Home

[Gilgamesh.]

Science justfies the "how" and "what", it doesn't explain WHY (to me). But you can't have one without the other.

[Gilgamesh.]

so the question was towards religious members
and a bunch of atheists answered, does science go against literacy or...?

m,mkmf

wait Ray

[FlowerBomb]

Science justfies the "how" and "what", it doesn't explain WHY (to me). But you can't have one without the other.

[RAY7]

both religion and science are based in faith

Um, not really

yes really all ppl who believe in everything science pretty much have faith that what is told to them through "research" is correct
no one really knows for sure what happened millions of years ago

[FlowerBomb]

Science is factual though, it comes with hard numbers, concrete evidence and proof.
That "research" is tested, peer reviewed and validated before it's published
Religion is based on faith, feeling and spirituality, there isn't cold hard evidence.

[RAY7]

All of that is a fancy way to say faith
"Peer reviewed" so basically you're trusting what a another person said
because he/she is a "scientist" given a degree/certificate or whatever that says so
It's all very similar, and that's why there are so many conflicting "theories" and "studies" everyday
One day Pluto is a Planet, one day it's a moon
One day the Ice Age killed the dinosaurs, then it was a comet
whatever

[Real]

Science justfies the "how" and "what", it doesn't explain WHY (to me). But you can't have one without the other.

Good way to.put it

[Real]

Christianity aside, I don't see how people can live without faith in something .

[LOONA.]

Science is factual though, it comes with hard numbers, concrete evidence and proof.
That "research" is tested, peer reviewed and validated before it's published
Religion is based on faith, feeling and spirituality, there isn't cold hard evidence.

Come on logic   

[FlowerBomb]

All of that is a fancy way to say faith
"Peer reviewed" so basically you're trusting what a another person said
because he/she is a "scientist" given a degree/certificate or whatever that says so
It's all very similar, and that's why there are so many conflicting "theories" and "studies" everyday
One day Pluto is a Planet, one day it's a moon
One day the Ice Age killed the dinosaurs, then it was a comet
whatever

"Peer reviewed" so basically you're trusting what a another person said
because he/she is a "scientist" given a degree/certificate or whatever that says so

"Peer reviewed" as in one scientist spends years proving a theory before bringing it forward, before OTHER scientist means test, review it put it into more studies before releasing it.
A good example of that is clinical trials and medication

Sounds like your downplaying what experts do, why wouldn't you take stock in someone who's spent years in school, who's constantly educating themselves on trying to prove a thesis? They have a degree for that very reason

It's all very similar, and that's why there are so many conflicting "theories" and "studies" everyday
One day Pluto is a Planet, one day it's a moon
One day the Ice Age killed the dinosaurs, then it was a comet

Your right, there are many conflicting studies out there, but the things you listed are examples are things that are being worked on everyday, the planet thing isn't a good example because we are STILL learning about the universe, planets are still being discovered, expeditions are being carried out every few years for new information.
Most things cant be refuted, for example, we know the sun's process in how plants grow, we know how electricity works, we know what things are needed in order to make fire

[RAY7]

All of that is a fancy way to say faith
"Peer reviewed" so basically you're trusting what a another person said
because he/she is a "scientist" given a degree/certificate or whatever that says so
It's all very similar, and that's why there are so many conflicting "theories" and "studies" everyday
One day Pluto is a Planet, one day it's a moon
One day the Ice Age killed the dinosaurs, then it was a comet
whatever

"Peer reviewed" so basically you're trusting what a another person said
because he/she is a "scientist" given a degree/certificate or whatever that says so

"Peer reviewed" as in one scientist spends years proving a theory before bringing it forward, before OTHER scientist means test, review it put it into more studies before releasing it.
A good example of that is clinical trials and medication

Sounds like your downplaying what experts do, why wouldn't you take stock in someone who's spent years in school, who's constantly educating themselves on trying to prove a thesis? They have a degree for that very reason

It's all very similar, and that's why there are so many conflicting "theories" and "studies" everyday
One day Pluto is a Planet, one day it's a moon
One day the Ice Age killed the dinosaurs, then it was a comet

Your right, there are many conflicting studies out there, but the things you listed are examples are things that are being worked on everyday, the planet thing isn't a good example because we are STILL learning about the universe, planets are still being discovered, expeditions are being carried out every few years for new information.
Most things cant be refuted, for example, we know the sun's process in how plants grow, we know how electricity works, we know what things are needed in order to make fire

none of this is conflicting with what I said it's just a drawn out explanation

[FlowerBomb]

[Zankou.]

so the question was towards religious members
and a bunch of atheists answered, does science go against literacy or...?

what the world

[GRAND]

im a scientologist faggot

[Zankou.]

don't you have to eat your first born to be inducted or something