Christians should keep Scripture out of politics

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Xaquin44

you're ignoring me and my arguement. There is no conclusive evidence right now. Which is why we're still looking. 500 years ago you could say the same thing about bacteria. As we progress further along we gain more knowledge that lets us fill in gaps correctly.

understand?

just because science doesn't have every single answer this second, doesn't mean it never will.

MY point exactly. There's no testable theory, no proof, no SCIENCE behind it, just conjecture. Why, it's as solid as any (other) religious idea.

Understand?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Xaquin44

of course there is. It's just a bunch of theories right now. Which is kind of the point.

As I have been repeatedly asked to do, show me the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

There are no theories, there is no science involved.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Xaquin44

Give it time. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Ahhhh, you have FAITH that ONE DAY there will be proof, huh pastor?

I don't know about a specific test, but it has been observed (English moths, I don't feel like linking it so you can ignore it as I've done several times already).

You don't know about a specific test, except that it's English moths?

'yes', actually. Actually, it fits theory to a tee. You just refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Except, no one knows of any actual test that would provide a human, fish, plant, and bacteria all with sufficient variations in the species' genetic material for continued growth. Or, a test that shows that.

Until someone can show me a human and daisy from a single celled source, it's bunk.

[Xaquin44]

edit: you are being purposely obtuse and ignoring logic and fact. You are asking for what is currently impossible and ignoring that while currently not all the answers are in place, they are actively being sought.

You also ignore the fact that people like you asked for 'proof' of things like bacteria and the like, all the while slobbering over how clever you are because there is no current proof.

You have ignored direct evidence brought to you by myself and a number of others simply because you don't want to admit to yourself that you are wrong.

It is impossible to debate the color of the sky with a blind man.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Xaquin44

edit: you are being purposely obtuse and ignoring logic and fact. You are asking for what is currently impossible and ignoring that while currently not all the answers are in place, they are actively being sought.

You also ignore the fact that people like you asked for 'proof' of things like bacteria and the like, all the while slobbering over how clever you are because there is no current proof.

You have ignored direct evidence brought to you by myself and a number of others simply because you don't want to admit to yourself that you are wrong.

It is impossible to debate the color of the sky with a blind man.

I'm asking for proof that the theories are scientific, not hypothesis, conjecture, mythology, etc.

I'm not ignoring it's not there, I'm agreeing with you it's not there I fully support actively seeking it out, as any good scientist/researcher should do. Just don't call something a scientific theory and something else a fairy tale when they have the same foundation - belief and only belief.

I'm no more wrong than the scientist, and I'm no more right than the scientist when it comes to the origins of life. We each have our own baseless (as viewed by the other) faiths into what we THINK is right.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Xaquin44

Give it time. Rome wasn't built in a day.

You'd mess your shorts when they (science) find out it's God.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

The key word there, of course, is "practice". The government cannot establish, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof, religion.


That doesn't mean people can't talk about it.

And no one is stating the people couldnt discuss religion, hell we're doing it here. But thats not the argument, its the definition of that Establishment.

• 2 Students talking about (some) aspect of Religion (whatever doesnt matter) - Thats ok because the Government is not involved (just 2 citizens).
• A Student talking to teacher about (some) aspect of Religion (whatever doesnt matter) - Thats probably ok, as long as coercion (sp?) doesnt occur, but its a gray area, why tempt it?
• A (public school) Teacher leading a prayer - Not ok, this is Government establishment of religion (doesnt matter if its non-denominational, its still establishment of religion)
• A (public school) Teacher leading a class discussion about why XXXXX faith are wrong for not being XXXXXX faith - Equally Not Ok, this is Government establishment of religion
• Courtroom display of Historical documents that have led to the creation of rules within our society (as in the Supreme Court) - Could be construed as Establishment, kinda grey areay. it doesnt focus on relion, it focus on all aspects that have led Society and what has influenced the laws and rules that govern society.
• Courtroom display of One Religions Laws (Judge Roy Moore) - Not ok this is Government establishment of Religion

[Xaquin44]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

You'd mess your shorts when they (science) find out it's God.

no I wouldn't.

For all I know it could be. If that's how it turns out then that's cool.

all the same I'd rather be looking then stuck in complacency. Think of all the things we'd never know if the whole world just said 'this is the way it is'.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

And no one is stating the people couldnt discuss religion, hell we're doing it here. But thats not the argument, its the definition of that Establishment.

• 2 Students talking about (some) aspect of Religion (whatever doesnt matter) - Thats ok because the Government is not involved (just 2 citizens).
• A Student talking to teacher about (some) aspect of Religion (whatever doesnt matter) - Thats probably ok, as long as coercion (sp?) doesnt occur, but its a gray area, why tempt it? Even if the teacher attempts to coerce, is that government establishing a religion, or a teacher trying to coerce a student?
• A (public school) Teacher leading a prayer - Not ok, this is Government establishment of religion (doesnt matter if its non-denominational, its still establishment of religion) I am much closer at agreeing with this IF and ONLY IF following the prayer is a required part of a course - NOT if it's just a voluntary thing done in a club, or for demonstration as a learning tool within a class, etc.
• A (public school) Teacher leading a class discussion about why XXXXX faith are wrong for not being XXXXXX faith - Equally Not Ok, this is Government establishment of religion Could be; however, if they're discussing why XXX says YYY is wrong, and what YYY says about that, and what YYY says is wrong about XXX etc., that would be a course on religions. Establishing, to me, means something akin to requiring - so discussing even the teacher's opinions would not be an establishment, IMO
• Courtroom display of Historical documents that have led to the creation of rules within our society (as in the Supreme Court) - Could be construed as Establishment, kinda grey areay. it doesnt focus on relion, it focus on all aspects that have led Society and what has influenced the laws and rules that govern society. Here, I pretty much disagree. A decoration is a decoration. What should be judged is if the court followed applicable law, not what the court believes in religion, or how the room is decorated. If the judge said "I know the law says this, but the commandments require I go against the law...." that would be a government official establishing his/her religion above the law.
• Courtroom display of One Religions Laws (Judge Roy Moore) - Not ok this is Government establishment of Religion

Again, see the previous comment

I realize no one is saying it can't be discussed by itself in context. My point is that there is no science behind human evolution from any source but humans. Any other discussion is conjecture with no more science behind it than any other religious concept, and should either be taught as such, or other ideas with similar basis should not be singled out for exclusion.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Xaquin44

no I wouldn't.

For all I know it could be. If that's how it turns out then that's cool.

all the same I'd rather be looking then stuck in complacency. Think of all the things we'd never know if the whole world just said 'this is the way it is'.

No one is suggesting complacency. Just non-discrimination.

I know I'm all for research.