_{### You are viewing a page indexed by search engine. All comments on the topic are put together without order and may be confusing to read. To see organized discussion, please visit the real page at above link. ###}

Scientists are skeptical of the humans, so, they must test it on their own to see if it isn't just one person or one occasion. In this sense, it isn't a religion, as religions need only one thing to prove themselves; the word of someone a thousand and a half years ago. Nothing is "proven" in science, just evidenced. The word "proof" is discouraged in science because scientists know it's impossible for us mere humans to have absolute knowledge of anything.

On the other hand, religious people pride themselves on being able to pretend to have absolute knowledge of things no one could possibly have ANY knowledge of.I don't think science itself is a like a religion, i think people take it to the point of religion. With science you will have theory which typically evolve over time as new data is obtained. Where religion is very black and white. With science the burden of proof is on the individual presenting the theory, and it is encouraged to disprove. This is done to improve the theory or force it to evolve. Religion is nothing like this. saying that religions have proof for anything is laughable. Therefore your argument is invalidIn science nothing is ever accepted as dogma. Science does not invoke supernatural beings. In science people do not have ritual observances. In what ways would science be a religion?

Every idea is clickable. To expand a thought choose one of ideas below, if any, or submit a new idea.You can move up in the story by simply clicking on idea.