On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:05:16 -0600, BillW50 wrote:

Rich Webb wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:22:13 -0500:
All religion is superstitious nonsense. It's a tautology.

Sadly the same can be said of science as well.

Science is implicitly empirical, or "sensory," whereas religions are, by
definition, "non-sensory," at least until the Archangel Michael shows up
on the Larry King show to argue about the Super Bowl. Thus, nonsense.

Unlike to popular belief,
science never proves anything. All it provides is theories. And in time,
theories which is often replaced by other theories. And the cycles
repeats itself while never ending. And I find science as the broken
promise and is simply a failure.

Unless you're living in the bush and scavenging carrion for dinner,
you've been depending on science for your livelihood and health, so it's
hardly a failure. Nor is science's self-critical, self-correcting nature
a weakness.

And what is claimed as science isn't really science at all.

So, what is it that would be "really science?"

As old beliefs prevents true science from emerging.

"True science" being ... gastromancy? ololygmancy?

Also if there is no money
in it, those things are not researched.

See "Adam Smith" also "capitalism," or "the worst economic system,
except for all of the others." Not a perfect system, by any measure, but
burning bushes with better insight are scarce.

That is very poor science as
there are lots of things that could be learned that isn't.

I will admit of some curiosity here. What may some of these things be?

Thus sad to say, science and religion has a lot in common actually.

No, not really.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA