(October 20, 2011 at 5:01 am)KdThaKing Wrote: If u were living before columbus you wouldnt even know America existed that shows how smart science is...science is very unreliable in answering the completely logical questions like how did things come to be about and why things are and what things should be..theres no structure in science except that it is a group of people who will only believe what they experience with there 5 senses and nothing else.
Right, my patience with you is wearing thin. You'd better start learning fucking fast. You've had the benefit of our politeness, but this kind of argument is very unimpressive. You said you wanted to discuss, so stop making assertions that you cannot support like the ones above. If you want to know, why not ask a question instead of telling us what things are and aren't.
So how does not knowing a place existed show that science doesn't work? The entire point of science is to GAIN UNDERSTANDING. Science is constantly seeking to find out more about the world and the universe, and it's done it for thousands of years. From finding out that the Earth revolved around the Sun (opposed by the Bible and Church, by the way), to finding cures and wiping out horrific diseases like smallpox. The amount we owe to scientific exploration is simply staggering. You wouldn't be able to flush your shit down the toilet or cook your breakfast without it.
Now what that means is that science does not claim to have the answers to everything. So we don't have a complete picture of how the universe began, or how life started, but science is working on finding out the answers to it. Why do you think that's so unimpressive? Why do you think science should have absolutely every answer, RIGHT NOW? It develops, that's the point.
Finally, it's nothing to do with one scientist experiencing something with his or her senses and declaring it to be fact. When a scientist publishes a paper, they submit it to be peer-reviewed. They get other scientists to test their findings. They test, and test, and test. They change the parameters and test again to see if the results are replicated under different circumstances. Via this method they establish something to be a strong theory or a weak theory. When science is able to use that theory to PREDICT a result, it becomes a fact.
You've now got two long, explanatory posts out of me. You've got one chance to adjust your attitude and stop pretending that you have all the answers.
