The difference between science and religion

[o_e_l_e_o]

based on the fact that not all things are explainable.

Sure, not all things are explainable yet, but that doesn't mean you can fill in the blanks with whatever made up nonsense you like. If the whole world did that, we would still think the Sun goes round the Earth, thunderstorms are the Gods being angry, and diseases are caused by evil spirits.

[1713954877]

1713954877

[1713954877]

1713954877

[1713954877]

1713954877

[1713954877]

1713954877

[BADecker]

Science knows it doesn't know everything, because otherwise, it would stop.


The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins is also a great resource. It follows human evolution all the back to the origin a life. A great read for any one interested.

Great sci-fi story.    

And there it is. There's the difference between science and religion:

Science - "here's a fully researched, peer reviewed, cross checked 800 page book laying out, in detail, the evolutionary tree of humans, with so much evidence that no sane person could doubt it".

Religion (without even reading the book) - "I'm not listening LALALALA".

This sums it up so perfectly. Logic and reason against irrationality and ignorance.

But nobody brought up any proof. The paper may have been peer reviewed, but what was the review all about? Did they say that it was proof? Or was it peer reviewed as somebody's idea about how things might be. Where is the proof in the paper or the peer review?

If there isn't any proof, the whole thing is part of their religion.

[Spendulus]

based on the fact that not all things are explainable.

Sure, not all things are explainable yet, but that doesn't mean you can fill in the blanks with whatever made up nonsense you like. If the whole world did that, we would still think the Sun goes round the Earth, thunderstorms are the Gods being angry, and diseases are caused by evil spirits.

I would like a warp drive, and a fusion reactor no bigger than a desk.

It's very reasonable to think these will exist within a thousand years, likely within a hundred years.

To build them I need for starters, some pages of physics and math equations. These pages are knowable, but unknown.

Religious belief does not move us closer to having warp drives and fusion reactors.

Science is a process which actually will create a warp drive and a fusion reactor.

[BADecker]

based on the fact that not all things are explainable.

Sure, not all things are explainable yet, but that doesn't mean you can fill in the blanks with whatever made up nonsense you like. If the whole world did that, we would still think the Sun goes round the Earth, thunderstorms are the Gods being angry, and diseases are caused by evil spirits.

I would like a warp drive, and a fusion reactor no bigger than a desk.

It's very reasonable to think these will exist within a thousand years, likely within a hundred years.

To build them I need for starters, some pages of physics and math equations. These pages are knowable, but unknown.

Religious belief does not move us closer to having warp drives and fusion reactors.

Science is a process which actually will create a warp drive and a fusion reactor.

But the technology in our body biology is so great, that if we don't find out how to live for more that our piddly hundred years or less, going places and doing things will always come to an end.

From the point of a hundred years, looking back doesn't seem so long. But what worth is it if there is death? Are we so loving of other people that we want to help them along by developing flight to the stars for them, that we ourselves will never take part of?

[darklus123]

I think you decided to believe in nonsense because you NEED to have answer to everything.  Even if the answer is some supernatural being that created everything and is an answer to everything.

Lol, if the existence of God is purely nonsense then there is no ongoing debate that is happening right now? does that make sense?

It is ok not to know how the first life came about.  Relax, take a deep breath, pick up a biology textbook, get to work.

That is why we have science.  To discover how the world works, to find out how that bacteria came about.

Bacteria came out because somebody have created it and that is the fact no matter how will you think about that or shall we say a bit of common sense will do.

Remember, when something is not true, your belief in it will not change the outcome.

Supernatural beings do not exist, regardless of what people believe.  That is the reality.

Evolution is a fact. Earth is not flat.  Bible has been wrong all along.

PS.  That need to have answers is what drives religious folks to some batshit crazy ideas: 6 days creation, virgin conception, dome over flat Earth etc.

Then take that idea out, those religious belief might not really be true but still you can think about of someone or somebody who created everything having the fact that it is just too hilarious to think that this world,universe or all creatures including those we  haven't seen yet existed out from nowhere.

Sure, not all things are explainable yet, but that doesn't mean you can fill in the blanks with whatever made up nonsense you like. If the whole world did that, we would still think the Sun goes round the Earth, thunderstorms are the Gods being angry, and diseases are caused by evil spirits.

Nonsense? as I have said if it is purely nonsense then there is no on going debate about the existence of god. Even some of the known philosophers and scientist believes in the existence of god from that fact again that they can't trace the core of life's existence.

~

Sorry your statement is just too deep for I only have basic knowledge towards english. Therefore, I don't know what are you talking about

[Moloch]

If you are truly interested (you did ask the question after all), here is a video series by Aron Ra explaining it all to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXQP_R-yiuw&list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW

Aron has compiled a series of 34 videos so far, tracing human evolution from bacteria to the current day... after 34 videos, he is almost up to where humans evolved... almost

I haven't watch the video yet but ok lets assume that this person is right. Did he explain where did the bacteria came from?

His video series is about evolution.  Abiogenesis is a completely different subject.  Wikipedia has a decent article on abiogenesis, complete with 335 cited sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

There have been several experiments which show how abiogenesis is possible.  The first was the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

Of course science doesn't just take the word of Miller and Urey.  Repeatability is a foundation of science.  A single experiment means nothing until it is repeated by a completely separate group of scientists.  This test, and similar tests have been repeated with positive results many times:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment#Other_experiments

[BADecker]

If you are truly interested (you did ask the question after all), here is a video series by Aron Ra explaining it all to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXQP_R-yiuw&list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW

Aron has compiled a series of 34 videos so far, tracing human evolution from bacteria to the current day... after 34 videos, he is almost up to where humans evolved... almost

I haven't watch the video yet but ok lets assume that this person is right. Did he explain where did the bacteria came from?

His video series is about evolution.  Abiogenesis is a completely different subject.  Wikipedia has a decent article on abiogenesis, complete with 335 cited sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

There have been several experiments which show how abiogenesis is possible.  The first was the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

Of course science doesn't just take the word of Miller and Urey.  Repeatability is a foundation of science.  A single experiment means nothing until it is repeated by a completely separate group of scientists.  This test, and similar tests have been repeated with positive results many times:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment#Other_experiments

Abiogenesis is simply a part of evolution. Trying to throw it into its own class, separate from evolution, simply shows how desperate evolutionists are to find something that shows that evolution exists. They take abiogenesis out to not have something else against the ridiculous idea of evolution.

Did you note that you said that there are experiments that show that abiogenesis is possible? These same experiments show that it takes intelligence to make abiogenesis. What would such intelligence be in nature? Are you trying to show that nature is way smarter, by multitudes of "smartness," than scientists are? I mean, scientists haven't made abiogenesis. They only show that it might be possible. They ain't smart enough to do it. But nature did it with great success, right?

Go ahead. Keep it up. Dig yourself into one hole after another. After all, it is your religion to do so >>> definition of religion #6 at https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t.

[Moloch]

If you are truly interested (you did ask the question after all), here is a video series by Aron Ra explaining it all to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXQP_R-yiuw&list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW

Aron has compiled a series of 34 videos so far, tracing human evolution from bacteria to the current day... after 34 videos, he is almost up to where humans evolved... almost

I haven't watch the video yet but ok lets assume that this person is right. Did he explain where did the bacteria came from?

His video series is about evolution.  Abiogenesis is a completely different subject.  Wikipedia has a decent article on abiogenesis, complete with 335 cited sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

There have been several experiments which show how abiogenesis is possible.  The first was the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

Of course science doesn't just take the word of Miller and Urey.  Repeatability is a foundation of science.  A single experiment means nothing until it is repeated by a completely separate group of scientists.  This test, and similar tests have been repeated with positive results many times:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment#Other_experiments

Abiogenesis is simply a part of evolution

Abiogenesis has never been "a part of evolution"... abiogenesis is about the origin of life... evolution is about changes to life-forms over time... 2 completely different topics

Abiogenesis happened once (we assume), evolution happens continuously, every second of every day... totally not the same thing

Did you note that you said that there are experiments that show that abiogenesis is possible? These same experiments show that it takes intelligence to make abiogenesis.

Apparently you didn't read the experiment... no intelligence involved... it's simply chemicals in a jar where lightning changes the base chemicals into amino acids, the building blocks of life

Amino acids have been found inside meteorites from space... who put them there, God?
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/life-components.html

Why would God put all this evidence for evolution everywhere?  Just to confuse scientists?  Wouldn't it make more sense for God to leave evidence for creationism instead of evidence for evolution?

[o_e_l_e_o]

Exactly. Did you not read Genesis where it says:

He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth. And then He said "Let's hide amino acids on meteorites, that'll be a laugh". And His scribe asked "What are amino acids and meteorites, my Lord?" And God said "Shut up and just write it down".

[BADecker]

Abiogenesis has always been the biggest part of evolution. Evolution from inanimate to animate would be way more difficult than simply changing a little piece of animate. All of it is evolving, except that none of it happens. The only reason there is the separation is that abiogenesis is way too difficult because of the great number of positioning of atoms and molecules. Probability odds against natural abiogenesis show that it is impossible. Let's do the simple stuff, and worry about the complicated stuff, later.

Did you not see where you used the word "experiment," and then the phrase "no intelligence involved?" Are you really trying to say that scientists are unintelligent critters?

Amino acids are what? Oh, I get it. They are amino acids. I suppose when evolutionists get desperate enough, they will start to say that amino acids are life itself.

Part of your religion is to attempt to turn religion into science and science into religion, and then to say that they are completely different. Are you having trouble in any other parts of your life?

[tsinelas]

Science is creating facts which we believe true because of creating basis while religion is believing what we cannot prove. Science is a creation of human believing to itself that can be ruined by another study, religion as well but religion cannot be destroyed by anyone else.

[BLAST2MARS]

If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not

I really agree on this explanation but to me  religion is faith-based while math/science is faith-based. I know the worshippers will give it different names as they want but their motive is always to seek help or thank the Almighty One.

[Moloch]

If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not

I really agree on this explanation but to me  religion is faith-based while math/science is faith-based. I know the worshippers will give it different names as they want but their motive is always to seek help or thank the Almighty One.

I assume you mean math/science is fact-based not faith-based... math/science is based on facts which you can show to another person... I can show you that 1 + 1 = 2... I can show you how to do an experiment that proves the Earth is spherical... science shows you the evidence, rather than asserting claims without facts or evidence which can be shown to someone (the way religion does it)

[Spendulus]

....
I assume you mean math/science is fact-based not faith-based... math/science is based on facts which you can show to another person... I can show you that 1 + 1 = 2... I can show you how to do an experiment that proves the Earth is spherical... science shows you the evidence, rather than asserting claims without facts or evidence which can be shown to someone (the way religion does it)

Science is based on observations, and the scientific hypothesis.

This is different than "facts."

Math is based on mathematical proofs.

[BADecker]

From Dictionary.com:

science
[sahy-uhns]

noun

1.    a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2.    systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3.    any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4.    systematized knowledge in general.

5.    knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

6.    a particular branch of knowledge.

7.    skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Notice that science can overlap engineering, and even religion a little, right in its direct and immediate definition.

[Moloch]

....
I assume you mean math/science is fact-based not faith-based... math/science is based on facts which you can show to another person... I can show you that 1 + 1 = 2... I can show you how to do an experiment that proves the Earth is spherical... science shows you the evidence, rather than asserting claims without facts or evidence which can be shown to someone (the way religion does it)

Science is based on observations, and the scientific hypothesis.

This is different than "facts."

Math is based on mathematical proofs.

All facts are observations... that's a fact, Jack

Science is based entirely on observations... repeatable, verifiable observations

"If you can't show it, you don't know it" -Aron Ra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
"Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement"

[BADecker]

....
I assume you mean math/science is fact-based not faith-based... math/science is based on facts which you can show to another person... I can show you that 1 + 1 = 2... I can show you how to do an experiment that proves the Earth is spherical... science shows you the evidence, rather than asserting claims without facts or evidence which can be shown to someone (the way religion does it)

Science is based on observations, and the scientific hypothesis.

This is different than "facts."

Math is based on mathematical proofs.

All facts are observations... that's a fact, Jack

Science is based entirely on observations... repeatable, verifiable observations

"If you can't show it, you don't know it" -Aron Ra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
"Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement"

Religion doesn't appear until someone interprets their observation of facts.

Science theory is something that knowably is open to change. Therefore it is knowably not known to be fact.

When someone believes a science theory to be true and factual, he is placing it into the realm of religion for himself. Why? Because he knows that the only fact of the theoretical point is that it is a theory. So, he is basing his interpretation on the only fact available... that the science theory is factually known to not be a fact. For him the science theory point has become religion, even if it is not religion for others who do not believe that it is fact, but who only understand that it is theory.

[Spendulus]

....
I assume you mean math/science is fact-based not faith-based... math/science is based on facts which you can show to another person... I can show you that 1 + 1 = 2... I can show you how to do an experiment that proves the Earth is spherical... science shows you the evidence, rather than asserting claims without facts or evidence which can be shown to someone (the way religion does it)

Science is based on observations, and the scientific hypothesis.

This is different than "facts."

Math is based on mathematical proofs.

All facts are observations... that's a fact, Jack

Science is based entirely on observations... repeatable, verifiable observations

"If you can't show it, you don't know it" -Aron Ra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
"Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement"

Actually, you are cherry picking the article in wikipedia to support your rather lame understanding of the matter. The article supports exactly what I said.

Facts are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20]

Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation. Scientists are careful to distinguish between: 1) states of affairs in the external world and 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science.[21].....

Consistent with the idea of confirmation holism, some scholars assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden....

The scientific method[edit]
Apart from the fundamental inquiry into the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method....

As an example, let's use our understanding of science to make a prediction. I will drop an apple, and it will fall. That is a prediction, not a fact. Yet it is the ability of science to accurately predict outcomes which is it's value.

EG cause and effect are verbs. Fact is a noun.

[akosipepot]

Clear, obvious difference. Science = fact + evidence. Religion = fantasy + stupidity, gullibility, desperation.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Clear, obvious difference. Science = fact + evidence. Religion = fantasy + stupidity, gullibility, desperation.

Now we just need to wait on BADecker showing up to tell you why you didn't mean what you said, and that you actually meant what he wants you to mean, because an online dictionary says so.