Why is Science so widely accepted?

Jump to Last Post 1-30 of 30 discussions (160 posts)

0
fit2dayposted 13 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?
reply report
1. 69
  simeonvisserposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Because science does a better job than faith, that's why.
  reply report
2. 72
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
3. 59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
4. 60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Because science has facts, and religion has faith.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  spookyfoxposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin 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.
  
  The difference between facts of the two is faith, which is the basis of religion not science.
  
  Happy New Year to you too.
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin 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.
  
  Specifically what aspects of evolutionary biology are based on mere faith?
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  Is that a rhetorical question? Dear me!
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  When, Marcus, have you ever seen me cut/paste religion data, ever. You, being the former-good-school-boy still have it in your head I am of the Klan (as you refer often). I will remind you again, just because I accept Creator does not in any form suggest religion.
  I have posted often my distaste for both equation & sensation equally, so please stop the parlor dancing. As an ex-sensationalist, you are, like other scarred victims, quite sympathetic to them and constantly reaffirming that sympathy, by your anti-argument, to their necessities and causality. At least, like I mentioned earlier, science does not judge the causality of sensationalism, it merely dismisses the probability based on sensation alone, whereas --from the many posts read by you-- are not so reluctant.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Talking of the flood and Creator and Yachoo and other such nonsenses is actually religion James. I understand that you need to attack anyone who does not get it the way you do - whichever side of the perceived divide you have created for yourself. But - when you speak of things that have been proven not to exist as reality - you are delving into religion. Just a different religion James - but religion nonetheless. I know you will never understand this - because you know something no one else does.
  
  I have almost as much disdain for "science" as "religion."
  
  But any time you care to answer my question - I am open to discussing it.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "I have almost as much disdain for "science" as "religion." "
  Seems we share a commonality after all, to what degree, I am not certain apart from a slight cynicism.
  
  What is that question and should we engage a dedicated thread to it?
  
  "Talking of the flood and Creator and Yachoo and other such nonsenses is actually religion James. "
  
  It is not religion, it is a discussion of points regarding both sensation & equation. Neither disputes the event of a flood only the perspective of how or when. Neither disputes Creator, only the gods designed by man --in his mind of minds. I think your swirling the pools trying to see what surfaces. Fresh fish?
  
  "I understand that you need to attack anyone who does not get it the way you do - whichever side of the perceived divide you have created for yourself. But - when you speak of things that have been proven not to exist as reality - you are delving into religion. "
  
  Science/Religion & Sensational/Religion indulge what does not exist in reality --as perceived by the human mind. My perspective is quite different from both, even though I engage them equally. Perhaps it is my belief that through such engagements and dialogue, some humans will be dislodged from such restraints and find their actual purpose of existing v the standardized text books & artifacts stored in pretty buildings or digital readers. And, I am not alone. Even here on HP there are a few who have the same perspective and certainly many more not on HP who share this commonality. If we were organized about it in the way most assume organizations (like religious orders or scientific foundations) then I could agree I am religious, but as we are not, must disagree on that point.
  
  "I know you will never understand this - because you know something no one else does"
  
  Which is??? And this --above all I would truly & sincerely like to know from your perspective.
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We also share 60% of our DNA with fruit flies, 50% with bananas and cabbages. So somewhere in our distance past, we evolved from them.
  
  Mud worms seem to be a long lost relative of humans. Excerpt from the BBC:
  
  "This brainless mud worm is a long-lost relative of human beings, scientists have discovered.
  It appears the slug-like creature found living at the bottom of a Swedish lake shares its ancestry with people"
  
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3170245.stm
  
  So maybe the mud worm turned into an ape and then into a human? My point is, just because an animal is related humans, doesn't mean they evolved from them.
  
  And why do humans speak but not apes?
  
  As I said, Freemasons believe in alien genetic engineering. They are the founders of official science. Pagan texts also attest to that. Alien genetic experiments are said to occur in Dulce, Mexico, an underground base. Now obviously this is not concrete proof of anything, but it still stands in the way of natural evolution of humans.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes - we share a common ancestor with fruit flies and mud worms - we simply have a more recent common ancestor with chimpanzees. Well done for working that out. As I said - if you have some evidence of aliens interfering with the process - please provide it instead of simply making bald assertions with no basis in reality. I never said evolution was natural - just that it appears that way. Your ridiculous assertions with no evidence do not change that. I mean - we all know the Star Goat vomited the Universe.
  
  "are said to occur"?
  "Pagan texts attest to"
  
  You religious people are so funny some times.
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Can you prove to me that mudworms eventually evolved into people? Can you provide a timeline? Just because we share some of the building blocks with ALL life, doesn't mean we evolved from one another.
  
  And what is the common ancestor to ALL life? It must have been a single source or what's the deal?
  
  I'm wondering what kind of proof of aliens you expect me to produce. However, the possibility of genetic engineering pokes serious holes in the notion that we evolved from a primitive life form.
  
  This is what Freemasons believe of Sirius:
  
  “The mythical Satanic bringer of civilization to earth was supposed to be an alien from the star system Sirius, around whom the Egyptians and all subsequent Hermetic systems constructed their elaborate and obsessive religio-astronomic observances. This star Sirius also served as an astronomic secret code, an allegory of the illusory quality and inherent 'trickiness' of the material world.” (Hoffman, 26-27)
  
  It was the discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick, who espoused alien genetic engineering:
  
  “'these ETs have come at various intervals in the earth's history to manipulate DNA in already existing terrestrial primates and perhaps in other life forms as well. To the best of my memory, the time intervals for this DNA manipulation specifically listed in the briefing paper were 25,000, 15,000, 5,000, and 2,500 years ago.” (Howe, 151)
  
  But he was just a scientist...what does he know? Lol
  
  http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Ascendancy.htm
  
  This is exactly what the pagan text, the Sumerian Text, states.
  
  It appears that there was an abrupt upgrade of homosapiens 200 000 years ago. Scientists say something about a missing link but can't explain it. And 35 000 years ago homosapiens could speak.
  
  More fascinating information:
  
  http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Article/ … esign.html
  
  Atheist idol Dawkins entertains the idea also.
  
  http://www.theoligarch.com/richard-dawkins-aliens.htm
  
  If evolution is not natural, then that means Intelligent Design.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes - it appears we evolved over a long period of time and the argument against this being natural seems to be completely baseless. Any evidence would be more than welcome. Sadly you have not provided any. None. You have provided more baseless opinions though.
  
  Scientists say nothing about a "missing link," because there is not one. LOLO
  
  Homo Sapiens were the upgrade, continuing a long line of "upgrades" over millions of years. We do not know exactly when Homo Sapiens learned to speak - but I suspect it was some time before we learned to express abstract concepts in things such as cave paintings - which I assume is the 35,000 year mark you refer to.
  
  The Pagan text? That is what it sez huh?
  
  Any proof of aliens would be fine. We both agree we evolved - we have proof for this and evidence in the DNA. (Which makes it more than "mere faith" and thus disproves your original assertion). Even Mr Crick thinks this.
  
  Accepted theory states that this is a natural occurrence - if you have some evidence of aliens doing it - please provide it.
  report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What about the timeline about the mudworms evolving into humans? Can you give me a break down on how that happened? What about all life's common ancestor?
  
  This is the thing: you are conceding that homosapiens upgraded over millions of years but the reason why the missing link issue is raised is because there was a great leap evolution that didn't take millions of years, merely thousands. Then within thousands of years, man could speak. I thought the changes took place over millions of years. And come to think about it, who did man evolve to speak all at the same time? How did languages come about? Is it possible that apes will eventually learn to speak and why haven't they done so? What is in our DNA that makes us speak yet not them?
  
  DNA is considered the blueprint of life because that is what it is: a blueprint, a design. No matter what is happening in the external environment, life will be formed in accordance to how it's programmed. And why did DNA come into being in the first place from non matter?
  
  Francis Crick did not have think we evolved naturally because of the complexity of DNA.
  report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Allah- the Creator God designed our evolution like that; so it happened very naturally.
  report
  61
  spookyfoxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "So maybe the mud worm turned into an ape and then into a human? My point is, just because an animal is related humans, doesn't mean they evolved from them."
  
  Yup, that 2nd part is true. Most people have the wrong idea that evolution states we "come from monkeys", which is false. We have a common ancestor with them, and with everything, even with plants. If you see a chair and a piece of paper you do not claim that the piece of paper came from the chair, but they both have a common origin (trees), and went through different procecess, in different enviroments, for different needs, so they will indeed be different in result.
  
  "They are the founders of official science. "
  
  Mmm, what exactly is official science?
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  First of all you agree with me when I said apes turned into men, then you say it's wrong to believe we come from monkeys. That's a contradiction.
  
  Official science is the version the scientists wanted people to believe like materialism and things liken Darwinism. Stuff that not proven to be true, but is just officially considered true.
  reply report
  61
  spookyfoxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "First of all you agree with me when I said apes turned into men, then you say it's wrong to believe we come from monkeys. That's a contradiction."
  
  Let me be more clear:
  Yup, that 2nd part is true.
  
  Meaning this: "just because an animal is related humans, doesn't mean they evolved from them"
  
  Please read more carefully, you should be able to deduce that by the rest of my post.
  
  "Official science is the version the scientists wanted people to believe like materialism and things liken Darwinism. Stuff that not proven to be true, but is just officially considered true."
  
  The theory of evolution is not "the absolute truth about all life in the universe and the purpose of it". It's just the theory that best explains the process of how we came to be this way, with all the elements we currently have for observartion. If a new element comes into play, they see if it fits the current model or what changes should be made, or if it should be completely thrown away. For example, if evidence of aliens being resposible for the creation of human beigns (other than the fact that you can imagine it) then that theory would be taken into consideration. But only if that evidence is found.
  
  Also, unlike religious myths, there's no life lesson at the end of it, there's no manipulative double meaning. With the story of Adam and Eve and the apple, the message of the story is to obbey or be punished. There's no such moral behaviour control in the theory of evolution. It just says adaptation is the key to survival. Which is true. And you don't need to believe it, just go test it, you can. There's no reason for anyone 'wanting' other people to believe in it, other than it being the best explanation available.
  report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  your chair/paper analogy is excellent, yet people still don't get it
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  @ Spookyfox, sorry, your post was somewhat ambiguous. I thought you mean the second part of my first sentence, not my second sentence.
  
  I think the reason why the theory of evolution should be revised is that DNA is just too complex. How does one go from non matter to a complex living cell and that is why scientists like Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA, entertained the idea of alien genetic engineering.
  
  The theory of evolution as a natural process without intelligent design is just too inconclusive.
  report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  62
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin 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...
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So you believe that one species can evolve into another? Can you give me an idea how the mudworm, our alleged ancestor, eventually evolved into a human being?
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It would appear that you're actually asking who evolution works. If you don't know, perhaps you need to take the time to understand evolution, first?
  reply report
  76
  thisisoliposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You might want to check some historical fact first...
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thisisoli, you need to elaborate. What facts are exactly in dispute?
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  seems that christianity and other religions originated from pagan mythologies like sun worship - so not a whole lot of difference there
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Please explain to me how the mudworm eventually evolved into people and what is the common ancestor of all life.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
5. 0
  Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
6. 76
  thisisoliposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Because science explores how things work, religion just says 'god did it'?
  reply report
7. 61
  Woman Of Courageposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Some people accept science believing that it contradicts the creator of all things in the universe.
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
8. 59
  HerbalMarvelposted 13 years agoin 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)
  reply report
9. 80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Since God is in all things why isn't it easier to accept both.
  reply report
10. 61
  Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  HerbalMarvelposted 13 years agoin 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 ) "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
  reply report
  61
  Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
11. 61
  Dian'swords4uposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  71
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin 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.
  
  reply report
  88
  melporposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  Woman Of Courageposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  just_curious, I agree with you.
  reply report
12. 88
  melporposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
59
kessposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 69
  simeonvisserposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  This description would exactly fit religious people who grow into a belief system from birth...
  reply report
92
Sue Adamsposted 13 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
reply report
1. 0
  andycoolposted 13 years agoin 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. HNY
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
95
wildernessposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Science does not mention purpose of life; such an important dimension. Does it?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  79
  kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin 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
  
  I would be very interested in a scientific purpose for talking monkeys like you and me
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nope, that is the one. Sorry.
  reply report
  79
  kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin 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
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  79
  kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin 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).
  reply report
2. 51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Quran does not mention any magic that Allah- the Creator God does.
  reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 13 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.
reply report
83
psycheskinnerposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  88
  melporposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
61
spookyfoxposted 13 years ago
Because it works.
reply report
1. 0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  spoken like a true follower of your religion (in this case, science)
  
  reply report
  61
  spookyfoxposted 13 years agoin 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."
  reply report
  83
  psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin 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
  reply report
  61
  spookyfoxposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
60
jzepessposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 61
  spookyfoxposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  spookyfoxposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin 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...
  reply report
  61
  spookyfoxposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  spookyfoxposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
51
paarsurreyposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 61
  spookyfoxposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
63
Greek Oneposted 13 years ago
Because thankfully, for the most part, the human brain, appreciates reason and logic when back by experimentation and observation
reply report
61
SpanStarposted 13 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!
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Except when it comes to computers....
  and electricity....
  and automobiles....
  and health care....
  and what else?
  
  LOLOLO So desperate.
  reply report
2. 59
  HerbalMarvelposted 13 years agoin 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
  reply report
0
Sophia Angeliqueposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Sophia Angeliqueposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Sophia Angeliqueposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  @ Twenty One Days
  
  Apology accepted.
  
  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.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Sophia Angeliqueposted 13 years agoin 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.
  
  However, medicine uses science, as do many other businesses, in order to manufacture and profit.
  reply report
62
pisean282311posted 13 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...
reply report
83
psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago
Actually science relied on evidence, and there is plenty of that for evolution, both ancient and recent.
reply report
61
SpanStarposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 62
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin 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...
  reply report
2. 59
  HerbalMarvelposted 13 years agoin 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
  reply report
  88
  melporposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
61
SpanStarposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 79
  TahoeDocposted 13 years agoin 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
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  79
  TahoeDocposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Glad I could be of assistance, James.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin 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
  reply report
  62
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin 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....
  reply report
  61
  Woman Of Courageposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  interesting how when anesthesia was invented, the church declared it 'evil' as they thought everyone should suffer.
  reply report
88
melporposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  88
  melporposted 13 years agoin 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).
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin 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
  reply report
79
TahoeDocposted 13 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
reply report
1. 79
  TahoeDocposted 13 years agoin 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."
  reply report
2. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I am that guy at the party. LOL
  reply report
  79
  TahoeDocposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes - Irony. Wasted on many believers I am afraid. They don't believe in it.
  reply report
  79
  TahoeDocposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nice to meet you and thanks for being a voice of reason.
  reply report
76
frogdroppingposted 13 years ago
Tim cans it perfectly. And I can well imagine MK being that guy at parties
reply report
76
thisisoliposted 13 years ago
This video is brilliant.
reply report
1. 79
  TahoeDocposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. I think so too.
  reply report
81
2besureposted 13 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!
reply report
83
psycheskinnerposted 13 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.
reply report
61
SpanStarposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
2. 0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin 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
  reply report
65
Pulse101posted 13 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.
reply report
61
spookyfoxposted 13 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".
reply report
60
Jeramiposted 13 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.
reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 13 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].
reply report
51
paarsurreyposted 13 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.
reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Quran is that source authored by Allah- the Creator God.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nope, it was authored by Muhammad and his followers. Can you show that the source was from a god?
  reply report
2. 88
  melporposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
88
melporposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Why is Science so widely accepted?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Why is Science so widely accepted?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies