can u believe in science

[garegin]

kerry said that he believes in science.
this is rather ironic, because science is knowing (latin translation).
believing in something, makes it faith. if he knew in about the things, he would use the word know.
this just confirmes that science is sometimes like religion. because people advance their cause from their faith. if he knew about it, he would just casualy say "i have the facts here that stem-cell research works". but you have to still believe and see what happens. you cant know about something's success if it didnt happen yet. i mean, the research could say that todays technologies are unadequate with doing stem-cell therapy.
believing in science is rather a paradox for people who claim to be cool secularists.

[HyeJinx1984]

Technicality is the preffered tool of the weakminded.

[garegin]

oh no, my dear.
one must truly believe in science.
one must pasisonatly hope that things would work out. when one believes in something's success to jepordize his career- thats called faith. faith in reason.
i suggest u to read some works on faith and reason.
even reason is faith based. because one must believe in data's consistenly. doesnt matter how much evidence u have. no theory is fool-proof.
kerry or others, for that matter believe that science can better human life. this is a phylosophy. a faith in progress. i mean c'mon if people just knew how to "make reeves walk again" they would just say it matter of factly.
edwards said that if kerry is elected "reeves would be able to walk". doesnt that sound mystical? making the lame walk. does that ring any bells?

[MadHandle]

I don't know...science goes only so far though, atleast as far as scientists have discoverd up to date. When you get to advanced chemistry, physics, boilogy, etc...you can make more sense of things and and the same time complicate it further. They are so complex that it seems impossible that it could occur naturally out of no where, you must think that someone must of "programed" it. I mean Darwins theory explains some of it, but no one knows how all that really started. I won't get into it any further, I'll just get to the point. Science is more believable cause it can be proven, religeous faith is all up to you. I think both do cross paths at some point...

[jilbagh]

I believe in science, thats why I will vote YES on California Prop. 71

[HyeJinx1984]

Technicality is the preffered tool of the weakminded.

This sounded really harsh towards Garegin, I didn't mean it that way. It's just I've been looking for an excuse to use this line, lol.

[garegin]

i dont believe in science. because theory is a theory. i dont think darwin's theory is so solid that it would make me uestion my faith. i recently read a wired article about scientists who are prososing a inteligent design theory. darwin's thoery explains a little. if animals "envolve", then how did the first animals get created. the theory explain the middle of the story. it doesnt try to answer the age-old question. was there a beginning. because something can not come out of nothing. so in order for something to "evolve" there has to be something to begin with.

[MadHandle]

i dont believe in science. because theory is a theory. i dont think darwin's theory is so solid that it would make me uestion my faith. i recently read a wired article about scientists who are prososing a inteligent design theory. darwin's thoery explains a little. if animals "envolve", then how did the first animals get created. the theory explain the middle of the story. it doesnt try to answer the age-old question. was there a beginning. because something can not come out of nothing. so in order for something to "evolve" there has to be something to begin with.

I think aliens planted the first "seed" ...or it came with an asteroid. Either way, it must of came from outer space. I think there was even a basic amino acid found in a peice of space rock that crashed on earth not too long ago and amino acids are basically one of the most essintial building blocks of life. If that can be found floating around space then there is a good possibility that the material for the first life form may have came from outer space. How that amino acid was created...I can safely say that no one knows.

Darwin's theory doesn't exactly explain much, like someone said, it only fills a gap in the middle of the problem. The first life form was probably a small bacteria, then it grew to a type of reptile or whatever and over time these sun rays, while passing through objects damaged the organism's dna and altered it into something else. Thats how I think everything started, but how that one bacteria was created...again, I don't think anyone knows. Thats what I meant, this is where religeon and science cross paths.

[garegin]

even if living-things evolved from non-living things. say, acids deformed to create DNA. but what created the first rock? if no matter is created or destroyed, then someone must have created the matter.
thats why darwin's theory doesnt try to explain the "genesis".

[garegin]

and BTW, the alien theory is a joke.
someone must have created the aliens in the first place.
"big bang" thoery tries to say how the universe became bigger.
but it doesnt explain of what happened before the big bang.