Christians should keep Scripture out of politics

[Xaquin44]

Originally Posted by This_person

That is exactly my point. You cannot test for humans, nor assume the tests done on other species applies to humans. We know nothing about human evolution. It's a myth, with no scientific basis.Nothing. But, about ID - the same as what's taught about evolution, or abiogenesis, or any other mythology regarding life.

completely false as usual.

We can test for it .... is it 100% conclusive?

no.

will it be one day?

possibly.

which is why we keep learning and keep testing and researching.

If we had simply left things at 'god did it' we would never have learned anything. Moons around Jupiter? NAY sayeth the church. Carbon 14? NAY sayeth the church. Stem Cell Research? NAY sayeth the church.

etc.

You can't say anything about ID because aside from 'god did it' what else is there?

[Xaquin44]

Originally Posted by This_person

To "continue" learning, we would have had to have learned something already, not just had supposition.

creating a hypothesis and testing it?!

why, that's hardly science?!

we learn by picking apart things we suppose and finding reasons behind it.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by wildsage

Black holes were postulated, and their effects were observed, and though they themselves have not been seen, everyone who reviews the facts about them agrees that they exist. There are numerous theories about various aspects of them but to dispute the existence of black holes in the face of the gathered factual data is ludicrous.

Their effects have been observed from billions of light years away. Call me a pessimist but how do you prove “observed” effects from billions of light years away? Either way, I’m not disputing their existence anymore than I am disputing the existence of God. I’m simply saying, shy of concrete physical proof, both require a certain level of faith to believe they exist.

Originally Posted by wildsage

Science is a rigid process where a hypothesis (belief) is tested and supporting evidence establishes it as a theory; a theory must be predictive and logical and consistent and stand up to the scrutiny of unbiased individuals. Religion is none of those things. Every major theism disputes the validity of the others (and sects dispute teachings of other believers within their own theology) and none of them can provide evidence to the contrary. By definition, Christian theism requires acceptance of claims that are inconsistent with natural, observable laws.

You mean the kind of rigidity that science just knew the earth was flat, or the earth was the center of the universe or what Hawking held about his theory that matter breaks down when entering a black hole? He was so sure he was right that it nearly tore that scientific community in half. When you are talking about applying man-made math, created based on rules limited to earth, to events in deep space it all breaks down when you can actually prove, through absolute physical evidence, these events are real adn suddenly they turn out quite different.

And I agree that a belief in God is inconsistent with natural, observable laws. Until the scientific community can open its mind to the possibility of the existence of a spiritual plane, the concept of a God will always stand outside what is believed to be our laws of nature.

Originally Posted by wildsage

The established church fervently embraced geocentrism once (thank the FSM that it is no longer accepted as "fact"). Though science "proved" heliocentrism, it was centuries before it was directly observed but that does not make it any less true today than it was in Galileo's time or even King Tut's.
Modern theists chuckle that primitive people believed that their god(s) caused X, because science has since proved that Y causes X and everyone knows that God created Y. So when scientific advancement proves that Y is caused by Z, the believers claim that God created Z.
Stated another way, “we don’t know, so I choose to accept on faith the myths of my religious doctrine.” And that’s fine if you need faith in the supernatural; some of us choose more tangible evidence on which to base our beliefs.

The one event that science has yet to disprove is that life was created. They have not even come close to determing how life came to be. It’s like the big bang, you may say it happened but that doesn’t answer the question as to how it got there. Science says “we don’t know” to how life came to be, so they cling to myths like Darwinism. Our lives are full of myths that we cling to to give us reason and satiate that desire to answer “how”. Science doesn’t prove to me that there was a big bang just because some really smart physicist can string together a bunch of numbers. Those same numbers (that man created) wont convince me that life just sprang up out of spontaneous chemical reactions. There are no numbers that you can crunch together that will explain how we feel emotions and have the ability to think and reason. So your whole lecture about my faith being a myth doesn’t change a thing for me. What is a myth to you is reality to me and billions of others; and just the same on the other hand.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

I've never said keep religion/theology discussions out of school, as long as all are treated equally. The problem is how do you feasibly give the same credence and discussion to every Religious Belief (which is equally valid). Because there are some one here who would be ok with Christianity being taught, but no way would they accept Satanism (which is equally valid).

I have no worries about Satanism being taught in school. Not having in schools hasn't stopped people from following it. I have a bigger fear of those atheists aimed at stifling any mention of God in our schools than I do of any negative impact on teaching about Satan.

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

What i have stated is Creationism is not equal to Science, no matter your argument. Creationism is a Theological belief as such belongs in a Theological class. Evolution is a Scientific Theory and belongs in a Science class.

I am not attempting to put on the same curricular plane as science. I think it would fit more in a history or perhaps an anthropology class.

[wildsage]

Originally Posted by This_person

Should the local school board, run by the local people, agree to that by majority vote, I would be 100% for that. And, should they take any combination of any number of those and choose to teach that, I would be 100% for that.
The point isn't to teach everything, but be allowed to teach anything the local school board feels is appropriate.

Ah, the well-known "tyranny of the majority" that our founding fathers sought to avoid by embodying freedom of religious practice.

[wildsage]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Their effects have been observed from billions of light years away. Call me a pessimist but how do you prove “observed” effects from billions of light years away? Either way, I’m not disputing their existence anymore than I am disputing the existence of God. I’m simply saying, shy of concrete physical proof, both require a certain level of faith to believe they exist.

Correct, one requires faith in the intervention of a magical occurrence and the other requires faith in the physical laws that have been observed over centuries. The understanding of the latter has been wrong before but refined using the scientific method; the best that the former can manage when faced with the unanswerable is "we can't know God's will."
Relying on magic means that no one religion has anything more concrete than any other, unless you count numbers of followers, so which is the right one? The one that an individual chooses for him- or herself. A personal choice that can't be foisted onto another nor can it be taught on an equal basis as science.

[wildsage]

Originally Posted by This_person

Today's scientific myths and gradious stories are no more plausible, no more provable, no more testable, no more feasible than any of the religious stories. So, if you begin the lectures on that with "y'all ain't heard nothin' yet! Yuck yuck" just like you want the religious stories taught, I'd be okay with that.

That is the whole point: scientific theories ARE testable or they wouldn't be theories. Theory doesn't mean "hunch" nor does it mean "a story I believe in" nor "an idea that I hope is true in the absence of anything tangible."
We're back to saying that religious beliefs should be taught in theology classes, especially if they all get equal time; specific religious beliefs belong in the institution that harbors the community of those believers; science is taught in school because the purpose of school is to engender knowledge.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by wildsage

Correct, one requires faith in the intervention of a magical occurrence and the other requires faith in the physical laws that have been observed over centuries. The understanding of the latter has been wrong before but refined using the scientific method; the best that the former can manage when faced with the unanswerable is "we can't know God's will."

Let me correct you here:

“one requires faith in the intervention of a magical occurrence OVER SEVERAL MILLENIA and the other requires faith in the physical laws that have been observed over centuries”.

How’s that?

I hope you are clear on one thing, that faith cannot be measured by some ambiguous equation. Life cannot be measured by some ambiguous equation. Emotions and thought cannot be measured by some ambiguous equation.

Refined? What makes you think this “refined” version of your truth correct? If they were wrong in the past they could be wrong now. You simply refuse acknowledge that your belief in certain sciences simply goes no further than faith.

Originally Posted by wildsage

Relying on magic means that no one religion has anything more concrete than any other, unless you count numbers of followers, so which is the right one? The one that an individual chooses for him- or herself. A personal choice that can't be foisted onto another nor can it be taught on an equal basis as science.

is that what you have reduced your intellectual lecture to is describing my faith as "magic"? There is nothing magical about faith. You’re proof of this. What magic compels you to believe that life is a result of spontaneous chemical reactions or believing that black holes have to be more than some cosmic illusion? And according to you none of us (that believe in a God) are right. Muslims, Christians, Hindu, etc… we’re all wrong. Just magic. It’s magic that the universe even exists in the first place regardless of how it got here. Your belief doesn’t have an answer for that; mine does.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by wildsage

That is the whole point: scientific theories ARE testable or they wouldn't be theories. Theory doesn't mean "hunch" nor does it mean "a story I believe in" nor "an idea that I hope is true in the absence of anything tangible.

Testable how? How do you test that the big bang happened? How do you test that black holes exist? What sort of tangibles are used to test these things? Numbers aren’t tangible.

Look, I’m not saying theories are hunches, but devoid of the numbers that explain certain things you are left with nothing more than a hunch. Certain things are not provable in sort of tangible way.

Originally Posted by wildsage

We're back to saying that religious beliefs should be taught in theology classes, especially if they all get equal time; specific religious beliefs belong in the institution that harbors the community of those believers; science is taught in school because the purpose of school is to engender knowledge.

Are you implying there is no knowledge to be gained by teaching religion? Religion is an integral part of our culture. To assume there is nothing to be gained by teaching it in our schools undermines the important role religion has played on global society since the dawning of man. You see, belief in a God has been around a lot longer than science. I would like for our scientific minds to puts some synapses together to discover how it is religion has been such a important part of the human experience over thousands of years. For something that is simply conjured up in dreaming minds, it sure seems to like to hang around.

[Xaquin44]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

How do you test that black holes exist? What sort of tangibles are used to test these things? Numbers aren’t tangible.

other things are

here is a brief wiki

Black hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia