Is biology fake?

That's what the scientific method already does...

Science is based on empirical evidence that is gathered from experiments.

Take Newton's laws for example. They were considered correct at the time (and to all extents and purposes, they were), but they were superseded by special relativity. The only reason Newton's laws were taken to be true was because worked and they were the best theory around.

This is called not-baseless accusation: You're a 6 years old kid with issues (quoting from a TSR profile):

" When I grow up I want to be less dependent on other people and just have a secure state of mind, I also plan on being properly loved one day :3"

have you heard of ToK? you sound as if you were after/in IB. totally.

nope, what is it?

haha, Theory of Knowledge (http://www.theoryofknowledge.net/), part of IB course, basically questioning everything. example? on our first lesson our teacher asked us how did we know we are in the classroom. he would probably love your thread! well, my tok essay covered the reliability of ethics and science, but I concentrated on physics there. my conclusions? nothing is certain, especially in science

Nullius in verba

To some extend I disagree it is through questioning that we advance our knowledge in science. If we did not question current science then we would never be at the stage we are today. Thats not to say by any means that science is not true or real but that it is constantly evolving. In the case of the majority of scientific theory it is almost certainly correct as you would see it you replicated many of the experiments (with their replicatable nature providing more evidence of their reliability (so please have some repect for the researchers who have dedicated thousands of hours and their lives in the name of advancing our understanding) although I agree that their is some disagreement in some of the more 'nitty gritty' stuff (and I mean really detailed stuff). I really don't think the question of origin bears any impact on the data. A nucleus is present in a cell (erythrocytes and anucleated cells exluded) whether you believe that is a result of evolution or as a direct result of.the actions of a higher being/force.

It's all so intricate and specific that I think maybe it isn't true; it seems a possibility that someone made it all up in order to stop people questioning deeper things. Why should ordinary people believe that cells have a golgi apparatus, or that a simple piece of bread is made up of some proper complex chemicals and stuff?

People will argue that biological theories are true because they make sense, that they explain life...but plenty of things can be used to explain life. How do we know that chicken contains such tiny things, and instead isn't just made of chicken? Yeah we can look down a microscope, but if an average person looked down a microscope they wouldn't be able to make 'sense' of it. It would just be colours and blobs. They're pressured into believing that what they see represents something more, so maybe microscope experts have been doing it for so long that their brain just makes them see what they're seeing and to keep them sane they tell themselves that what they're looking at isn't *just* chicken?

I'm only considering this theory because I regret taking biology and I want to justify my failure in it :P but maybe I'm right?

tbh the only reason why this has been kept secret for so long is that so many people make their living from this so-called "cell" biology. also on the physics side they keep banging on about so-called "atoms". they must think we were born yesterday.

Do you not have the intelligence to see things from another perspective? I'm sorry, I didn't realise that some people are unable to think for themselves