"Science and religion are two different things" Why?

If religion could prove the existence of god, science would still exist and be valid. If science could prove the non-existence of god, all religion would instantly vanish like a fart on the breeze (and it probably also would if science PROVED the existence of god.)

Religion is threatened by science, but not the opposite.

Religion seeks a meaning for human existence and gives moral guidance. Science does not.

Science is advanced by observations, hypotheses, and testing. We can use science to predict future outcomes, and if those predictions prove false, we know some part of our understanding was wrong. Science can change in light of new evidence. Religion does not change much, and when it does it changes based on the will of the religion's leaders, not based on observation.

There is no Right and Wrong in science - what we think is true today may in fact turn out to be false. Religions tell us what is Right and what is Wrong.

I'm sure there are other distinctions one could draw between science and religion. But in the end they are two different things, and in most cases can coexist peaceably because they deal with different aspects of being human.

Because science states an explanation for something, and then willingly amends that explanation if it proves wanting; Religion is "dogmatic", in that it gives an explanation, and then stickks to it, regardless of whatever evidence subsequently shows the explanation to be wrong, really wrong, or truly preposterous.

As an example, science first postulated that the universe was finite & static, since the same stars were there for years & years & years. But as technology improved, it could clearly be seen that the universe was expanding in all directions. In time, this lead to the conclusion that the universe was expanding in all directions, and was of finite age. Scientists have adjusted this age as more accurate measurements have become possible, and science now has a good idea of the size & age of this universe.

Religion (or Christianity, at least), still clings to the biblical account of creation, and its chronology, which states the universe is about 8000 years old. You only have to look at the Grand Canyon, use your common sense to surmise how it was formed, and figure out roughly how old it is, to realize the fatal flaw in a religious view of Earth's actual age.

If you sawed through an ancient Redwood, and discovered it had 12,000 growth rings, could you reasonably assume the tree was older than the planet it was growing on?

Genesis 1:1 tells us, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" but does not tell us how. Science tries to figure out how the universe works but not why it works or where it all came from.

Science tells us how a weapon works and gives us the understanding to build a better one, and tells us how it kills. The Bible tells us that killing an innocent human is wrong, that man is required to execute a murderer, and that God has the right to say what is right and what is wrong.

Facts of science are more easily proved. Truths and falsehoods about God are still truths and falsehoods, but are harder or impossible to prove. With extremely rare exceptions, the only way to 'prove' what the Bible says about God is to die. But then, if you're wrong, it's too late to change your answer.

Religions stop asking questions once they reach "it's the will of god".

Science does not.

it extremely is extremely a in demand phenomenon. Many clergymen interior the middle a while have been additionally scientist (i.e. Copernicus). and a selection of of theologians embraced scientific advances and records, (i.e. Thomas Aquinas). although in modern situations, religious conservatives sense that technological know-how represents atheism, it is the made of debates between faith and technological know-how over evolution interior the nineteenth century. Ever considering, it extremely is been a consistent spiral. in fact, it extremely is an unlucky journey, as there is not any reason that faith and technological know-how can not supplement one yet another. although, until relentless atheistic scientists, and avid conservative literalists locate the thank you to go in direction of the middle, i think of we are able to assume the communicate to proceed.

Science is based on fact, Religion is based on faith

Actually, they're not two different things. only people with little understanding claim they are.

GOL10 stole my line lol