For one science it testable and repeatable. We have journal were othere scientist confirm your finding or reject.
There nothing like that for the claims of gods. Just faith

Science is believable because the methods can be replicated and tested. Even when one hasn't the expertise or equipment to replicate an experiment themselves, others will and we can review their work to check for flaws in methods or analysis. Further, checks and balances are provided through peer review and making sure that research is legitimate.

Science, when describing the creation of the universe is a theory. Science doesn't claim to be right, it's the best guess with the information we have. Science is constantly building on itself coming up with better solutions and answers. The Bible is a fixed story from a few thousand years ago. There is an incredible book called "The Case for God" by Karen Armstrong. It's not a book trying to convince you of anything but does a great job of explaining the origin and evolution of religion.

Because science works. When scientists tell us there will be a total eclipse to the very minute and the very spot on Earth to View it, it happens. When Jesus says I will return before this generation passes away... well we’re still waiting. This is just one example, but science is constantly telling us things that work, and religion tells us useless stories.

I read a comment about a year ago and since I'm paraphrasing from memory and I haven't asked her permission to use her thought I won't specify where I got it except to mention that it isn't from me originally.

'All throughout history people have thought they had -- often supernatural -- explanations for things -- the sun was a light being dragged across the sky by Apollo, thunder was dwarves playing ten-pins in the mountains or so forth. But when we were able to get closer looks we realized that there were secular mechanisms that explained things and obviated the supernatural. On the other hand, how many times has it gone the other way? We used to have a secular explanation but now we realize that the thing we see is really caused by that god over there or that magician or that rabbit's foot in our pocket or whatever -- exactly zero!'

That's why science is more believable than religion -- science has demonstrated over and over and over to be more correct than religion. Religion has ever only been able to play 'god-of-the-gaps'. When knowledge moves in, religion has to leave.

"Scientists were not in the beginning of time", but then neither was the 'man' who 'made up' the bible, go figure

The fact that you used the old "you weren't there" argument at the end of your post made you lose virtually all credibility for me. To answer your question, the reason science is believable and the Bible is not is because science is falsifiable and testable and the Bible is not. The Bible's claims are largely unfalsifiable, and the ones that can be tested have been shown to be false.

Science is constantly testing theories and revising them based on empirical evidence. Religion uses anecdotal "evidence" which is nothing but hearsay in the end. You are wrong about scientific theory having formed and solidified about Anything, indeed theories about the formation of the universe are in flux as deep space telescopes and higher mathematics, among other things, observe, record, an examine ongoing data constantly coming in.
The fact that you make such a dogmatic statement makes me suspect you are trolling this site.

Science is based on theory proved by evidence. It is fact, not faith.

"I cannot stress often enough that what science is all about is not proving things to be true but proving them to be false." - Dr. Lawrence Krauss

Simple the Scientific method

Repeatable, observable results. Facts, reason, evidence, and questioning the conclusions that we come to.

Science is believable because it is predictive. Science follows a set of rules which are met universally, and does not deviate from those rules. Our understanding of the rules may become more focused over time (for example, with improvements in our technology), but in the end, everything in the universe still follows the rules. [Case in point: Based on his knowledge of the periodicity of elements, Dmitri Mendeleev predicted the characteristics and properties of four elements (scandium, gallium, technetium and germanium) which had yet to be discovered.] Science is based in the reproducibility of results, whereas faith is untestable. Or, to put it another way, science is based in 'truth' (as we currently know it), and faith is based on a believer's fears and superstitions.

Logically, evolution hakes perfect sense. Life evolves into higher and to a more perfect being. Religion states that this is all we are, we will not evolve unless God says so. This seems very unlikely. Science explores all natural entities, space, time and anything that has a question. Religion explores human interest and believes that everything else has been made to serve humans. This also is very unlikely. Religion states the universe is only 6000 years old and that dinosaurs and humans lived together. Most Definitely unlikely. I can go on and on. Science is perpetuated by enlightened and very intelligent people. Religion is stagnant and is largely made up by people with visions that are most likely psychosis.

It is not the absolute truth, but it is reliable and trustworthy.

belief is exactly the problem.

Testable, verifiable evidence.

A scientific hypothesis is formed and tested then retested again and again to prove validity. If the hypothesis is proven wrong, a new one is formed and tested until a conclusion is reached.

Faith generally goes something like this:

Jesus loves me
this I know
for the bible tells me so

Science is believable,because they have to be able to test a theory,have to be able to prove it true or false,if false they start afresh,they have to have evidence to back op their claims.they have studied for years to graduate and then more practical work and experience over years,As far as I am concerned I would believe the findings by science over the bible any day and as for a god,I will believe it once their is hard evidence of its existance.whats more science uses the most advanced technology in studying the stars the births and demise and their movement.

We use science to study the validity of specific religions, Science provides the real truth a day in court if you will To be one who refuses to learn or even care to learn is just a shame , Wasting a mind on forced belief

Theories are hypotheses that have been tested for validity and reproduced by others performing the experiment using the same methodology. Most of the Old Testament was written after the Diaspora. Hence, it incorporates much of the mythology of Babylon and other Eastern cultures. This maybe why different books of the Bible contradict each other. Finally to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever been put to death for promoting a conflicting scientific hypothesis. But they do have to produce evidence. Religious dogma just says : It's the word of God.

The fact that no threated you with hell if you don't believe in science. Science is the study of life where as religion is a practice of copyright where if you don't "shut the fuck up and listen to what I say" philosophy is used to control those who are less mentally stable. If power is something you desire in life (like a school bully aka god/satan) that you are choosing to be stupid, and you should know that there is someone who is a master at being stupid (satan). He don't exist in life but death so you better be good and you better not spout. If you can shame someone one for wearing knock off brand clothes at school/public or are one to laugh either to fit in or be in fear of being made fun of next then you are a possessive person (a person who is easily persuaded). If not for this religion you so blindly follow convincing you to treat other people as less than human for not being part of your religion when you asked them to. Then how long would it take for someone who did what the church did to you (psychic readings and subconscious manipulation) to do the same thing you do to non-believers but to everyone else. The question was never about if god existed or not, but if you think we are going to voluntarily treat people like shit for our own benefit then you are sadly mistaken. You can twist words around all you want in you little study room(church) but truth comes from action not words. You don't need a bible to want to help the poor the bible is what you use to ignore real people.

The bible story can be tested as can scientific theories. The one which stands to the evidence is the closest to the "truth". That's how science works by ruling out the unlikely and replacing it with "more likely". It isn't something you believe in it's something that is revealed as time goes on. It's like "believing" that the premises below are true:

All men are mortal

Socrates is a man

Therefore Socrates is mortal

This is not inherently something to "believe in". It's something which is clearly true if the first two premises are true.

Let's say you have a lamp in your house that does not work, you put a new bulb in and it works again. Do you believe that the old bulb was burned out, or do you believe that God made the lamp work again?

This is the same argument, just on a very simplistic scale. This is how science works- you have a hypothesis (the bulb is bad), you test it (new bulb), and then you come up with a theory (lamps that don't work have burned out bulbs). Sometimes there is something else wrong with the lamp, and we need to change our hypothesis. We also test our theory by putting the old bulb back in. If we put the old bulb back in, and the lamp does not work, this builds more evidence that our theory is correct.

An impediment to people understanding evolution is the concept of the immense time scale that it occurred. The concept of how slowly changes occur, and the trying wrap your head around what a billion years is like, is tough. But the more you know, the more it makes sense.

Science is not believable, but rather knowable or not knowable. That which is knowable is so because of experiment, and verifyable facts. And that which is not known but able to be acted upon as if known is so because of falsifyable hypothesis, and observable facts.