KingKobra

So science does something. Thank you very much. 😇 That's contrary to Science can provide us with tools, but it’s up to people to decide how, when and where to use them But inventions, or technology, is not the same as science, and the OP specified science. One can use fire, or the wheel, or a smartphone or GPS with no clue about the science involved. One might argue that fire and the wheel required no science at all, though improvements did. It was only necessary for science to reach as far as the ones who invented or advanced the technology. The impact or reach of science has a ripple effect through technology, but adopting technology is not really an issue of science. Politics and economics, and perhaps other factors. So I have to ask if this is what the OP wanted to discuss. Did I by any chance misunderstanding you, sir? Yes. I'm glad there are law makers, hospitals, child care protection, firemen, and so on. What confuses you about having certain things in place prevents things from being worst than they are, while at the same time recognizing a workable solution to the world's problems? Not everyone will submit to Christ's rule, but indeed, if everyone did... which isn't realistic at all, there would be no need for police officers, would there. Except perhaps to direct traffic, and help people cross the road safely. 🥲 There is no such thing as natural science, in that case, and this information is certainly wrong: The branches of science are commonly categorized into three major groups: formal sciences, natural sciences, and social sciences. Would you suggest people come on forums more often, where they learn something beneficial to them?

I'm so glad the world does not depend one individual ideas and opinions. Otherwise, the world would be the most one-sided place to live, with things that can actually be helpful, being cast aside as useless. Social science (not often rendered in the plural as the social sciences) is one of the branches of science, devoted to the study of societies and the relationships among members within those societies. The term was formerly used to refer to the field of sociology, the original "science of society", established in the 18th century. It now encompasses a wide array of additional academic disciplines, including anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, linguistics, management, communication studies, psychology, culturology, and political science. These fields use systematic methods - both qualitative and quantitative - to understand social phenomena, often employing the scientific method to analyze data and draw conclusions about human society. The origins of social science trace back to the Enlightenment and the 19th century, with key figures like Auguste Comte, Émile Durkheim, and Karl Marx helping to establish its foundational principles. UNCFSocial Sciences: The Study of Human Experience - UNCFSocial sciences unlock insights into human behavior. Learn how you can pursue a career that shapes society’s future.Family science is a social science. Evidently, it's here to stay, and I think it is a good thing. Would you care to retract,, and change your viewpoint?

Some things get more media coverage than others. For example, we heard about the cyclones that devastated Asian countries, but how many of us know about cloud seeding in 2025? That fact eludes many. In the same way, some facts regarding far reaching results in the area of 'religion' may well elude many, who believe they are 'well informed'. This may well be the case? Does that mean you exclude family science from anything related to science?

No, I started the thread to highlight a few facts that misinformed people are unaware of. Is it wrong for me to do so. Being interested in science does not mean ignoring everything else, including available facts, does it. That would be being one-sided, and closedminded. I'm neither. I chose the sub-forum, because it is for discussion of ethical topics relating to science, medicine, religion, and so on. I did not create these. The administrators did. I actually want to show the facts regarding what I said, but I plan to post that under the religion subforum. That's not a problem, is it? I also wanted to discuss a couple ideas that scientists have about the cosmos, and compare that with what is observable, and practical. Where would you suggest I post something of that nature? Are you angry, BTW? Hand wave? What do you mean? I am going to provide the evidence. In another thread of course. In the religion subforum. You don't have to read it if you aren't interested. That's okay. Are you interested only in science, or you just have no interests whatsoever in religion? Are you sure you want me to answer that? Perhaps you had better tell me how you were defining it. That might be better. Considering how strongly some feel toward anything that is not in line with their beliefs, or interests. That's a good point. It's something that people can use, but it cannot do anything for the people. When you think of it, what has science done for anyone? Would you agree, nothing at all, or would you argue "Science has profoundly improved lives across the globe by addressing fundamental human needs and enhancing quality of life in numerous ways." How would you respond?

Ah, good. Now we are actually talking. I say less of us would die, if more people submitted to God's government, and lived by God's standards. I can provide the proof of that. For starters, the amount diseases in the world at present, would be nearly zero, if people submitted to Christ as their governor. Actually, God's government has more far reaching power than and system man can structure. Science has been around for centuries, and evidence shows that the problems of the world are increasing. Can God's government change all of that? Yes. "Vague"? "Have not specified what you mean by "what matters most""? This is not vague, and it also specifies what I mean by "what matters most". Perhaps you read it a bit too quickly, or were distracted by what the thoughts that began to form when you read the title. IDK What I wrote is quite clear, I'm sure.

I don't know how you managed to imagine that I imagined something that I have never said, but we humans do have wild imaginations. Anything that is used by man, can be considered a tool. I see science as a tool in humans hands. Tools do not have a soul. Science functions as a powerful tool for understanding the natural world, enabling predictions, guiding technological innovation, and informing decision-making across various fields. My question relates to the far reaching use of this tool. I think that is something basic to understand, so to help us move forward, let's ask this question: Can science be understood as a dynamic and evolving tool for inquiry, capable of addressing complex challenges in areas like public health, education, and environmental sustainability? Those who say yes, let's talk. Those who say no, please explain your answer in a clear detailed manner. Thanks. There is ethics in science. Ethics in science refers to the principles and standards of conduct that guide researchers in their professional practices, ensuring the integrity, reliability, and trustworthiness of scientific knowledge. [1][2] There is ethics in religion. There is ethics in philosophy. Ethics is a central branch of philosophy.

That's not true. Lifestyle affects both parent and their offspring. There are many examples. Paternal diet, obesity, smoking, and exposure to environmental stressors or endocrine-disrupting chemicals have been linked to epigenetic alterations in sperm, including DNA methylation, histone modification, and changes in small non-coding RNA expression. [1] These modifications are associated with increased risks of metabolic dysfunction, obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and even mental health issues such as depressive-like behavior and heightened stress sensitivity in offspring. [1][2] Recent research highlights that factors such as poor nutrition, physical inactivity, and chronic stress can leave lasting epigenetic marks on sperm, which may impair fertilization potential and early embryo development. [1] For example, paternal smoking has been shown to induce DNA hypermethylation in genes related to antioxidant defense and insulin resistance, potentially predisposing children to metabolic disorders. [1] Similarly, paternal obesity and alcohol consumption are correlated with adverse health outcomes in offspring, including altered body weight and increased risk of cancer. [2] Even physical exercise has been found to protect against diet-induced obesity in offspring, suggesting that positive lifestyle choices can have beneficial epigenetic effects. [2] The concept is supported by the developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) paradigm, which emphasizes that both maternal and paternal preconception environments play a crucial role in shaping the offspring’s metabolic and physiological responses in adulthood. [2] While most evidence has historically focused on maternal influences, growing data now confirm that paternal lifestyle factors significantly contribute to the epigenetic legacy passed to children. [1][2] This suggests that the health of future generations may be influenced not only by genetics but also by the lifestyle choices of parents prior to conception. [3] That depends on where you live, doesn't it. Thank you for your opinion. The immune system plays a vital role in the prevention and eradication of diseases, including cancer, through a process known as immune surveillance. So, the OP made a very valid query. There is no cure for some diseases, including cancer. At least, no cure from any human effort. However, the only cure for all diseases will go into effect during the 1,000 year reign of Christ as king and high priest in God's kingdom - the instrument of God put in place to cure sick mankind. Matthew 6:10 At that time "No one living will say "I am sick", because the people living at that time, will be freed from sin", which is the cause of sickness, and death. ...no inhabitant will say, “I am sick”; the people who dwell there will be forgiven their iniquity. Isaiah 33:24 Please see Romans 5:12; Revelation 21:3, 4 in the holy scriptures. No man knows when this will be, but we can be guaranteed it will come to be.

How far reaching is art? Art is limited in this or that area. I'm not seeing the problem. What is the problem you are seeing? In the Op I said I don't see the problem, and I don't want to spend time arguing on what is not, IMO, an issue. So, pardon me please for not understanding the problem you are having. Perhaps, if I do at some point, we can discuss it. What we were just talking about. Science and religion does differ from philosophy. Each of these involve ethics in some way. I can't post an image to show you, but if you place ETHICS in the center, and place SCIENCE above; RELIGION bottom left; PHILOSOPHY bottom right, you can draw a circle around ETHICS and SCIENCE; you can draw a circle around ETHICS and RELIGION; you can draw a circle around ETHICS and PHILOSOPHY. However, you can't do that is you only have PHILOSOPHY or ETHICS.

Cancer incidence rates among young people, particularly those under the age of 50, have been rising for several types of cancer, according to multiple scientific studies. From 2010 to 2019, the incidence of 14 cancer types increased in people under 50, including breast, colorectal, kidney, uterine, pancreatic, and several types of lymphoma. Notably, female breast cancer and colorectal cancer showed the largest absolute increases in early-onset cases, with approximately 4,800 and 2,100 additional diagnoses in 2019 compared to 2010, respectively. A 2024 study in The Lancet Public Health found that 17 of 34 cancers examined showed increasing rates among younger adults, with particularly steep rises in intestinal and pancreatic cancers. Another study analyzing data from 2003 to 2017 across 42 countries found that in over 75% of countries, diagnoses for six obesity-related cancers—thyroid, breast, colorectal, kidney, endometrial, and leukemia—rose among young adults. Researchers emphasize that while improved screening plays a role, it cannot fully explain the trend. Factors such as lifestyle changes, including poor diet, physical inactivity, and rising obesity rates - especially among younger generations - are believed to be significant contributors. The World Health Organization notes that adult obesity has more than doubled since 1990, and childhood and adolescent obesity rates have tripled from 1990 to 2021. Interesting information, isn't it. The saying, "we are what we eat" is true, and that evidently applies to how we live too. It is known that we can either aid our health, or harm it. In fact, people are indeed literally jogging for their health.

Do you mean the statement that man is his own worst enemy? Why would you think scientific studies are perverse? Humans are significantly damaging the Earth's ecosystems through a range of activities, with scientific assessments indicating that only about 3% of the planet's land remains ecologically intact, meaning it retains its original flora and fauna. This degradation is driven by land and sea use changes, pollution, climate change, overexploitation of resources, and the introduction of invasive species. The destruction of ecosystems has accelerated over time, with approximately one-third of the Earth's forests lost over the last 10,000 years, and around three-quarters of that deforestation occurring in the last 300 years alone. Currently, humanity is destroying an average of 10 million hectares of forest each year. Scientists warn that the loss of biodiversity directly threatens human well-being Human activities are causing unprecedented environmental degradation, with scientific studies indicating that the rate of destruction is unmatched in at least the past 11,700 years. The destruction spans multiple domains: carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are at record highs, widespread species extinction is occurring, and ecosystems are being altered by pollution from fertilizers and deforestation. According to a 2023 Stanford study, entire genuses are going extinct at a rate 35 times higher than the historical average, representing an "irreversible threat to the persistence of civilization". This rapid decline is driven by human overconsumption, population growth, and intensive agriculture, which have led to a 68% average drop in global vertebrate wildlife populations since 1970. The scale of human impact is profound: 97% of Earth’s ecosystems are no longer ecologically intact, leaving only 3% as undisturbed habitats. This includes the loss of critical life-support systems such as forests, wetlands, and oceans, which are essential for clean air, water, and food security. The oceans, which absorb 30% of human-emitted carbon dioxide, are acidifying faster than at any time in the last 300 million years, threatening marine life and the services it provides. Scientists warn that the loss of biodiversity directly threatens human well-being, as ecosystems provide services worth trillions of dollars annually, with half of global GDP dependent on their healthy functioning. The destruction of nature is now considered as significant a threat to humanity as climate change itself. Despite these warnings, the world has so far failed to meet any major international targets for halting biodiversity loss, although new goals are expected to be set at the upcoming Cop15 biodiversity summit. Humans are causing life on Earth to vanish If you are referring to the published scientific studies on man-made chemical and activities, contributing to cancers, these are not conclusions drawn by me. These are studies carried out by scientists that use evidence to gather scientific data. I know scientists do attack other scientists about their studies, but please don't put me in the middle of that, what they call "hubris" fight. I'm only quoting the research. Lot's of people live without cancer, and we know that people can live longer, if they don't get hit by a bus; fall off a cliff; get eaten by a shark, or crocodile; get murdered; smoke or drink themselves to death; etc. We also know that diseases are hereditary, and the lifestyle of one's fore-parents can contribute to poor health. We also know that people live longer, and healthier, when not exposed to harmful chemical, and live off healthier foods. Since the OP is asking about cancer, I provided information on this alone. If we want to talk about people living longer, and why, we can also do that. Scientific research has identified five distinct geographic regions, known as Blue Zones, where people live significantly longer and healthier lives compared to the global average. These areas - Okinawa, Japan; Sardinia, Italy; Nicoya, Costa Rica; Ikaria, Greece; and Loma Linda, California - were pinpointed through epidemiological data and extensive studies by Dan Buettner and his team, who found that residents in these regions reach age 100 at rates 10 times higher than in the United States. The longevity observed in these communities is attributed not to genetics alone, but to a combination of lifestyle and environmental factors, with only about 20% of lifespan influenced by genes and 80% by lifestyle choices.

This is a very good question. More than 900 man-made chemicals found in everyday consumer products, food, drinking water, pesticides, and workplace environments have been identified as displaying traits linked to an increased risk of breast cancer. That's just breast cancer alone, but if we check other cancers, and their causes, the answer is the same. The study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, identified 921 chemicals that either cause mammary tumors in animals or trigger biological changes - such as activating estrogen receptors or increasing estrogen and progesterone production - that promote breast cancer development. Notably, 92% of these chemicals are known to harm or alter DNA, and over half are associated with increased hormone production, a known risk factor for breast cancer. More than 900 chemicals, many found in consumer products and the environment, display breast cancer-causing traitsWhile the list of chemicals with proven carcinogenic effects is extensive, only a small fraction of the more than 40,000 chemicals in commercial use have been tested for safety, with estimates suggesting that only about 5% have undergone testing relevant to cancer risk. This regulatory gap means that many chemicals in common products - such as those labeled as “fragrance” in personal care items, or those found in kitchenware labeled “for decorative purposes only” - may contain hidden carcinogens or endocrine-disrupting compounds. Is there anyone whom hasn't been exposed to cigarettes smoke? Exposure to secondhand smoke is a known cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers, with scientific evidence confirming its carcinogenic effects. New Study Finds 17.4 Million U.S. Adults Smoke Cigars, Showing Need For FDA to Regulate All Cigars to Protect Public HealthTobacco smoke, a well-established human carcinogen, contains at least 40 known carcinogens and is responsible for numerous cancer types, including lung, bladder, and breast cancer.[1] Environmental pollution from industrial emissions, vehicle exhaust, and household combustion devices also contributes to cancer risk, with environmental, occupational, and behavioral factors accounting for a significant proportion of cancer deaths globally. Note DNA mutation is a natural part of cell replication. Many mutations are harmless. Some mutations are even beneficial and help drive evolution. However, mutations sometimes lead to cancer. Because of the presence of natural carcinogens in the environment, and because mutation is a natural part of cell replication, cancer happens even in the absence of man-made chemicals. Despite the fact that cancer is natural, we can certainly reduce our risk of cancer by avoiding tobacco, alcohol, arsenic, radon, ionizing radiation and other carcinogens; by eating more fruits and vegetables; by exercising regularly; by getting vaccinated; and by using sunscreen. Although many carcinogens are naturally occurring, human-made chemicals - especially those used in consumer products and agriculture - represent a major and growing concern due to widespread, long-term exposure. Can one's immune system be boosted against cancer? Fruits and vegetables are an essential part of a healthy diet and are associated with a reduced risk of several types of cancer. Evidence consistently supports a protective effect of greater consumption of vegetables and fruits against cancers of the stomach, esophagus, lung, oral cavity and pharynx, endometrium, pancreas, and colon. Only in a very limited way, due to the fact that many farm grown fruit and vegetables are laced with chemicals. A recent comprehensive nationwide study published in July 2024 found that agricultural pesticide use, including chemical sprays on vegetables, is associated with a cancer risk comparable to that of tobacco smoking for several types of cancer, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, leukemia, bladder, colon, lung, and pancreatic cancers. So, it's a hard battle to win in a world where man is his own worst enemy.

Would you say then, it boils down to human efforts, and whether or not those efforts are not only unselfish, but capable enough? It's a discussion of an ethical topic relating to science, medicine, religion, and so on. I didn't want it restricted to science or philosophy. Or religion. It sounds like you have another war on your hands. Will that end all wars? It seem more like starting a new one, that involves a battle of minds.

Okay. We can work with "technology, which is just more tools made from the knowledge science discovers. " I've heard arguments that had not for science, we wouldn't be sitting at computers, using cell phones, GPS, or many, many other things. Do you credit science with this technology? Had it not been for the "discovery of electricity", would we be talking about having watched Batman and Robin on television, or hearing Diana Ross' beautiful voice singing "Stop! In the name of love Before you break my heart"? We credit science for the advancements made over the centuries... whether good or bad. We don't want to take a biased position to detach an invention from science, because we discovered that it may not be the best product yet. Like plastics. The world's first fully synthetic plastic was Bakelite, invented in New York in 1907, by Leo Baekeland [a Belgian chemist] who coined the term "plastics". Science has been fundamental to the creation, development, and ongoing transformation of plastics. The journey began in the 19th century with early discoveries like nitrocellulose and celluloid, followed by the invention of the first fully synthetic plastic, Bakelite, in 1907 by Leo Baekeland, who coined the term "plastics".[1][2] This breakthrough, along with subsequent scientific advancements, led to the mass production of diverse polymers such as nylon, polyethylene, polystyrene, and PVC, which became essential materials in everyday life and critical to wartime innovation.[2][3][4] The foundational work of chemists like Hermann Staudinger, known as the "father of polymer chemistry," and Herman Mark, the "father of polymer physics," established the scientific principles behind polymer science, enabling the design of materials with tailored properties.[1] The development of synthetic polymers was driven by scientific research, with chemists deliberately designing materials to meet specific needs, such as replacing scarce natural resources like rubber and silk during World War II.[2][4] Scientific innovation led to the creation of high-performance plastics like Teflon, used in the atomic bomb, and Kevlar, capable of stopping bullets, demonstrating the profound impact of polymer science on technology and safety.[3][4] In response to the environmental crisis caused by plastic pollution, contemporary science is now focused on developing solutions, including plastics that can be programmed to break down after a specific lifespan, inspired by natural polymers like DNA and RNA.[5][6] Researchers are exploring new methods to chemically recycle plastics by breaking their tough bonds in a controlled way, with promising discoveries such as a polymer that can be broken down into its original components using a mild acidic solution at room temperature, enabling a circular economy.[7][8] Efforts are also underway to create biodegradable and sustainable plastics from renewable biological sources, such as corn starch, to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and mitigate environmental harm.[9] So, I think you are on track with where I'm coming from. 👍

I had never hear the expression before now. The quote "Madam, of what use is a newborn baby?" is often attributed to historical figures like Benjamin Franklin or Michael Faraday, though its true origin is uncertain. It is typically presented as a rhetorical response to skepticism about the immediate utility of new discoveries or fundamental research, emphasizing that the value of something may not be immediately apparent but can be profound over time. This sentiment underscores the importance of supporting basic scientific inquiry, even when its practical applications are not yet evident. That's interesting. It reminds me of an expression I am familiar with - "The world was not made in a day". Meaning that significant achievements or complex projects require time, effort, and consistent work over an extended period rather than being accomplished instantly. The saying is often attributed to John Heywood, an English playwright from centuries ago, and is commonly used to remind people that great things are built gradually through continuous effort. The full sentiment, as popularized by James Clear, is that while Rome wasn’t built in a day, the Romans were laying bricks every hour - highlighting that progress comes from small, consistent actions rather than grand, immediate results. This idea is central to the concept of habit formation, where long-term success depends on daily incremental improvements rather than focusing solely on the final outcome. I guess you are saying then, just as we didn't get to missiles that can launch a nuclear bomb halfway across the globe, before we went through swords, bayonets, gunpowder, tanks, etc., greater achievement and progress will come later. That's a reasonable proposal. What if though we saw things progressing - that would be, regressing - in the opposite direction, because mankind's ideals, morals, and mindset are declining? For example, power hunger, greed, corruption, hatred, selfishness, pride, unreasonableness, disagreeableness, etc., has been with man for centuries, but rather that gradually disappear, they are worsening. Greed and selfishness are increasingly recognized as significant societal issues, with evidence suggesting their negative impacts have intensified. These traits are linked to environmental degradation, as unchecked consumption driven by greed accelerates fossil fuel use, polluting air, water, and land, and contributing to global warming and mass animal deaths. Research indicates that wealthier individuals often exhibit greater selfishness and unethical behavior Do you suppose any future scientific achievements can reverse that increasing decline? I'm only quoting the poster I was responding too. What ellipses are you referring to?

Yes, scientists are people, and their research and development of a product is the work of their hands. We don't only praise their work when it benefits people, since we don't want to be biased. That would be similar to closing our eyes when we don't want to see our son do wrong, but opening our eyes when he does something good. There are parents that do this, and it turns out badly for the child. That's a different subject though. I was just providing one out of many examples where scientific achievement were harmful to society.