Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 44 of 44

Thread: Science

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Kentucky, United States of America
    Posts
    409
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Dean Koontz. My personal favorite by far.

    He has a couple kind of shoddy ones, but tons of great ones to make up for them.

    Edit: Daniel Silva is very good too.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    891
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Terry Pratchett and Isaac Asimov > All of them.
    Love Isaac Asimov.

    I only disagree with you upon how "Religion is just a face", made up by someone who was scared of what they didn't know. Religion can be used to bring people together MUCH better than science can. It can be used to explain metaphysics, a place in which science is lacking. It fills in the parts of the soul that science cannot. But I'm still nonreligious, because I find all the world's current religions very lacking and unsupportive of each other nor of the people who make up the denominations.
    It can be used to explain metaphysics, a place in which science is lacking.
    Yes, but the need to explain metaphysics comes from fear of the unknown or even a humans natural instincts that nothing is impossible and there's always a reason? So, since we know that, "metaphysics" is real, we then have that instinct that tells us there must be a reason, therefore the creation of religion? (Don't know much at all about metaphysics so correct me if I'm wrong )

    Religion can be used to bring people together MUCH better than science can.
    Agreed, but I believe that those people are brought together with/on an unstable foundation. But yes, you are correct.

    It fills in the parts of the soul that science cannot.
    Once again, the human instinct. Afraid of the unknown I guess..

    -Dunceiam

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    N Wales
    Posts
    558
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quoted
    56 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crossback7 View Post
    True, but it's more about the proportion of the discoveries that science is making. I'm just wondering what the next huge one will be. Where do we go from here? I'm just not sure if anything we discover will be quite as dramatic as say the discovery of fire, or the invention of electrity, or the invention of the automobile and airplane, etc, etc.

    how can you tell? 2 years before people dicovered fire they had no-idea what it was... your obviously not going to know if anything we discover will be very dramatic because it hasnt happend yet to see what effect it has on the world.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    891
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    how can you tell? 2 years before people dicovered fire they had no-idea what it was... your obviously not going to know if anything we discover will be very dramatic because it hasnt happend yet to see what effect it has on the world.
    Fire was discovered in China, back with the cavemen. They supposedly found out about fire when lightning hit a tree, and it caught fire. So 2 years before they may never even had seen fire.

    see what effect it has on the world.
    That's what super-computers are for . To predict the future.

    Personally I think the next major thing will be H2O engines, which already are developed I believe, but once people start to know about them, it will be the new craze. Either that or invisibility, that would change the future dramatically, which I think is already being developed for soldiers mostly because I'm reading multiple, "Popular Science" magazines .

    -Dunceiam

  5. #30
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    GMU
    Posts
    1,101
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Yep, invisibility already exists, but right now it's being hogged by the DoD. Wonder what would happen if a robber got hold of one...
    Hey lady, I need a yank! Ha ha, dislocation.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    New Yawk
    Posts
    943
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Invisibility hasn't been perfected yet, and as far as I know, carelessness will get him/her killed and robbed back in no time.
    I guess the holidays are over - no sig for now.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    GMU
    Posts
    1,101
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Seriously, I would pay a lot to get my hands on one of those things
    Hey lady, I need a yank! Ha ha, dislocation.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Kentucky, United States of America
    Posts
    409
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I'm sure quite a few third world countries would too.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stack Town, CA
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Science can and will solve some problems but not all. I watched this thing on the discovery channel, and it was saying that once we make it to mars we could put plants that mass generate pollutants so it warms up the planet mars and in a matter of a decade it would be livable and there would be water. and after 50 to 100 years it would start to form life, making it another earth! so if or when the earth is destroyed we can go chill out on mars.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    891
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lolpie View Post
    Yep, invisibility already exists, but right now it's being hogged by the DoD. Wonder what would happen if a robber got hold of one...
    DoD...?

    Science can and will solve some problems but not all. I watched this thing on the discovery channel, and it was saying that once we make it to mars we could put plants that mass generate pollutants so it warms up the planet mars and in a matter of a decade it would be livable and there would be water. and after 50 to 100 years it would start to form life, making it another earth! so if or when the earth is destroyed we can go chill out on mars.
    I'm not too good on my astronomy, but isn't Mars closer to the Sun then Earth? Making it hotter not colder then Earth? Would it not having an atmosphere lead to it being colder?

    Plus, plants need oxygen and since Mars doesn't have an atmosphere which would make oxygen not leak out to space. (Does Mars have an atmosphere? )

    in a matter of a decade it would be livable and there would be water.
    How would water get there?

    so if or when the earth is destroyed we can go chill out on mars.
    With lots of sun-screen . Also, how will you get 10,000,000,000 (Guessed for 50-100 years) people into space, and onto Mars? My only guess is the theory of a space elevator...

    Science can and will solve some problems but not all.
    That's attempting to predict the future, we don't know where Science will go, as far as we know, it may solve every single problem. Unlikely, but plausible.

    Invisibility hasn't been perfected yet, and as far as I know, carelessness will get him/her killed and robbed back in no time.
    Are you talking about a person?

    -Dunceiam

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    855
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    No mars is the next planet further from the sun.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    I'm a figment of your imagination
    Posts
    422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Esteban View Post
    For now i will only say that science creates problems when they try to answer all the questions to the world. And when they do, they get themselves into a situation where they have to create a BS theory in order to not admit that they are wrong and that there is the possibility of a creator. I will base everything i post on later on this thread from the book, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist," as it totally owns science and their BS theories and in return provides evidence in support of a creator.
    Errm... No. Most theories science comes up with are correct. And if the theories are BS, then go ahead and disprove them! Science is a system that constantly changes as new data about our universe comes in, meaning that theories CAN and DO actually change. Science can be wrong, true, but it is normally corrected within 100 years, and recently as fast as 24 hrs.

    Also - how can you say that atheists lack faith - they do believe in something. If they don't believe in anything (i.e. no god), they believe in something. Meaning that they have faith that they are correct, even though it is from their perspective. They may not have faith in your beliefs. But they do have faith in themselves and their beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dunceiam View Post
    As Here said, "religion did the exact same thing a few hundred years ago." There are so many flaws within the Bible, it's come to the point that I cannot trust it. A book that old, translated that many times, edited so often, it's not valid anymore in my opinion. What problems exactly?
    Hmm... No way. The bible is still valid in SOME points. At least the original scripts and even a fraction of the translated and edited material have philosophical and historical significance. Philosophical, because one can see how people had the same questions about life, the universe, and everything 10000 years ago, and how we still keep on asking the same questions. Historically, because it shows how early humans developed. Just as an example, the number pie (3.14... ) is mentioned in the bible, when humans didn't even have the knowledge/intelligence to calculate the number by themselves. And I trust radiocarbon dating to be very very accurate...

    Spiritually, the bible is still the number one book sold. But then again, you have to admit - no other book has caused so much controversy. No other book has caused wars, paradigm shifts and other significant events. At least no book on science I know of...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dunceiam View Post
    Alright, smart dude tell me one way in which the Big Bang theory is incorrect.
    Well, for one thing, it's just a theory and hasn't been proven yet. And plus, it's based on subjective facts. If you like it or not, science isn't objective. It's subjective, because HUMANS interpret the data. HUMANS develop theories. Objective computers are still too dumb to do it. And plus, if science can't tell what happened before the big bang, the entire theory ammounts to nothing because it doesn't really help in figuring out the ultimate origin of people. All it basically tells me is that the universe is constantly expanding. Maybe it isn't expanding, but matter is shrinking? It all depends on perspective. Maybe our world is entirely subjective and all that really counts are your beliefs. I've got the impression that it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dunceiam View Post
    If he's so powerful then why doesn't he help the 40 children that die daily due to no clean water, why does he not help the people in poverty, why does he not stop Global Warming? Let me guess, let us solve our own problems? Let everyone who supports him die? I'm not sure that's a good approach.
    Well, if this world were perfect, if you just had to ask and everything would happen, it would be just like heaven... If you read a bit of scripture and did your homework, you'd know that religion doesn't work that way. After all, without challenge, we'd be godlike, as HERE said. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And for the greediness and selfishness of human nature, this applies 100%. Look at politics, and see why shit happens daily. So basically, its an internal struggle to "shut out" your instincts, and become rational.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dunceiam View Post
    Personally, I think that Religion is just a face. Something that someone made up because they were afraid. Afraid of the unknown. They couldn't accept what they didn't know, and made up stories to reassure themselves. I'm not trying to alter anyones beliefs, all I want is for people explain to me how and why you think that your argument is true. Such as if you say, "God is Mighty" I want you to tell me why, how, and where you got that. Instead of posting, "Science is BS and their theories are BS." Tell me why their theories are BS and I might believe you.
    Okay, some religions are just a face. People created religions to surpress their fear of the unknown. Fear promotes irrationality. Definetly true. But - not ALL religions try to do that. You actually have to look at religions to sort out the bullshit from the stuff that is actually true. Religions has been corrupted as to keep a bunch of people with similar spiritual belief together. Reason being, so that in difficult times (i.e. war, famine, etc.) they wouldn't kill each other. Most religions did this by manipulating people with their worst fear (i.e. fear of the unknown). This banding together also resulted in the effect of the "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality. Fanaticism is the worst thing that can happen to religion, but it's inevitable, with this 13th century attitude. Today, this is a problem, because the world is international. In a way, atheism is a new international religion with this attitude against nonatheists (i.e. trying to disprove their religion). But it's a religion which uses science as "The face" to shut out fears.

    But if you look at the big picture, this entire system is just a wrapper. Inside the shell is always the same: A spiritual component that is ALWAYS the same, no matter at which religion you look. The only thing that's different is the wrapper and the way this wrapper is connected to the spiritual component.

    The thing is, religious people or scientific people don't look at this spiritual component. It's sorta like believing in/criticising the color of a car instead of looking under the hood and seeing whats inside. Most cars have the same basic components (i.e. motor, carburator, coolant, etc.). It's the same with religions. Maybe the company name or method of presentation differ. But they're still the same basic object.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dunceiam View Post
    Instead of posting, "Science is BS and their theories are BS." Tell me why their theories are BS and I might believe you.
    Science isn't BS. No one is trying to say "these theories are bullshit, I WANNA KNOW TEH TRUTH". It's just that the "wrapper" of religions has to say that they know better, so people band together. It's not their fault nor the fault of the scientists, it's the fault of a poorly designed system based on the lack of knowledge before the dawn of scientific advancement in the 17th century.

    If you read all that, congratultations and thanks for your patience. My fingers hurt :S.

    It's been a while... but I'm BACK!!!

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    891
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Glad I'm using one of my last few posts til' my millenium on something important in my mind .

    Hmm... No way. The bible is still valid in SOME points. At least the original scripts and even a fraction of the translated and edited material have philosophical and historical significance. Philosophical, because one can see how people had the same questions about life, the universe, and everything 10000 years ago, and how we still keep on asking the same questions. Historically, because it shows how early humans developed. Just as an example, the number pie (3.14... ) is mentioned in the bible, when humans didn't even have the knowledge/intelligence to calculate the number by themselves. And I trust radiocarbon dating to be very very accurate...

    Spiritually, the bible is still the number one book sold. But then again, you have to admit - no other book has caused so much controversy. No other book has caused wars, paradigm shifts and other significant events. At least no book on science I know of...
    The bible is still valid in SOME points. At least the original scripts and even a fraction of the translated and edited material have philosophical and historical significance.
    True, it could be valid in some points, but the problem is, is seperating the valid points from the unvalid points, and in a book of, say 600 pages (Guess...) with every page surrounded by claims of sightings/happenings that came to us all from one single book, there have been no memories passed on through the centuries, there has been nothing except for 600 pages and a lot of ink. Seperating the valid from invalid would prove very very difficult. Also having that as a basis of religions spread worldwide, seems to me like a water-tower held up by one stand, it's bound to fall over.

    And I trust radiocarbon dating to be very very accurate...
    What is radiocarbon dating...? . I'm guessing that is has something to do with the Earth, and what does that have to do with Pi? .

    Spiritually, the bible is still the number one book sold. But then again, you have to admit - no other book has caused so much controversy. No other book has caused wars, paradigm shifts and other significant events. At least no book on science I know of..
    As you say later on, people surround themselves with religion, and the, "If you're not with us, you're against us" starts. All these wars happen because of religious fanatics that don't accept anyone that isn't following their religion. And as far as I know, no wars have been started because of atheists .


    Well, for one thing, it's just a theory and hasn't been proven yet. And plus, it's based on subjective facts. If you like it or not, science isn't objective. It's subjective, because HUMANS interpret the data. HUMANS develop theories. Objective computers are still too dumb to do it. And plus, if science can't tell what happened before the big bang, the entire theory ammounts to nothing because it doesn't really help in figuring out the ultimate origin of people. All it basically tells me is that the universe is constantly expanding. Maybe it isn't expanding, but matter is shrinking? It all depends on perspective. Maybe our world is entirely subjective and all that really counts are your beliefs. I've got the impression that it is.
    Some people could call religion a theory as well, it also has not been proved, and I repeat, it's all based on a single book, while science on the other hand uses facts, and attempts to really discover the truth. So in my mind, science is trying to work toward discovering the real truth, while religion, they're afraid of the possibility of not having a God, they don't want to know the truth. And if science does stumble upon that truth, their religion/most religions will crumble, which I believe is the reason that religious people try to, "diss" science, they try to discontinue science. (I'm not trying to stereotype if anyone feels offended...)

    And plus, if science can't tell what happened before the big bang, the entire theory ammounts to nothing because it doesn't really help in figuring out the ultimate origin of people. All it basically tells me is that the universe is constantly expanding. Maybe it isn't expanding, but matter is shrinking? It all depends on perspective. Maybe our world is entirely subjective and all that really counts are your beliefs. I've got the impression that it is.
    Science may not be able to tell us exactly what happened, but neither can religion. Religion is, "helping" us to find out the ultimate origin of people, it's merely giving us something to try and make us believe what happened, whether it be true or not. At least science is attempting to get the facts, and not put on a face. .

    Well, if this world were perfect, if you just had to ask and everything would happen, it would be just like heaven... If you read a bit of scripture and did your homework, you'd know that religion doesn't work that way. After all, without challenge, we'd be godlike, as HERE said. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And for the greediness and selfishness of human nature, this applies 100%. Look at politics, and see why shit happens daily. So basically, its an internal struggle to "shut out" your instincts, and become rational.
    Yes, but by saving a childs life, the child's life is still not perfect, it's merely better then it was before, so God could save the childs life, without the child thinking he/she was in heaven. The child still has challenges, the child is nothing near Godlike, so I repeat:

    "If he's so powerful then why doesn't he help the 40 children that die daily due to no clean water, why does he not help the people in poverty, why does he not stop Global Warming? Let me guess, let us solve our own problems? Let everyone who supports him die? I'm not sure that's a good approach."

    Some may argue, humans are animals, and many times, if there is not enough food for the whole pack, the pack will start killing it's own in order for the pack to survive. They sacrifice others for the sake of everyone else. This might be Gods way of keeping the rest of us alive, how cruel it may be, I honestly don't know. For all I know, once other planets become habitable God might stop letting people die, because now there's more food for all the animals.

    Also, I was just thinking, "Where did God get created, where did he come from?" Matter cannot be either created nor destroyed. So, how was God created? Is God a physical being? Or is he the diamond glint on snow? The light Autumn rain? The wind over the valleys of hay? Also, where did he get the matter to create Adam and Eve? Their garden? Science has proved that matter cannot be neither created nor destroyed, or can God alter the very basic laws of physics?

    Okay, some religions are just a face. People created religions to surpress their fear of the unknown. Fear promotes irrationality. Definetly true. But - not ALL religions try to do that. You actually have to look at religions to sort out the bullshit from the stuff that is actually true. Religions has been corrupted as to keep a bunch of people with similar spiritual belief together. Reason being, so that in difficult times (i.e. war, famine, etc.) they wouldn't kill each other. Most religions did this by manipulating people with their worst fear (i.e. fear of the unknown). This banding together also resulted in the effect of the "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality. Fanaticism is the worst thing that can happen to religion, but it's inevitable, with this 13th century attitude. Today, this is a problem, because the world is international. In a way, atheism is a new international religion with this attitude against nonatheists (i.e. trying to disprove their religion). But it's a religion which uses science as "The face" to shut out fears.

    But if you look at the big picture, this entire system is just a wrapper. Inside the shell is always the same: A spiritual component that is ALWAYS the same, no matter at which religion you look. The only thing that's different is the wrapper and the way this wrapper is connected to the spiritual component.

    The thing is, religious people or scientific people don't look at this spiritual component. It's sorta like believing in/criticising the color of a car instead of looking under the hood and seeing whats inside. Most cars have the same basic components (i.e. motor, carburator, coolant, etc.). It's the same with religions. Maybe the company name or method of presentation differ. But they're still the same basic object.
    Okay, some religions are just a face.
    By saying, "Some" you're basically throwing away other religions that you do not believe in?

    People created religions to surpress their fear of the unknown.
    Yet here you seem to contradict your previous statement and say that all religions are a face? If something is created just to stop others from seeing what's really inside, that could be called a face .

    You actually have to look at religions to sort out the bullshit from the stuff that is actually true. Religions has been corrupted as to keep a bunch of people with similar spiritual belief together.
    I'm not too familair with the actual difference, but I belive that Sunnis and Shiites (Spell?) in fact believe in exactly the same thing except for one small difference. The names of Mohammad's family. (Correct me if wrong). That religion was created to keep the whole religion together, yet the fanatics who watch the details very closely started to argue, and wallah, they split up. A religion created to keep people together, eventually led to splitting up mostly because of people who believed in that religion with their whole heart.

    Fanaticism is the worst thing that can happen to religion, but it's inevitable.
    Totally agree with that .

    In a way, atheism is a new international religion with this attitude against nonatheists (i.e. trying to disprove their religion). But it's a religion which uses science as "The face" to shut out fears.
    Faces are things that want to stop people from seeing what's really going on. While, science I repeat for the n-th time, is actually trying to discover if there is a God or not, and it's showing people along the way. That is not a face . As for atheism, I'm not trying to offend anybody, and please do not take notice of what I say if it does in fact offend you, but I consider people that believe in some crazy religions, "silly". I'm not trying to convert people, I'm not a missionary, I'm just pointing out some things. Sometimes I wonder if God really does exist, many times I hold arguments like this in my head, they go on forever and ever. And many times I resort to just asking God, if he really does exist then make a red car come down the street next, or make me get an email from a long-lost friend next-week. Sometimes the results are coincidence, sometimes nothing comes, and sometimes things do happen. I'm torn between atheism and religion, I'm just trying to point out the flaws in both of them.

    The thing is, religious people or scientific people don't look at this spiritual component. It's sorta like believing in/criticising the color of a car instead of looking under the hood and seeing whats inside. Most cars have the same basic components (i.e. motor, carburator, coolant, etc.). It's the same with religions. Maybe the company name or method of presentation differ. But they're still the same basic object.
    Yet some religions have a V8 engine, instead of a V6. The V8 is a higher quality, and it's more powerful.

    Science isn't BS. No one is trying to say "these theories are bullshit, I WANNA KNOW TEH TRUTH". It's just that the "wrapper" of religions has to say that they know better, so people band together. It's not their fault nor the fault of the scientists, it's the fault of a poorly designed system based on the lack of knowledge before the dawn of scientific advancement in the 17th century.
    For now i will only say that science creates problems when they try to answer all the questions to the world. And when they do, they get themselves into a situation where they have to create a BS theory in order to not admit that they are wrong and that there is the possibility of a creator. I will base everything i post on later on this thread from the book, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist," as it totally owns science and their BS theories and in return provides evidence in support of a creator.
    Esteban is being hostile toward science, and calling their theories BS. The scientists that developed those theories must be BS too, and since scientists like Science, that means that science is BS, in Estebans point of view.He's also calling scientists, "wrong" when he does not have a better idea of what happened. "I will base everything i post on later on this thread from the book, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist," as it totally owns science and their BS theories and in return provides evidence in support of a creator" Again, calling science BS, and saying his religion is superior, and others are inferior.

    This is what I'm talking about, some serious believers just close down their minds to other possibilties because they're afraid that they might be wrong. I know I might be wrong, if someone gives me some cold hard facts about why Religion is superior, I might believe them, my mind is open to new possibilities. .

    Once again, I'm glad I'm using my last few posts on something that's important to me.

    -Dunceiam

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Riding the escalator to heaven.
    Posts
    506
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    My head hurts..*.^75. why dont we all just blame what we cant figure out on god and be happy, please.






  15. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    I'm a figment of your imagination
    Posts
    422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    This is what I'm talking about, some serious believers just close down their minds to other possibilties because they're afraid that they might be wrong. I know I might be wrong, if someone gives me some cold hard facts about why Religion is superior, I might believe them, my mind is open to new possibilities.
    Maybe you should open your mind and study the other side more in detail. You're confusing religion with spirituality. It's so common these days...

    Faces are things that want to stop people from seeing what's really going on. While, science I repeat for the n-th time, is actually trying to discover if there is a God or not (...)
    Yep. Definetly right. But there is shit happening right now that science just simply can't explain (yet), and probably never will. Believe it or not. And we still haven't figured out all that shit about perception and reality. So before I go and entrust my life to science, believing something that may be false because it was perceived in a distorted way or interpreted incorrectly, I'll be skeptical about science. Instead of becoming a fully fledged science believer, I'll stay in the limbo of indecision.

    Faces are things that want to stop people from seeing what's really going on.
    Also correct. But have you ever considered science trying to stop people from knowing what's going on? We've come CLOSE to the limit of knowing what's happened at the beginning of the universe (10 to the -8 nanoseconds away from big bang). At the end of this year, in my city, a newly built particle accellerator will attempt to recreate what happened even earlier. It is the most powerful particle accellerator ever built. And yet - be it as powerful as you want, you will NEVER EVER EVER EVER be able to recreate the big bang. And if it does happen - we all die. I call that a serious limitation. That's a face - something that stops people from seeing the real thing. I'm not saying religion doesn't have faces - it has many. I'm just saying, that science isn't the answer either - at least not in the long term.

    It's been a while... but I'm BACK!!!

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    83
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Science has already helped human kind.

    Yay for tractors, yay for water works, yay for everything else.

    Who cares if it managed to go from "oh, fissuring these atoms makes a lot of energy" to "MUHAHA, A-BOMB FOR JAPAN!" or something else such as "these pitch forks make great stabbing tools".

    Sure its engineering, but we need science to advance it and understand it, thus making humanity better.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The curb.
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I believe in science,
    Only because I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection, though, Lamarck's Theory is also correct, but it just wouldn't work out by swapping genetic features.

    I mean, Stanely Miller did do that experiment which stimulated conditions on early Earth, proving that life could have been created in pools of water that contained the right molecules of life, but most people think the gases he used were in different concentrations at the time..

    Gosh I sound like a nerd.

    Though last thing, scientists have found the molecules and DNA or whatever on meteorites needed to create life. So life could come from outer space. Though Mars is the most likely candidate for that because it was created from the same substances and at the same time as the Earth.

    Also remember, palaentologists don't look for intellegent life forms or aliens, they look for bacteria that can live in remote places throughout the universe.

    I hope I've gotten most of my facts right..

    But yeah, Science is the answer!

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Copy pastin to my C#
    Posts
    3,788
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Quoted
    29 Post(s)

    Default

    I also think Science > God... (no offense anyone, its an opinion)

    Gosh I sound like a nerd.
    You sound wise.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Banville
    Posts
    3,914
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Quoted
    98 Post(s)

    Default

    I think science might be the answer. But then again, religious people don't like to believe that... Even though its got proof.

    Religion is just people in a large group:

    The jealous temper of mankind, ever more disposed to censure than
    to praise the work of others, has constantly made the pursuit of new
    methods and systems no less perilous than the search after unknown
    lands and seas.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. War to advance science?
    By Yakman in forum Discussions & Debates
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-24-2009, 05:55 PM
  2. Men of Science, Men of Virtue, Men of Faith
    By PocketVeto in forum Blogs and Writing
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-02-2008, 01:25 AM
  3. Making Science Easier
    By Distort in forum News and General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-29-2007, 10:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •