Science. 100% not oc. E: 'Mlia g tittel " It me aft" that mien CE trim: to if gnd ! real or fa! -E. ti is , hr: -. ‘mu do mt new in take at-' -Hm their faith fo
x

Science

 
Science. 100% not oc. E: 'Mlia g tittel " It me aft" that mien CE trim: to if gnd ! real or fa! -E. ti is , hr: -. ‘mu do mt new in take at-' -Hm their faith fo

100% not oc

E: 'Mlia g tittel "
It me aft" that mien CE trim: to if gnd ! real or fa! -E. ti
is , hr: -. ‘mu do mt new in take at-' -Hm their faith for‘
awn Ellie **** , IE. naming but a E
alum. -'5 trying to ' **** .
Share
Bl grilling .' 'is"
SCIENCE
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+825
Views: 32343
Favorited: 36
Submitted: 01/30/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to madmaninside submit to reddit

Comments(102):

[ 102 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#15 - ednakrababbal ONLINE (01/31/2013) [-]
#1 - pokemonstheshiz (01/30/2013) [-]
Science doesn't try to prove or disprove God, they record observations about our universe and make inferences about those findings. A deity is not something you can test for, it's up to your personal interpretation of these findings to apply them to the metaphysical. Or you can disbelieve the findings, no one cares.
User avatar #97 to #1 - rmoran (01/31/2013) [-]
>A deity is not something you can test for
Only if you're getting your definition from one of those squishy "I believe because I believe" theists. Otherwise you'll get a heaping helping of the ways god(s) manifest in reality (Creation, miracles, healing, prayer, etc). All of which are testable by the scientific method.
#79 to #1 - anon (01/31/2013) [-]
True, but if so many atheists didn't wrongly use science to try and disprove God then we wouldn't have this problem. Again it's down to humans interpreting things wrongly and atheists are just as guilty of this as religious people are. Still wrong to blame science though.
User avatar #2 to #1 - stultum (01/30/2013) [-]
you sir, are completely right.
User avatar #3 to #1 - retris (01/31/2013) [-]
consequently many aspects of god which were once widely believed in are no longer even aknowledged
User avatar #40 - goodadventures (01/31/2013) [-]
Science doesn't give a **** about your personal beliefs, it seeks answers and truth through evidence and tests.
#61 - alexthecanadian (01/31/2013) [-]
Pic related.

its a joke
#91 - perolaf (01/31/2013) [-]
Mfw religion post on fj
Mfw religion post on fj
#100 - rmoran (01/31/2013) [-]
" **** science"
- Person using the internet on a cell phone to communicate internationally
#67 - WHATTHEPISSTRAINE (01/31/2013) [-]
SCIENCE
SCIENCE
#13 - freduardo (01/31/2013) [-]
no
no
User avatar #4 - azroth (01/31/2013) [-]
In the nice words of Neil Degrasse; The great thing about science is that it is true whether you believe in it or not
User avatar #45 to #4 - itrooztrooperdown (01/31/2013) [-]
See, I don't understand why such a smart man as Dr. Tyson would say something like this. Science, unlike religion, is not dogmatic. Its goal is to find the ultimate truth, but science in itself is not a truth. At least not at the moment. An example: nobody has seen atoms, but there is evidence of their existence. Is it true that atmos exit because science says so? No! If somebody proves that atoms do not exist, and the answer to everything was something else, true scientist will agree with that. And even better scientist will work on finding counter-arguments to that new theory. Science is a path, not a truth.
User avatar #7 to #4 - allamericandude (01/31/2013) [-]
Hate to disagree with Mr. Tyson, but that quote isn't really that great.

If science was always true, then the Earth would still be flat and everything in the universe would be rotating around it. Those were perfectly valid scientific (not religious) theories at one point.

If scientists were correct about everything, there'd be no need for science. Science is a journey, not a destination. It's not a set of correct answers, it's the process of finding those answers. That's what makes it great.
User avatar #8 to #7 - desuforeverlulz (01/31/2013) [-]
Depends on the way you're defining science.

"Science" is always true.

Science is always true, but somehow not all the answers are there yet.
User avatar #9 to #7 - saddestofbreads (01/31/2013) [-]
Theories. Science has always and will always be true, Theories such as the flat earth one was never proven and so it was always just a theory while the truth is that it is a sphere, which we know by scientific theories backed up by evidence.
User avatar #10 to #9 - MrMustacho ONLINE (01/31/2013) [-]
science is a process, so science itself isn't right or wrong, the answers it gets us are and when we have limited information science often gives us the wrong answer (though probably a better one than blind speculation)
User avatar #11 to #10 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/31/2013) [-]
With enough testing you can get a correct answer though to any problem using science, such as the earth being round(ish), that is scientific fact established using testing and observation(Satellites).
User avatar #106 to #9 - allamericandude (01/31/2013) [-]
What I'm trying to say is that science is not a set of correct answers. Science is the process of finding those answers. The thing is, we're never going to know if the answers we have are absolutely correct. That's why we need science to either prove our answers correct or find new ones.
#78 to #9 - anon (01/31/2013) [-]
If there weren't correct observations and proofs, it was never a theory. The saying "just a theory" is ridiculously ignorant. The reason they're called theories and not truths is because nothing is absolute. NOTHING! If something is a theory (not some ******** one with incorrect or no evidence) you can treat it like a fact. The flat earth claim didn't have other proof than their own intuition. Nowadays theories are never based on intuition.

/rant

#14 to #7 - adamks (01/31/2013) [-]
So what you are trying to say, is that back the day, scientists prooved that the earth was flat? It was not just an assumption?
User avatar #105 to #14 - allamericandude (01/31/2013) [-]
It was the best theory they could make with the evidence they had. They hadn't yet done the experiments and measurements to prove otherwise.

Granted, the flat earth theory was debunked thousands of years ago by ancient Greek sailors, and by the middle ages we had a pretty good estimate of the Earth's size (although the differences in those estimations helped lead to the whole Christopher Columbus debacle.)
User avatar #6 to #4 - manter (01/31/2013) [-]
except when we find something that disproves science with other science. Like how we recently found out that atoms can go below absolute zero degrees.
User avatar #18 to #6 - darkjacky (01/31/2013) [-]
prove or it didn't happen.. thats science so show your prove! since absolute 0 is the point where atoms don't move relative to each other(close to it).
#89 - kaslin (01/31/2013) [-]
This topic.
This topic.
+2
#101 to #89 - massus **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#92 - warlockrichard ONLINE (01/31/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #48 - mutzaki (01/31/2013) [-]
An asshole doesn't try to prove **** .
An asshole tries to to keep **** in, and a few times a day, let it out.
#22 - Scottyjthecoolj (01/31/2013) [-]
It's like when the doctor gives you a month to live and you end up being 100.
User avatar #16 - sketchE (01/31/2013) [-]
faith is the belief and trust that something, in this case gods existence, is true. the moment someone demands proof for their faith they have lost the argument
#17 to #16 - anon (01/31/2013) [-]
only if they belief in it they have lost. otherwise they win
User avatar #20 to #17 - sketchE (01/31/2013) [-]
im agnostic just to clarify its just strange to see people demanding proof for something they are supposed to have faith in
#80 - classybot (01/31/2013) [-]
Though the mission of science is to explore and explain. It doesn't disapprove the existence of religion, it simply hasn't found a way to explain it yet. It's mainly the way how people take the explanations, hence why some big religious groups hate science because, let's be honest, science is a jerk but a good kind of jerk.
User avatar #95 to #80 - ferrettamer (01/31/2013) [-]
Well, yeah, it hasn't disproved the existence of religion cause religion exists. But I understand what you meant.
#96 to #95 - classybot (01/31/2013) [-]
Indeed, here's some Daft Punk for you, magnificent person
Indeed, here's some Daft Punk for you, magnificent person
#85 to #80 - anon (01/31/2013) [-]
Science is only a jerk because it questions what people believe in. I'd much rather have prominant sciencetific exploration in society, then the idiocy we call religion. Now I'm not saying I hate those that practice religion, I just disapprove of them. Religion will do nothing but hold the human race back. I mean hell, this isn't the 1800's anymore. We don't need a way to soothe ourselves when death is imminent, and really for every good action that is done through religion, quadruple that are terrible actions, justified by someone's religion. On top of that, people have greatly altered it from being a moral compass, to, like I said, a justification for their horrible actions. "I'm murdering all these children not because I want to, but because God is telling me to, and his will is almighty" as an example.

TL;DR: The human race needs to move on from religion, as it's preventing our growth as a species. Imagine where we would be if the dark ages of science had never occurred.
#93 to #85 - classybot (01/31/2013) [-]
Though I understand how you want to bring out your point, I am obliged to give another perspective into your argument.   
You see, science would've never come to exist if religion would have never been present.   
Science makes you think "why?", "how?" and "what if?". Religion is the perfect basis for those questions. One good example in fact is how Galileo Galilei found out that Earth was round. He questioned back in his time, why everyone thought the Earth is flat? How can it be flat? What if it isn't flat? Of course religion is notorious for trying to counter the thesi of science, but every time that has happened humanity found a way to go around that and in the end religion allowed them, though a bit too late.   
TL;DR: Religion and science have been sharing a working symbiosis, and the one can't live without the other. Though that's a personal point of view, I understand if there are counter arguments against this.
Though I understand how you want to bring out your point, I am obliged to give another perspective into your argument.
You see, science would've never come to exist if religion would have never been present.
Science makes you think "why?", "how?" and "what if?". Religion is the perfect basis for those questions. One good example in fact is how Galileo Galilei found out that Earth was round. He questioned back in his time, why everyone thought the Earth is flat? How can it be flat? What if it isn't flat? Of course religion is notorious for trying to counter the thesi of science, but every time that has happened humanity found a way to go around that and in the end religion allowed them, though a bit too late.
TL;DR: Religion and science have been sharing a working symbiosis, and the one can't live without the other. Though that's a personal point of view, I understand if there are counter arguments against this.
User avatar #103 to #93 - mutzaki (01/31/2013) [-]
Yes, religion was brought on to answer questions people could yet not understand. Humans have evolved to be curious, so it was only natural for our ancestors to come up with explanations that seemed reasonable to them. But as science has progressed, we've found out more and more, and religion no longer plays part in the discovery and further understanding of things. It's obsolete, and does nothing but hold us back now.
#107 to #103 - classybot (01/31/2013) [-]
I somehow completely neglected that idea and thought that anon meant that overall it has been useless.
Pardon my misreading, I am agreeing on this thesis then.
User avatar #60 - nucularwar (01/31/2013) [-]
actually, nothing is provable by science.
however, a **** ton of stuff is DISprovable.

Science
-7
#63 to #60 - lolis has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #88 - superunclesam (01/31/2013) [-]
"WE DON 'T NEED PROOF, IT'S FAITH! BUT YOU HAVE TO GIVE US EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION THAT WE WON'T ACCEPT NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU GIVE US"
She's one of those. It's fine to be Spiritual and Religious, but it's not cool to be a stupid **** .
User avatar #90 to #88 - haloforlife (01/31/2013) [-]
Have you ever eaten a banana ?
User avatar #24 - supamonkey (01/31/2013) [-]
A true scientist doesn't try to prove or disprove anything.
He merely looks at the evidence and uses logic and understanding to come to an unbiased conclusion.
User avatar #25 to #24 - techketzer (01/31/2013) [-]
An essential part of the scientific method is the falsification principle, though.
User avatar #31 to #24 - defeats (01/31/2013) [-]
Sorry to say, but theories aren't conclusions.
User avatar #32 to #31 - supamonkey (01/31/2013) [-]
Yes they are.
Look up the meaning of "scientific theory".
User avatar #34 to #32 - defeats (01/31/2013) [-]
Did I say "scientific theories" or "theories"? They mean different things.

There are more "theories" (hypotheses) than there are proven "scientific theories".

I said "theories" because not everyone will know the difference, because on this comment section I'm speaking to everyone from a non scientific standing point.
User avatar #36 to #34 - supamonkey (01/31/2013) [-]
But I never said "theory" in my original comment...
User avatar #39 to #36 - defeats (01/31/2013) [-]
My point was only that nothing in science is concluded.
User avatar #47 to #39 - techketzer (01/31/2013) [-]
Wrong.
All of science is conclusion.
User avatar #50 to #47 - defeats (01/31/2013) [-]
All scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives.
Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory.
User avatar #53 to #50 - techketzer (01/31/2013) [-]
Exactly.
It appears you mixed up "concluded" with "conclusive".
User avatar #54 to #53 - defeats (01/31/2013) [-]
Concluded in the "brought to an end" "finalised" sense. Nothing in science is final.
User avatar #62 to #54 - techketzer (01/31/2013) [-]
That is conclusive.
Concluded means derived from observation via means of logic.
[ 102 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)