respects.

          Lastly, I agree, humans have not discovered anything. Everything humans do they designed on purpose --vaccines, x-rays, space flight, atomic energy, etc. Same as they designed and fashioned the pyramids, made sugar reeds into fire sticks and neon glow in the dark Play Dough (tm) to entertain themselves and satisfy their continued humanism.

          Today, science again has become the sacred religion, to the point where: without this religion, the basic human necessities of food, water & clean air, cannot be allowed/given. In short, the New Egypt, New Babylon --with its many beautiful "discoveries" -- has enslaved more than a few million Hebrews & Africans, they have enslaved the entire world. Those who refuse to conform to this "Quality of Life" theology, must/will die by choice or by force.

          James

      3. spookyfox profile image79
        spookyfoxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And don't start with the nonsense. Science is a method, religion is a set of beliefs. Get a dictionary. You don't need to suscribe to something previously established by an invisible authority in order to discover something. You don't have to believe anything any scientist has ever said or done before. Just try it for yourself and see if it works.

  8. jzepess profile image61
    jzepessposted 6 years ago

    Science has one huge advantage over the supernatural (miracles, God, etc).  It is falsifiable.
    What does this mean?  It means that if science determines something to be 'true', sometimes it's a proven fact (like gravity) and sometimes its a hypothesis based on proven facts (like evolution). 
    Here's what's cool.  Whether fact or hypothesis, it is possible that new evidence will come along and prove science wrong.  This has happened many times in history.  So science is in effect self-correcting.
    How can you prove a miracle did not happen?  You cannot because miraculous claims require no evidence or testing.  If you can't test it, you can't prove it wrong.  Its just a person's word (or delusion) and there's not much you can do to counter it.  If science made such a claim sans evidence, it would be shot down, killed, cooked, and eaten very quickly.

    1. spookyfox profile image79
      spookyfoxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "What does this mean?  It means that if science determines something to be 'true'"

      Science does not determine, Nature does. We observe it, analyze it, and translate it to the language of reason with as much accuracy and integrity as possible.

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        by human standards, for human purposes and satisfaction. Not unlike sensationalism at all, in fact, quite the contrary. They are identical in nature. Sensation says "gods" determine. They merely observe, analyze and translate it into a language of reason/purpose with as much accuracy and integrity as possible...by human standards, for human purposes and satisfaction.

        Sensation discovered gods in the stars.
        Science discovered stars in the gods.

        There is no difference.

        1. spookyfox profile image79
          spookyfoxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Except religion is (according to followers) not intended for human purposes. It is for the grace and satisfaction of the lord. Science involves no moral duties, no punishments or rewards (other than the activity itself), no fake promises. Religion, quite obviously does.

          Religions don't translate to the language of reason at all, as the followers themselves will admit. And science does not describe a purpose. You're putting the two together in a sort of poetic parallel but you're only looking at the surface of both and ignoring the rest.

          "Sensation discovered gods in the stars.
          Science discovered stars in the gods."

          The stars were already discovered, science merely observed them objectively and saw that they were no gods, nor they moved in perfect geometrical harmony around the Earth. Religion threatened the man who did that, and put him under house arrest.

          1. 0
            Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            1. Religion/Sensationalism according to its followers DID in fact design that theology --its principles, rules, practices, determinations FOR ITSELF and not the entity(s) worshiped. Which is the spoof of all time.

            Sensationalism uses the same HUMAN brain, logic processes and senses to come to their determinations as their counterpart, equation/science. The only difference is the approach --or as you said the activity itself-- also known as a ritual practice.

            So, them building a temple to Ra to make themselves feel or accept things, is no different than equation building a quantified Time Machine. They are from the same source, for the same purpose --to satisfy the humanism and constant lack in that condition, the Need To Know.

            2. http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/63701?p … ost1402083

            3. Prove to me, sensationalism did not COME FROM or was not thoroughly enabled by the practices of science...

            1. spookyfox profile image79
              spookyfoxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "1. Religion/Sensationalism according to its followers DID in fact design that theology --its principles, rules, practices, determinations FOR ITSELF and not the entity(s) worshiped. Which is the spoof of all time."

              I guess that's not for you or me to say, but the followers themselves. It obviously is for human satisfaction, but on the surface, most "true" believers I've known will claim everything is for god. Aren't most religions a set of rules to obbey and please 'Him'?

              "Sensationalism uses the same HUMAN brain[...]"

              So far, so good.

              "[...]logic processes and senses to come to their determinations as their counterpart, equation/science.The only difference is the approach --or as you said the activity itself-- also known as a ritual practice. "

              Not true. The logic process IS the approach. Science is based on trial and error. Religion is based on tradition, authority, and revelation. Do you seriously not know the difference between a ritual and an experiment?. Here's a very very clear example of the difference of both, their processes and their results, in only one individual: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDC472IiOe0



              I think the above video shows a clear example of how the two can be incompatible. Not to mention you're asking me to prove a negative. It doesn't really matter where did they come from. One has results, the other has promises.

              1. 0
                Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The simple reality is: the entire point of both is to find out where they came from and why they came from, yes?

                But Beyond that:
                .

                -I find that very difficult to consider rational. As stated eariler the methods of both equation and sensation derived from the same place --the human brain. Second, can you honestly tell me sensationalism hasn't been using trial and error for the last x-thousand years?? Science may be using strictly logical impulse while sensation using emotional impulse, but they identical in form, in source and --sadly, in outcome.
                Science and sensation both have equally huge gaps. But still, you have not shown me a substantial difference between them.
                Or better --and more to the point-- science IS the human religion above all others. They in fact (if that term applies) did form the metals and objects used by their wife (sensationalism) to build ALL the god concepts and in modern times to supercede those concepts by becoming a god itself, in essence, cutting out the middle man (sensation). But science knows it needs sensationalism to propagate and sustain itself, else no one would give two sticks about it and no one would donate billions of hours and dollars to those organized religions, err, foundations of science.



                Yes, an experiment is a practice done methodically/sometimes mechanically, by a strict set of rules to explain or define the validity of information by various methods of testing.

                In fact the steps of an experiment can make a standard ritual seem like a walk in the park.

                Not different at all to a ritual, which is a practice done methodically/sometimes mechanically, by a strict set of rules to explain or define the validity of information by various methods of testing.

                1. spookyfox profile image79
                  spookyfoxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  "The simple reality is: the entire point of both is to find out where they came from and why they came from, yes?"

                  No. I don't know what you mean by 'they'. But that's not what science does. It's not about 'where' and much less 'why'. It's finding out 'how'. See? Right there there's a difference:

                  Science cares about 'how', religion cares about 'why'.

                  Second, can you honestly tell me sensationalism hasn't been using trial and error for the last x-thousand years?? Science may be using strictly logical impulse while sensation using emotional impulse, but they identical in form, in source and --sadly, in outcome.
                  Go to a church, and tell me how many trials and errors you see in a 4 hour mass, and how many results, and conclussions, and how many new things are discovered.

                  If you have a wound, you can pray and pray but if you don't clean it properly, you might get an infection. If you use some alcohol you won't, thanks to someone actually trying to see what works to disinfect a wound and what doesn't. Putting alcohol in the wound is not science, doing the research to find out is. Praying does not dissenfect a wound. And before you accuse me of sensationalist, the same applies to having a bad stain on your favorite clothes, try praying or chanting to see if it gets cleaned by the lord.

                  But still, you have not shown me a substantial difference between them.
                  I have, perhaps you should stop ignoring them for your convinience.

                  Religion involves punishment and rewards.
                  Religion tells you what to do, and of course, what NOT to do, you have to obbey.

                  Science is a method for discovering things and learning how the Universe works. Religion, quite simply, it is not a method at all. It is a set of rules and stories made up, first in order to explain why (it thunders because Zeus is angry), and later to either dominate masses, or to feel happy and content about one's life (by filling the blanks of the big existential questions that have yet to be enlightened by science, like why are we here, how did the universe start, etc).

                  [b]And most important of all, religion claims to be absolute, while science does not.[/b[

                  Or better --and more to the point-- science IS the human religion above all others. They in fact (if that term applies) did form the metals and objects used by their wife (sensationalism) to build ALL the god concepts and in modern times to supercede those concepts by becoming a god itself, in essence, cutting out the middle man (sensation). But science knows it needs sensationalism to propagate and sustain itself, else no one would give two sticks about it and no one would donate billions of hours and dollars to those organized religions, err, foundations of science.

                  Of course science was used to create countless religious icons, temples, churches, etc., but so have metal, stones, hammers, wood. That does not mean hammers are a religion, they're just tools, which is exactly what science is: a tool.

                  Yes, an experiment is a practice done methodically/sometimes mechanically, by a strict set of rules to explain or define the validity of information by various methods of testing.

                  In fact the steps of an experiment can make a standard ritual seem like a walk in the park.

                  Not different at all to a ritual, which is a practice done methodically/sometimes mechanically, by a strict set of rules to explain or define the validity of information by various methods of testing.


                  I'm going to use one of my favorite examples of science, which is explained by Carl Sagan in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8cbIWMv0rI

                  There are no mechanical procedures, nor strict set of rules. A man, two sticks, and the Sun. Only that, and he was able to calculate both the size and shape of the Earth. Something the bible (which was partially written after the experiment by Eratosthenes) obviates.

                  Not different at all to a ritual, which is a practice done methodically/sometimes mechanically, by a strict set of rules to explain or define the validity of information by various methods of testing.
                  A ritual is not meant to explain anything, it involves no testing, you're just using false definitions all over the place.

                  1. 0
                    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    No offense, but your entire argument is semantic --precisely as sensationalists.

                    "No. I don't know what you mean by 'they'. But that's not what science does. It's not about 'where' and much less 'why'. It's finding out 'how'. See? Right there there's a difference:"
                    Incorrect in many respects. They is humans who engage those ideologies. And nearly all humans do.

                    "Science cares about 'how', religion cares about 'why'."

                    Science cares equally of how as why. This is said to be the root of sciences. To a true logician, the how and the why and synonymous. Any 1st year Philosopher will tell you that.

                    Go to a church, and tell me how many trials and errors you see in a 4 hour mass, and how many results, and conclussions, and how many new things are discovered.
                    MANY!! As church is all about trial and error --mostly error, from the preachers perspective.
                    MANY!! Which is why church is still propagating sensationalism hand in hand --nowadays-- with science.

                    If you have a wound, you can pray and pray but if you don't clean it properly, you might get an infection. If you use some alcohol you won't, thanks to someone actually trying to see what works to disinfect a wound and what doesn't. Putting alcohol in the wound is not science, doing the research to find out is. Praying does not dissenfect a wound. And before you accuse me of sensationalist, the same applies to having a bad stain on your favorite clothes, try praying or chanting to see if it gets cleaned by the lord."
                    That is a semantic and not based on reality. Scientific research of the elements fares the same outcome as prayer in most cases --equaling nothing, something terribly wrong or a temporary fix.
                    The lord of science and prayers of science may be different in appearance but they are identical in all respects to sensationalism. I is equation that taught sensation how to.

                    Religion involves punishment and rewards.
                    Religion tells you what to do, and of course, what NOT to do, you have to obbey.
                    And science doesn't?
                    Example: go to the hospital or you'll bleed to death! etc.

                    Science is a method for discovering things and learning how the Universe works. Religion, quite simply, it is not a method at all.
                    Incorect, as religion is anything done by a set of steps, rules or conditions. Tell me, what are the steps of an experiment?
                    I know this well. For 20 odd years as a profesional chef, I did a lot of experimenting and chemical testing --it is called a recipe. And if you do not follow the steps exactly, you do not get the end result product. Religion does the same, only their technique is slightly obscure to that of science.

                    "It is a set of rules and stories made up, first in order to explain why (it thunders because Zeus is angry), and later to either dominate masses, or to feel happy and content about one's life (by filling the blanks of the big existential questions that have yet to be enlightened by science, like why are we here, how did the universe start, etc)."

                    It was science who designed these stories and gave it to the sensationalists. They laid the foundations of Babel in the hopes of building the first skyscraper! It was by astronomy that sensationalists were given the power to devise astrology, kabbalah and more.

                    [b]And most important of all, religion claims to be absolute, while science does not.[/b[
                    Not so, many sciences claim absolute. Like they "know" how old the planet is or how far wide the universe is.

                    "Of course science was used to create countless religious icons, temples, churches, etc., but so have metal, stones, hammers, wood. That does not mean hammers are a religion, they're just tools, which is exactly what science is: a tool."

                    --no comment on the tool thing...

                    "There are no mechanical procedures, nor strict set of rules."
                    Really? What about engineering, quantum mechanics, etc?

                    "A man, two sticks, and the Sun."
                    Yup, that's called religion!

                    "Only that, and he was able to calculate both the size and shape of the Earth."

                    By who's measure? What non-human force provided agreement or argument? none. So it is a human ideology again.

                    "A ritual is not meant to explain anything, it involves no testing, you're just using false definitions all over the place."

                    All prayer is testing/experimentation, all faith is testing, all rituals by both science and religion are done for the exact same purpose --humanism and a feeble explanation by "woo-hoo" or "voo-doo" how it all happened or why it all happened.

                    James.

  9. 70
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    Why is Science so widely accepted?

    In the physical realm; everybody should accept the facts of science as it is its domain; out of its domain I mean, ethical , moral and spiritual realms science is useless; here one should accept the facts and teachings from the Word of the Creator-God; there is no alternative.

    1. spookyfox profile image79
      spookyfoxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "here one should accept the facts and teachings from the Word of the Creator-God; there is no alternative."

      There is: being responsible for yourself and making your own values.

  10. Greek One profile image80
    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

    Because thankfully, for the most part, the human brain, appreciates reason and logic when back by experimentation and observation

  11. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 6 years ago

    Sciences is held in high esteem because mankind has placed it in that position unfortunately the exploration of science is more often than not fails at getting at the truth and thus people believe in all sorts of things. Science says the universe began with a " scientific term Big Bang" but no explanation and definitely no proof as to what ignited this big bang where did all the elements of life come from? Am I to believe that if a rock lay dormant for billions upon billions of years it will eventually turn into a human being? Now scientists say that all of the universe was contained in some circular substance/force which contains Sun's stars and moons Black Holes-gravity so strong that nothing can resist it's pull PLEASE.

    Science proclaimed in the past that superiority and inferiority was based on skull size-they were wrong.

    When dinosaur bones were dug up and constructed in museums these findings were taught in public schools and in the science journals that these bones are how dinosaurs actually looked a few years later discovered fully intact dinosaurs did not look like the ones they had constructed in those museums.

    Trust science if you want but they make far too many mistakes for me to trust them!

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Except when it comes to computers....
      and electricity....
      and automobiles....
      and health care....
      and what else?

      LOLOLO So desperate. sad

    2. HerbalMarvel profile image60
      HerbalMarvelposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Trust science if you want but they make far too many mistakes for me to trust them!"

      Right there is exactly my problem with religion, not science.

      Science gets something wrongs, accepts it and incorporates the right answer.  We find something out wrong about what the church teaches and either it refuses the evidence OR it tells us it isn't meant to be taken literally.

      I would rather trust something that accepts mistakes and learns from it - improving every step of the way - than something that doesn't.

      As for the 'no proof' for things like big bang etc the problem I am having here is not that there is no proof - there is, just the majority of it is not understood.

      You use phrases like 'blackholes' and 'universe' there... it is science that has discovered and explained these things, and yet you claim not to trust it?  Shouldn't you be off trying to see what religion can teach you about these things?

      Should I trust the science that can help and treat lepers (to the point there are only about 150,000 cases a year so technically extinct) or the religion that has a God that told Moses to force all the lepers to leave the camp?

      I have no problem with religion, and if people want to believe in Christianity or any other religion then that has it's place.  But to lecture science for being wrong makes no sense when

      a) science happily accepts being wrong as part of it's make up
      b) when proven wrong religion either doesn't accept it or says it is our mortal interpretation that is wrong

  12. 0
    Sophia Angeliqueposted 6 years ago

    Firstly, science is not at all widely acepted. It is only accepted by educated, intelligent, informed people who understand it.

    It is not accepted by people who are superstitious or religious because it generally contradicts some of their beliefs, and therefore poses a challenge.

    The challenge is that if science is able to reveal flaws in their religion, then it might be able to expose their religion as not being valid.

    If one is heavily invested in any religion, to have it removed, will collapse one's life.

    Therefore, these people are not friends of science. The consequences of science being correct are too dangerous to dare to give any truth to it.

    Those that accept science aren't generally invested in religion so they can afford to look at it objectively. They generally find it works.

    There are far fewer people invested in science than in religion. So, your question is erroneous.

    1. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      --excuse me? I happen to be a highly educated individual, know many highly intelligent/informed individuals who understand it and are not superstitious or religious, but do not accept science --or many aspects of it. How do you account for that and also the arrogance of such a statement.


      This is untrue. Science has never disputed the causality of sensationalism, only claiming sensationalism lacks the logical (though that word really doesn't apply to science at all) methodology to explain its practices. But alike, science contradicts its own beliefs because --again-- it cannot be proven (no facts exist) unless a nonhuman force validates it.


      --why would they do that? To do so dismisses science also, as science is the father of the gods!


      --sounds like science is a very spoiled child and extremely insecure to make such statements.


      --really? most scientists are deist or religion related.

      Quite the contrary, nearly 7 billion humans are invested heavily in science, this machine included, ipod, dishwashers, gold necklaces, socks, drinking water, indoor plumbing. All of which the father of the gods is praised for each time the lessor gods worship in buildings of gold & glyph or glass & steel museums. Erroneous indeed.

      1. 0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        On the contrary, there is a proven correlation between numbers of religious people and education and intelligence. I'm not in the habit of making statements which cannot be backed up by science.

        You might like to read through these links.

        http://blog.sarcasmsociety.com/religion … evers.html

        http://www.doxa.ws/other/smarter.html

        http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/arti … evers.aspx

        There are many more studies that repeatedly show that there is a direct correlation between exception intelligence (above the 140 genius score) and believing in science rather than religion.

        It isn't arrogance. It's the simple fact that people who think about things, and have the capacity to work out the answers, generally arrive at the same conclusion.

        For instance, a small boy in Africa who has never been to school does not have the tools to work out the answer to 18 +278 - 6 x 14. He might surmise, therefore, that only the ancestors know the answer. That is his religion. However, someone from a more educated country, who has the tools, will work out the right answer.

        Same with those of greater intelligence and education. They've simply worked out that science has better answers than religion.

        I also resent being called arrogant. That is a personal attack. I have written nothing but factual inforamtion that is freely available for those who wish to read it.

        1. 0
          Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Sophia, it was not intended as personal, only a reflection of verbiage used.

          Science --by all the information I have ever been given, studied, argued, filtered, pondered or considered-- is the founding religion/principle of all religions.
          There is no "proven" anything, only accepted information deemed proof or facts, 90% of the time as theory or in few cases a plausible hypothesis.
          Science, perhaps, has done a much "better" job of assimilation and indoctrination than all global religious practices combined, as we see today would be more thorough a response. No one place or culture is without its influence. What's more, now affirmed and propagated by sensationalism. What a brilliant plan!

          Before, it was science v sensation (classicism v romanticism). Today, it is called Quality. The reunited couple have fashioned the greatest religion ever devised by man: Quality of Life. (example: quantum)
          That was the gist of my points.

          Science is the founder and foundation of such "silly" or superstitious practices, mocks it to some degree, but now needs it to sustain itself, else every scientific business or organization on earth would end!

          Every war was founded by science and proliferated by sensationalism.

          As for this statement:
          I firmly disagree. Myself and many others of  intellect, eduction and actual application of that intellect, do not see science as better or providing better answers/solutions to the human condition (which is the general consensus of the purpose/reason both exist). To u,s both are redundant and equally lacking. They serve no full and complete purpose for the betterment and longevity of humanity, according to universe measures and methods, only limited encounters of selfish humanistic ideology -that is leading humanity into a dark hole. A hole they are not going to pull themselves out of so easily --if at all. The irony: they know this. The scientist shoulder to shoulder with the sensationalist know it and they are pressed to believe they can overcome it on their own.

          ps, I will have a laugh --err look-- at those links and get back to you.

          1. 0
            Sophia Angeliqueposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            @ Twenty One Days

            Apology accepted. smile

            No disrespect intended but you have a completely erroneous idea of what science is. Science is only the observation and study of things. It is not a religion. Science merely documents what it is and tries to document it accurately.

            If you haven't read the links I provided, how can you accurately respond to have I have said.

            I have defined science in this hub.

            http://hubpages.com/hub/Religion-vs-Sci … e-on-Earth

            If you don't read and study the information I provide you with, you aren't educating yourself sufficiently in order to be able to reply to what I've said.

            1. 0
              Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              1. Isn't that how moses started, by oberving and documenting as accurately as possible? Isn't that how he designed the temple, fashioned the golden snake on his staff, made the secret incense that the sensationalist mongers used to slaughter millions of animals and the baal priests used to deform millions of people?
              Indeed.

              1. How do explain medicine? If science is merely an observer, recorder, why does it care so much about theology and the practices of medicine, etc.?

              Again, in defense of science, they have managed to deflect or suppress the sensationalism to a point. Without technology, there would be no such thing as those (annoying) televangelists and the Temple of Ra, Empire of Mike Bloomberg and the Smithsonian would never have existed.
              smile

              1. 0
                Sophia Angeliqueposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                There's just one problem over here.

                There isn't one ounce of proof that the stories of the bilbe are anything other than myth. When writers write stories, they aren't factual.

                Medicine is not a science. it's a business. smile

                However, medicine uses science, as do many other businesses, in order to manufacture and profit.

  13. pisean282311 profile image57
    pisean282311posted 6 years ago

    @ts i dont think that science is more accepted than religion...science should be more accepted than it currently is...it is science because of which human species have survived and prospered...we must acknowledge that...religion's need does exist as of now...

  14. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    Actually science relied on evidence, and there is plenty of that for evolution, both ancient and recent.

  15. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 6 years ago

    How is that science being all great and all, why are their usually bad side-effects from these medical break throughs they come up with?  And since science is so wonderful whenever they come out with the wonder drugs why aren't people running to locations to take it?

    Take about superstition science believers not seem to believe all that much in science with it comes to test they new drugs on their life.

    1. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      well minus science from your life and see what you get....life without science is back to where we came from...the house we live , the internet we use, the car we use , the phone , the t.v , the printing machines which bring books...every thing is because of science...science has served humans the most and would keep on doing it...religion was needed and still is but we can't survive without science ...let us show gratitude where it is due...

    2. HerbalMarvel profile image60
      HerbalMarvelposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Trial and error is a big part of science.  Who wants to be part of that error?

      And our understanding of science is FAR from perfect - so errors happen (human error is a fact of life), misunderstandings happen.  Saying that science has mistakes and there are side effects form some things is one of the oddest arguments I have ever heard against it

      1. melpor profile image89
        melporposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        HerbalMarvel, No one is telling you to believe in or to accept science. Science is simply the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of naturnal phenomena. Simply put science is knowledge. Everything going on in your life and all of your understanding of what is going on in your life is a product of science. You or anyone else cannot deny that. I am a scientist and we as scientists have a very good understanding of why things happen in nature and we do not have or know the answer to everything. That is what science is all about, to find that understanding of why something happens in nature. We know why the Sun gives off light and heat. Einstein's famous equation E=mc squared explains that. We know why we have seasons on earth because the earth's axis is tilted. HerbalNarvel, I can go on and on with this with many examples of natural phenomena and be able to explain it by science because science is knowledge.

  16. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 6 years ago

    Edited

    How is that science being all great and all, why are their usually bad side-effects from these medical break throughs they come up with?  And since science is so wonderful whenever they come out with these wonder drugs why aren't people running to locations to take it?

    Talke about superstition science believers don't seem to believe all that much in science with it comes to testing new drugs on their own life.

    1. TahoeDoc profile image98
      TahoeDocposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Science doesn't claim to be perfect. There are medicines and surgeries and therapies that without a doubt, save people's lives EVERY DAY. I see it every single day. People would be dead without these interventions.

      But, yes. They have side effects. No one ever said they didn't so I don't see the point of expecting them to be "all great". That's not been the claim anyway.  Science doesn't claim to be all-powerful and all-knowing. Science is the study of the world around us which sometimes explains our universe, sometimes improves the quality and quantity of life we live, according to most users. "It" has never claimed to be 'god-like' and able to solve every problem or have every answer. The advances are used as they are discovered but not every advance is perfect. Medications for example, always have risks and benefits that have to be weighed before deciding to use them. There is no claim of omnipotence so the comparison isn't really valid.

      There is no valid comparison

      1. SpanStar profile image60
        SpanStarposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Perhaps you haven't read enough of the comments here to say that science isn't ominpotent.  People are comparing science to God that certainly tells me there is a comparison here to how powerful science is over God.  You talk about how great science is in healing but we always over look the how science does a wonderful job in the hands of mankind to kill millions- tanks, machines, missles, nuclear bombs.

        As always believe in science if you like but don't expect me to be like you.

        1. TahoeDoc profile image98
          TahoeDocposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          So.... to be fair, I went back and read the comments again. I cannot find what you are referring to, where people are comparing science to god. I can only find examples of people making a distinction between the two, that they are based on different criteria for acceptance.

          Can you show me where anyone said that science was omnipotent, all-knowing? I just read the comments about the use of science in discovering and describing the world that exists. I'm very confused.

          I'm again, also confused as mentioned below by Psycheskinner- please explain how you cannot "believe" in science, in data that is collected and processed? I don't really understand the concept of not believing in science since the products of it are all around us. Do you deny that your computer works as you sit and type on it?  I'm totally serious about trying to understand what it means to not 'believe' in science.

        2. getitrite profile image79
          getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



          You have created a strawman fallacy.  You must understand what science is, and not devise your own definition.

          In High School Health class, we learned how to apply a tourniquet to a wound.  That would be science at work.
          Do you understand, or would you rather not use science and bleed to death?

          When comparing science to YOUR God, it appears that science is superior, because, at least science is REAL, while your God is merely a construct of ancient mystics, grossly lacking in the knowledge of natural science.

          1. 0
            Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "Do you understand, or would you rather not use science and bleed to death?"

            May I ask, Getitrite, why you fell it necessary to inject sensationalism into your response? If this is pure scientific ideology, as repeated by many in here, than it should only be observe and report, yes? This is science, according to the claims: to observe and document observations as accurate as possible.
            Yet, like the sensationalists (what some call the religious, you invoke fear --in this case fear of death w/out science.)

            So, it seems my determination of science is not so aloof, now is it? Like your supposed counterpart, you (science) use the same techniques to maintain control. Well done and thanks for reaffirming my earlier claims to that dysfunctional expression of humanism.

            James.

            1. getitrite profile image79
              getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Glad I could be of assistance, James.

        3. 0
          Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          does that make science evil or the people that use it for wrong purposes?  Could say the same about religion - eg abuse, war etc.

          How many 'believers' take medicine or have surgery?  Seems they want to believe in their superstition that illness is from a curse/sin, but they don't have faith that God will heal them

        4. pisean282311 profile image57
          pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          @spanstar god and science cannot be compared...god is concept and based on faith...science in contribution of human race as general since human began to think...science makes life easier for human race and is one of biggest contribution to human race...belief on god helps people get along with their life...both are different ...so how can one compare?...yes without science life would be difficult and with religion for most , life would be meaning less....

        5. Woman Of Courage profile image60
          Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          SpanStar, You are right. Some of the people in this forum are comparing science with God. Science can do great things, but science also make many mistakes. Science is not perfect, but God is.

      2. 0
        Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        interesting how when anesthesia was invented, the church declared it 'evil' as they thought everyone should suffer.

  17. melpor profile image89
    melporposted 6 years ago

    Science is widely accepted because there are facts to support it. Many of our technological advances made over the last few hundred years were based on scientific facts. Let me name a few: Microwave ovens, televisions, computers, cars, medicine, flight, lunar landing, telecommunication and the list goes on.

    1. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      So "facts" are objects or products, if I am reading correctly? So what about the tomb & pyramid of Ramses II, that is a product and then a "fact" that Ra lived? Or the Parthenon, where the gods of Greece visited...

      EDIT:

      So, let's put the verbiage into perspective:
      According to practitioners of scientific methods: science is merely the OBSERVATION and DOCUMENTATION of findings, correct?

      So, the application of those findings is called fact, which become objects or used to form objects.

      So, the application of science would then be identical to sensationalism. (i.e. iPod, Microwave ovens, Thermal Nuclear Radioactive Fallout, Medicinal Remedies, Mercury and various toxins in the oceans, Museums of Glass 7 Steel, chambers of torture, weapons for war, fifty foot statues of gold, surrounded by gorgeous gardens and waterfalls, a Palace made of Ivory, stained glass windows, etc). These are equally the products of science, yes, by there application.

      Seems the application of sensationalism is identical to the application of equation/science. A barrage of smoke and mirrors, "majik" potions and parlor tricks...

      Else, someone assist me in understanding this.

      1. melpor profile image89
        melporposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Twenty One Days, I am not quite sure why you are so confused here. Science and religion are entirely two different things. You do not have to prove anything about science, it is all around you all the time. Your life depends on it. You use it and see it every day of your life. Religion is simply an organized way for people to worship what they believe in based on faith (or no proof or evidence of whether this entity or whatever they are worshipping exist).

      2. 0
        Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        yep, and so is that computer you're typing on - full of nasty heavy metals etc. You could always go and live in the middle of the desert somewhere like in biblical times like in bible times - don't take modern footwear, a tent, water filter, packaged food etc though

  18. TahoeDoc profile image98
    TahoeDocposted 6 years ago

    I haven't posted much here, but read (lurk) the forums from time to time. This thread reminded me of this and I couldn't get it out of my mind, so decided to share. People tend to either love it or hate it, but it is a commentary on science.

    It isn't obvious until at least 3 minutes into the video why this is relevant to this discussion.

    **warning** bad language that some may find offensive ** I find the whole thing rather funny.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1yxDWxU … p;index=29

    1. TahoeDoc profile image98
      TahoeDocposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      And if you don't find the whole thing absolutely brilliant, the most relevant verse says...

      "Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."

    2. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I am that guy at the party. LOL

      1. TahoeDoc profile image98
        TahoeDocposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I've been (admiringly) reading your posts. And I mean this in the nicest possible way because it's not a bad thing... I believe you could be.

        The lack of understanding of what science is and what it is not is truly frightening. I find it ironic that people who don't 'believe' in science are saying so on their computers over the internet.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes - Irony. Wasted on many believers I am afraid. They don't believe in it. wink

          1. TahoeDoc profile image98
            TahoeDocposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Nice to meet you and thanks for being a voice of reason.

  19. frogdropping profile image85
    frogdroppingposted 6 years ago

    Tim cans it perfectly. And I can well imagine MK being that guy at parties lol

  20. thisisoli profile image64
    thisisoliposted 6 years ago

    This video is brilliant.

    1. TahoeDoc profile image98
      TahoeDocposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes. smile I think so too.

  21. 2besure profile image82
    2besureposted 6 years ago

    Many people are logical and want to know and have proof of why.  Some people are more prone to believe without seeing of "faith."  This is not generally bad.

    God doesn't need us to prove that he exist, He has His way of making himself known, even to those who live by logic!

  22. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    I am not sure how you would not believe in science.  Do you believe there is no such thing as data?  That data should not guide decisions? I don't get it.

  23. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 6 years ago

    With this concept that science IS The Only Understanding People Need where is this so-called logic by logical people when they are robbing a bank with a scienfic gun, rifle, bomb?  Where is the logic when people are on the road with road rage, where is this logic when people are homeless and living under science constructed bridges.  Where is this logic when it's not safe to go to school because of science built cars and automatic weapons.

    By side proving weapons of destructions these logical minds seem to also be helping to bring about destruction.

    1. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Which is precisely one of the major points I was exemplifying.
      Science may claim data/fact is their mainstay, but the applications of all combined sciences is no different than sensational expressions. Again without the masculine forgery (meaning scientific "discoveries") almost all if not all feminine (meaning) sensational quests would never have come into being by mankind.

      what I find very disturbing is even though science claims saving lives every day, it saves them for what purpose? Simply to sustain the inevitable --as sensation puts it-- death and the hope of an afterlife? Which means science is just as useless as their counterpart --on a quest to nowhere.

    2. 0
      Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      there is no logic about crazy human behaviour - there is even less logic if you try to say how an invisible superbeing created everyone 'perfect' but set them up to stuff up and then inflicts them with sickness, wickedness etc

  24. Pulse101 profile image76
    Pulse101posted 6 years ago

    My answer is so simple... science can prove through several experiments though it will take many years before it will be proven. As for the miracles related from any religious dogma they were just handed down from generation to generation through folktales by our ancestors.

  25. spookyfox profile image79
    spookyfoxposted 6 years ago

    Most people here against science, seem to be writting under the logic that since science is not the ultimate, only and perfect source of knowledge, it is equal to religion. Science is just a way of trying to understand things that do not come to us by instinct, not relying on "this is like this because X says so".

  26. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    HerbalMarvel wrote:
    That's not fair imo.  whilst there are indeed plenty of well meaning clueless idiots that do believe in religion equally there are plenty of well meaning clueless idiots who believe in science above religion.

    There is no point in comparing the well meaning granny who helps at Sunday School to someone with real scientific insight.  I find debates between people who really know what they are talking about on both sides fascinating.  Many top religious experts are very intelligent people worth listening to - because you need both sides of the argument imo.

    Whilst I am science first I am slightly in the pro 'superior being' camp, which also makes me quasi-religious I suppose.  I heard a quote recently (think it might have been on the Big Bang Theory which shows how 'serious' it was  ) "I am not against the idea of a creator per se, just I find the idea of one that takes attendance ludicrous".

    Pretty much my position on the matter

    Perhaps that wasn't fair but it sure is realistic. A scientist spends years studying and learning to become a scientist. What does it take to be a religious leader? Simply stand up and claim to be one. Most religious people I know have no interest in learning about that which they preach. Most get their knowledge second hand from others who did the same. When someone does take the time to study religion and attempts to pass this knowledge on, they are labelled as blasphemers by those who didn't finish high school. Religion is the only subject that an absolute moron can be considered an expert.  I have watched it time and time again here in the bible belt. Someone with an 8th grade education will stand up and argue about scientific discoveries with a scientist. I asked a friend of mine what he was using to support his claim that the earth is only 6000 years old. His reply, I believe in god and thats all the proof I need.  Gotta admire the brilliance on exhibit here dont you? The problem with this is that anyone with this level of common sense will believe anything they are told by those who they believe knows best. For example, how many christian conservatives believe Sarah Palin is what this country needs? Enough to keep dragging this country closer and closer to it's demise. The fact that most atheists know more about the religion than those who buy into the crap shows just how interested in the truth the religious are. Tell them anything and use the word god, and they believe it and proud of their level of ignorance. Sorry if this came off a little rude, I've just about had my fill of ignorance today and I am not saying that your statement was included in that bombardment.
    ========================================================================================================================



                  X?%$XKI%

      Me ... 

             congratulations to you both. 

       Excellent   two people expressing themselves intellectually;  to the point , with seemingly dirrerent points of views.!


          I think that I agree with both of YA.

  27. 0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    So, why not apply the same tests to religion????????
    If science is what it says, test the theories of theology by the same standards.
    Although, using those methods, I am forever certain, the same outcome science has now will be the result:

    1. theory ; "best" explanations (aka best guess; applied elements of myth w/ rocks or bones -w/or w/out- a supreme entity presiding; a leap of faith, into the unknown; blind testing)
    2. see if it fits; change the modal or toss it for another one
    3. no [such] moral behavior;
    4. adaptation is the key to survival;

    The further down the path, shows the applications of science are closely related to religion, despite their claims to the contrary.

    I often wonder why it is so readily flexed of science --as not being impractical-- yet deems its wife as thoroughly disputable, impractical, yet has never --ever-- tested her applications? She has given science (her estranged husband) every consideration possible, has assisted in propagating, stimulating and "selling" science to the world. For what? For him to scoff at her with cause.

    Again, I am not supporting sensationalism, by any means, just displaying the similarities between a husband and wife, humanism, who are the proud parents of a bastard child called Quality [of Life].

  28. 70
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    Science is a good tool to know the Work of Allah- the Creator God; there is no harm if scientific facts are widely accepted; with the scientific development people will be more thankful to the Creator-God for having created life and its amenities for the human beings.

  29. 0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    Okay, so let's break this down, shall we:

    "it is easier to accept facts when they are proven".
    -Can any scientist testify to exact fact or proof without human involvement/intervention/design or documentation? If yes, what source verified it and when?
    "we are products of star dust"
    -when has a human being ever touched a star or how do they know there is such a thing as star dust? From what science taught us, stars are made of gas and when they explode do not leave dust laying around. Even still, can you show us what star dust looks like and where we can visit to see this dust for ourselves?

    "hydrogen" "periodic table"
    -These two words (and many others) were designed and facilitated, documented by humans as being what they are. Which, to any logical person is completely fallible! As those "facts" / information are constantly changing --being ruled in/out -- based on the observer --and in many cases the investors of those necessities.

    This is the real issue: humans whether scientifically or theologically engulfed can only support their beliefs, systems of those beliefs based on documents designed and implemented by other humans. So, it is relatively safe to say both are massively impure, selfish and further promote the human condition of necessity. Neither is factual! Neither is provable! Both are games man is playing to entertain himself because he has no reality (and in many ways no desire) to engage the universe by the universes rules, ideas and actions. Until a source apart from humans verifies either science or theology, no one should accept these (subjective) options as the only way(s) to understand who we are and where we are from/going to.

    James.

    1. 70
      paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Quran is that source authored by Allah- the Creator God.

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Please do not lie because you believe something.
        Show where the source of your claim proved your human written Quran (and its words) correct from their perspective/documents (meaning non human). Thanks.

      2. Beelzedad profile image59
        Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Nope, it was authored by Muhammad and his followers. Can you show that the source was from a god?

    2. melpor profile image89
      melporposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Twenty One Days, I have no idea what you are saying here. As I said before there are a lot of people who do not know their science or understand facts when they are presented to them. Many of the things in our lives are a product of the understanding of science and or having a knowledge of science. You or no one cannot deny that. The evidence is all around us.

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So, this "The evidence is all around us", has told you or I what to call it (hydrogen, star dust, gods???). Give me one single shred of "evidence" that the Universe --and all its parts-- has validated humanities claims as to what It is. How has the universe validated it/given humanity facts, without humanity interpreting the universe by its own measures?! I would wager neither can --Not science (equation) nor sensation (religion).

        Let's make it even simpler:
        Show me the cave drawings, etc --where the universe itself (not man) inscribed the period table and told humanity what those elements were, how they came to be, how to use them correctly, and why. Show me where the universe or any other life form apart from humans, deem these things humans implore as actual "fact".

        Also, provide "evidence" as to --according to evolutionary theory-- why the universe took x-million years to get humanity to a single point in existence where they are today, on the brink of destruction. Or, according to theologists, why it took x-thousand years for man to reach the same place, also having empirical knowledge..

        If you please.

        Else, I am going to continue to understand that humanity is merely entertaining itself with its own ideas, for its own pleasure and purposes and truly has no genuine regard for the universe he lives in.

        James.

  30. melpor profile image89
    melporposted 5 years ago

    All the hydrogen in the universe originated from the stars and each of the elements in the periodic table were produced from the hydrogen atoms thru the process of nuclear fusion during the life of the stars. We see this evidence everyday from our own star, the sun, using scientific equipment to detect these elements in the sun and other stars in the universe. Every element has a unique spectra signature. I have done this kind of work in the lab. This is how we know what elements are present in the stars in universe just by looking at it light thru a special scientific instrument called a spectroscope that picks up atomic absorptions from these stars. Since all elements originated from hydrogen that is why we are the product of star dust since we are made of those elements that originated from the stars.

    1. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Mel,
      I understand the processes you are explaining. however, by your own admission, I must again submit my request. Here was your summation of science and its cause/effect:

      "using scientific equipment".

      This is application of scientific methods, yes? The use of mechanics to test, experiment. These methods are all applications not evidences/facts without their use. Science is supposedly merely observe/report, yes? So, by application, science has used its own inventons, ideas, words, etc to determine universal events, yes?

      So, my request remains. Offer some minute shred of evidence --provided by a non human document, cave drawing, spaceship, fiery chariot, entity, she-star, what-have-you, that states to humans: this is "hydrogen", this is "stardust", this is the "elemental table" and this is "how to use them correctly".

      Also, provide evidence that the universe requested humans to engage it, by human methods -like sensation or equation- to use; to build machines/mechanics to suspend a single "atomic" unit build another machine to pretend they are birds, distance thousands of miles only to de-suspend this unit and destroy millions of people; build a machine to travel to the "moon"; machines to dig up massive pockets of liquid "elements" to make things called plastic, petrol, fertilizer, pesticides, chemotherapy, computers, imitation vanilla flavor... melt "gold" to form "currency" or to build temples to non-existent entities called gods and sacrifice millions of humans on those alters...

      Science, my good man, is the father of religion, if not religion itself and has forced upon man nearly an inescapable cage --especially as of late, as science controls the world in some form or another...

      Just a single bit of evidence will suffice.

      James.

 
working