What the hell are you on about?

A. It has nothing to do with what I was saying, it was just a random attack on science.

B. It's just completely false.

Our knowledge of how semiconductors work gives you the computer you're typing on, our advances in medical technology is the reason that you're expected to live ~75 years and not ~30 years, our knowledge of general relativity allows instant communication around the world because it allows satellites, our knowledge of materials has allowed us to build better tools and shelters. Without scientists like Norman Borlaug even feeding yourself would be a difficult task in this world. I could go on all day.

Is science the bogeyman? Is science out to get ya? Is science as good as getting it wrong?

If you want to stop using science that's "getting it wrong", then live in a world of infant mortality rates out of control, where basic medicine doesn't exist, where people live in grass huts and where even feeding yourself is a task which will take up the majority of your day. Because that's what the world would be like without science.

Yes sometimes there are mistakes in science, but then again scientists can make the occasional mistake just like everyone, but the gross product of their input is so staggeringly positive I don't think I could even describe it.

So tell me, how would your life benefit without even the basic comforts you take for granted? You wouldn't even be able to make this point to me without science.

You want to point to someone like Thomas Midgely Jr and shout "All science is wrong", then get rid of all the areas of your life that depend on scientific advances first and then say it.

...

And I don't take scientific facts as gospel, that defeats the whole point of science. seriously, go and be a scientist for a few months, you'll understand in a second. Science is not about accepting things, it's about asking the questions that need to be asked.

Your grossly incorrect use of the word theory and the way you say they shouldn't publish something until they can fully explain what they propose just highlights how little you know about the scientific process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

A list of christian scientist. Christians question things just as scientist do, and some are scientist also. So just as science corrects itslef with new info so does religion. How are these different? It is a self correcting by members who include them selves in the religion. Just as you say for the scientific communtiy. All I am saying is hawkings breakthrough has no bearing on religion. How did it prove a god can't exist or didn't exist?

I know they're all gods. I only provided that list because you deemed the tooth fairy a bad example because nobody ever believed in it (which is something I would argue as millions of kids believe in the tooth fairy, like adults worldwide believe in god(s)), so I gave a list of gods which are now considered mythical. I thought maybe it was a more appropriate example than the tooth fairy

All the examples I gave were once believed in by people as much as god, but are now considered mythical. I think it fits in well with Serious frusting's statement and the criteria you deemed to be acceptable if I just replace the tooth fairy with one of those examples...

"Why are people so hung up on religion in these forums. In my opinion anything to do with god is as believable as Thor"

Thor is unbelievable, but you said that no-one ever believed in the tooth fairy and that was the reason it wasn't valid. People used to believe in Thor but don't now, so now it keeps SF's original idea, but conforms to your criteria of having to have once been believed in too.

Either way, if you want a non god example, how about dragons? People were convinced that dragons existed, but now they're considered mythical.

"Why are people so hung up on religion in these forums. In my opinion anything to do with god is as believable as dragons"

But to be brutally honest you're just moving the goalposts because both Thor and the tooth fairy are valid examples. 

strunge said:

it's not big news because it doesn't add anything new to the scenario.  physicists and aetheists have been claiming that the universe can exist by nature solely for years, so it isn't "new"s just because one more person says it because he has a greater visibility.

hat are you trying to say? Tooth fairy is a made up character by people. A God or Gods is/are something that people believed ever since they were created. I dont care if people used to believe in something and im not here to argue if their God/Gods are false because they are mythical today. All im saying is that tooth fairy is not anything like a God. So it cant be compared.

I know they're all gods. I only provided that list because you deemed the tooth fairy a bad example because nobody ever believed in it (which is something I would argue as millions of kids believe in the tooth fairy, like adults worldwide believe in god(s)), so I gave a list of gods which are now considered mythical. I thought maybe it was a more appropriate example than the tooth fairy

All the examples I gave were once believed in by people as much as god, but are now considered mythical. I think it fits in well with Serious frusting's statement and the criteria you deemed to be acceptable if I just replace the tooth fairy with one of those examples...

"Why are people so hung up on religion in these forums. In my opinion anything to do with god is as believable as Thor"

Thor is unbelievable, but you said that no-one ever believed in the tooth fairy and that was the reason it wasn't valid. People used to believe in Thor but don't now, so now it keeps SF's original idea, but conforms to your criteria of having to have once been believed in too.

Either way, if you want a non god example, how about dragons? People were convinced that dragons existed, but now they're considered mythical.

"Why are people so hung up on religion in these forums. In my opinion anything to do with god is as believable as dragons"

But to be brutally honest you're just moving the goalposts because both Thor and the tooth fairy are valid examples. 

They are christian, they made break throughs, christains follow those breakthroughs? Do you not see I am saying it is the same thing? why is it ok for science to correct itself but not religion? If you believe in god you can't be a scientist? is that what you are saying?