Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

One thing I've learned about science is that it and everything else is not absolute. as good as a theory may be there is always room for suggestion as long as sufficient data is presented and is tested vigorously, heck bill nye the science guy use to encourage people to test theory's but why is it some certain believe what there told and don't even question it?
I've seen people criticize others for not questioning there religion yet except theory's excepted by the scientific community without hesitation I'm not saying there's some kind of conspiracy but why do people except things so easily then criticize others for doing the same thing?

Because science is based on actual evidence,not books and beliefs. Dinosaurs existed because we have their skeletons.Evolution happened because animals can be looked at in an advancing scale. God exists because it's written in a book and my mom said so. See the difference?

Originally posted by Black Rob
Because science is based on actual evidence,not books and beliefs. Dinosaurs existed because we have their skeletons.Evolution happened because animals can be looked at in an advancing scale. God exists because it's written in a book and my mom said so. See the difference?

You don't understand my question I'm asking why certain people just accept theories and don't question or test it Yes science is based on evidence but it also founded on testing and experimenting the average Joe just except whatever the scientific community gives them without testing it they just have faith it's true. So what's the difference you say evolution happened because animals can be looked at in an advancing scale I agree but have you analyzed these scales? so you have faith in someone else's work unless you prove something it's not science.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
You don't understand my question I'm asking why certain people just accept theories and don't question or test it Yes science is based on evidence but it also founded on testing and experimenting the average Joe just except whatever the scientific community gives them without testing it they just have faith it's true. So what's the difference you say evolution happened because animals can be looked at in an advancing scale I agree but have you analyzed these scales? so you have faith in someone else's work unless you prove something it's not science. I see your point,but with that logic,every single thing in existence could be questioned. There is no space because i haven't gone there. There are no atoms because i cant see them. Celebrities don't exist because i never met them. Thinking like that really doesn't go anywhere

1. I very much admire this post. I love science and am glad to see someone else in here that is not under the misconception that science expresses itself as an absolute. That seems to go over many people's heads. What science concludes to be true today may not be true tomorrow.......it's only as good as the knowledge/data it's based on. When that knowledge/data change, so does science.

2. To answer your question quite simply:

Science not only gives the answers.....but shows how the answers were attained so any person walking this blue orb could research or test any scientific fact to see the results for themselves. We don't have to take anybody's word for it.........and many people don't. That is why science is continually changing......we keep seeking out new information to test/challenge old scientific fact. If nobody questioned and merely took others' words for facts, we would still believe in the geocentric universe. The average Joe usually just accepts scientific facts because it has been tested by many, many people who have come to the same conclusion.....and them telling us how they reached that conclusion so we ourselves can test it if we don't believe them. If the scientific community agrees on a fact concerning biology and I don't agree with it......I can always study biology and do the same research and run the same tests they did.

That is something religion has never done and never will. Religions state something and simply say, "this is true".....they never tell how they arrived at their conclusion for others to check their work and most of it is claimed to be due to an invisible man in the sky. If Christianity said, "God made earth in 6 days...the earth is only 6,000 years old" then went on to list all the credible research and data they have collected over the past few millenia to support their conclusion, they wouldn't get nearly as much grief for it. They simply do not do it because they have infact never done any research or collected any data......their claims are based soly on the writing of a story some guy made up in his head. I mean really.......the first carbon-13 test of any fossil of any dinosaur, mammoth or even ancient human would completely destroy their theory if they ever actually decided to test evidence and record data.

wow you just explained that a WHOLE lot better than i did...

thanks

Well my issue isn't with science but with the scientific community why is it people critisize others for blind faith when they just except theory's from some panel without testing it and if you don't except it your crazy it's no different from religion sometimes an example would be the piltdown man incident also some theories are completely disregarded.

um.......because scientists do not use blind faith when they "take someone else's word for it".........if a scientists comes to a conclusion, he tells the entire world exactly how he came to that conclusion, what tests, research and data that was used so any other person on this earth and do the exact same study and come to the same conclusion. get out of here with your "blind faith" bullshit. It's not called blind faith if you're being told exactly how results were achieved so you yourself can test it if you don't believe it.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
um.......because scientists do not use blind faith when they "take someone else's word for it".........if a scientists comes to a conclusion, he tells the entire world exactly how he came to that conclusion, what tests, research and data that was used so any other person on this earth and do the exact same study and come to the same conclusion. get out of here with your "blind faith" bullshit. It's not called blind faith if you're being told exactly how results were achieved so you yourself can test it if you don't believe it.

Wow thats the bs I'm talking about so science has never had false findings? and I wasn't talking about scientist having blind faith I was reffering to the average joe.

This is another one of my points how many people do you know that challenge findings that are accepted science through hard testing?

And again I'm questioning the community not science it self.

you seem to contradict yourself........





How exactly could a scientific fact or finding be considered false unless there were many others out there who were challenging findings and doing their own research/testing to come to different conclusions?

It's this simple. If there is ANY and I mean ANY scientific fact that you think is not right.........by all means, study the subject yourself.....all the research...all the data.....do your own testing and expirementation and see if the results you get are different? It's not like a scientist just says, "hey this is what I found out, it's fact"........they give you all the information...all the data...all the research their conclusions are based on for you to double check their work.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
you seem to contradict yourself........


It's most likely because of my wording if it is my apologies
Originally posted by Evil Dead


How exactly could a scientific fact or finding be considered false unless there were many others out there who were challenging findings and doing their own research/testing to come to different conclusions?



For every theory accepted there is a counter claim but the thing is these counter claims aren't always acknowledged what I'm trying to say is why do certain people except theory's as dogma's they believe it to be the absolute truth but don't realize there are no absolutes in science a good example is the "piltdown man" inciedent basically whatever theory exist it's up to some panel of experts to decide if it reaches the textbook and some times they BS or play favoritism this is my point.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
One thing I've learned about science is that it and everything else is not absolute. as good as a theory may be there is always room for suggestion as long as sufficient data is presented and is tested vigorously, heck bill nye the science guy use to encourage people to test theory's but why is it some certain believe what there told and don't even question it?
I've seen people criticize others for not questioning there religion yet except theory's excepted by the scientific community without hesitation I'm not saying there's some kind of conspiracy but why do people except things so easily then criticize others for doing the same thing?

I CANNOT BELIEVE you answered your own question before you even asked it!

You're ****ing priceless.

Someone can follow science without asking too many questions...because all of the questions have been asked and supported by data, data which has been tested hundreds of times over! And if something is proven wrong, then it's corrected and we accept the change.

Not only that, but ANYONE curious enough can go and research the facts and scientific data for themselves.

Where does religion allow for such research and levity? NOWHERE

It's always been "God did it. Shut up, don't ask questions. God did it."

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
You don't understand my question I'm asking why certain people just accept theories and don't question or test it Yes science is based on evidence but it also founded on testing and experimenting the average Joe just except whatever the scientific community gives them without testing it they just have faith it's true. So what's the difference you say evolution happened because animals can be looked at in an advancing scale I agree but have you analyzed these scales? so you have faith in someone else's work unless you prove something it's not science. we do question it. But rather than say god, we find new things because Science changes as we gather more data, we advance our ideas. I for one, don't understand Einstein's theory of relativity, but rather than saying god as the other explanation, I look at the holes, see what fits, check my ideas, then put it up for debate. Not lying about the universe.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak



Someone can follow science without asking too many questions...because all of the questions have been asked and supported by data, data which has been tested hundreds of times over! And if something is proven wrong, then it's corrected and we accept the change.



It doesn't matter how many times something is tested your supposed to test it again and how many people test what they've been told?

I am not seeing the point behind this thread.

Originally posted by Wesker
I am not seeing the point behind this thread.

forget it how do i close this thread?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
forget it how do i close this thread?

Contact a mod and request the thread to be closed.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
forget it how do i close this thread?
Don' t let yourself be thrown off your balance by members

No, just humor them like I do..............

you imply there was balance to begin with......

Originally posted by Captain Falcon
we do question it. But rather than say god, we find new things because Science changes as we gather more data, we advance our ideas. I for one, don't understand Einstein's theory of relativity, but rather than saying god as the other explanation, I look at the holes, see what fits, check my ideas, then put it up for debate. Not lying about the universe.

This is at the heart of a very simple matter.

Scientists who simply accept theories on faith, and do not try and qustion and debate and knock down and improve upon received scientific wisdom...

... are crap scientists.

The very essence of science is to quesiton, to attack, to criticise. All scientific theories are the best we can currently manage, not the best that can be managed full stop, a situation which often confuses those who attack science, who think by pointing out a hole in a theory they have somehow turned science into a faith, whereas in fact science is all about acknowledging and filling in such holes, which in turn expose new holes to be filled in.

At its very base nature, science encourages you to knock down what already stands. In this respect, it is the complete opposite of most major religions.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
This is at the heart of a very simple matter.

Scientists who simply accept theories on faith, and do not try and qustion and debate and knock down and improve upon received scientific wisdom...

... are crap scientists.

The very essence of science is to quesiton, to attack, to criticise. All scientific theories are the best we can currently manage, not the best that can be managed full stop, a situation which often confuses those who attack science, who think by pointing out a hole in a theory they have somehow turned science into a faith, whereas in fact science is all about acknowledging and filling in such holes, which in turn expose new holes to be filled in.

At its very base nature, science encourages you to knock down what already stands. In this respect, it is the complete opposite of most major religions. what he said. Saying "I'll believe this" or "I won't believe this" isn't science.

Explanations for the origin of life: God, An ancestor.

Now come on we all have ancestors, some all animals have changed, and there's evidence that support it.

What evidence is there for God?