Christians should keep Scripture out of politics

[This_person]

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).

We don't give the same credence and discussion to every historical period, or inventor, or philisophy, or every book ever written..... Even if you're talking a theology class, there's no need to include everything, just what's asked for.

 

[Xaquin44]

I've asked, and no one seems to be able to answer - What part of the scientific method does any theory of the origin of life, or of human evolution from other species is out there?

lets say creationism was taught .... all you'd need to say is 'god did it' and then you can move along to actual science.

seriously, when you're trying to figure the actions of an entity who, by definition, we will never comprehend, why even bother trying to put it into a school?

 

[This_person]

lets say creationism was taught .... all you'd need to say is 'god did it' and then you can move along to actual science.

seriously, when you're trying to figure the actions of an entity who, by definition, we will never comprehend, why even bother trying to put it into a school?

So, do you comprehend the science behind the origin of life? (hint, it's a trick question, there is no scientific explaination)

 

[This_person]

Yet you cant lend more credence to one belief than the other, no matter how great you feel your belief is.

Teaching about it isn't lending credence to it, is it? Otherwise, we have wholesale government endorsement of "Romeo and Juliet", and everything in it.

OR

Is it just teaching ABOUT something, without establishing it?

 

[Xaquin44]

So, do you comprehend the science behind the origin of life? (hint, it's a trick question, there is no scientific explaination)

for all intents and purposes, it doesn't matter. You can't teach religion like science because there is nothing to test.

You can perform a litmus test to determine the acidity of water, but you can't test for god.

also, there is no scientific explaination that we know of yet. The church also said the sun revolved around us (good job religion), but we know now that the church was talking out of its uninformed ass.

 

[Xaquin44]

So, do you comprehend the science behind the origin of life? (hint, it's a trick question, there is no scientific explaination)

so what exactly do you propose they teach in science class?

if 'god did it' then that's all there is to know. It's a 1 minute, one time only class at best.

edit: also, there are already free classes held every sunday to discuss god/science.

feel free to go to them, and kindly keep something wholely untestable out of the science classroom.

 

[This_person]

for all intents and purposes, it doesn't matter. You can't teach religion like science because there is nothing to test.

You can perform a litmus test to determine the acidity of water, but you can't test for god.

also, there is no scientific explaination that we know of yet. The church also said the sun revolved around us (good job religion), but we know now that the church was talking out of its uninformed ass.

You can't teach evolution like science then, because where it comes to humans, there is NO test, no proof, no feasibility. Evolution has nothing that religion does not have (faithful followers for no provable reason).

 

[This_person]

so what exactly do you propose they teach in science class?

if 'god did it' then that's all there is to know. It's a 1 minute, one time only class at best.

edit: also, there are already free classes held every sunday to discuss god/science.

feel free to go to them, and kindly keep something wholely untestable out of the science classroom.

Then keep that "untestable" big bang theory, and evolution, and abiogenesis, etc., out of the classroom too.

 

[This_person]

No problemo, as long as while teaching about Christianity (including Mormonism ) you also teach about ; Judaism, Muslim (poor Italian ), Hindu, Wiccan, Satanism, Scientology, Deism, and Secularism/Atheism (according to you)

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.

 

[Xaquin44]

You can't teach evolution like science then, because where it comes to humans, there is NO test, no proof, no feasibility. Evolution has nothing that religion does not have (faithful followers for no provable reason).

fortunatly we have witnessed other forms of evolution that can be tested and applied.

 

[Xaquin44]

Then keep that "untestable" big bang theory, and evolution, and abiogenesis, etc., out of the classroom too.

then how would we ever doscover more about them?

or do you just not want to find out?

science = testable

god = not testable

 

[This_person]

fortunatly we have witnessed other forms of evolution that can be tested and applied.

Unless we've taken a single cell and evolved it into plant life, aquatic life, animal life, insects, and diseases (among about a zillion other things), all we've done is proven that incestuous relationships in a species destroys the species beyond recognition of other examples of that species.

Can you show me one example of a test we've performed that takes a minute population and results in a series of more advanced offspring populations than the parent, that fall into different classes of life (like plant vs animal)? If not, we've proved nothing.

 

[Xaquin44]

Can you show me one example of a test we've performed that takes a minute population and results in a series of more advanced offspring populations than the parent, that fall into different classes of life (like plant vs animal)? If not, we've proved nothing.

that is not accurate at all. not even close. all evolution is not the same (something you should know) and therefore isn't looked at and/or tested the same.

which has little to do with the point that it would be literally impossible to test for god.

What exactly would you propose be taught about god in a science class?

 

[Xaquin44]

Unless we've taken a single cell and evolved it into plant life, aquatic life, animal life, insects, and diseases (among about a zillion other things), all we've done is proven that incestuous relationships in a species destroys the species beyond recognition of other examples of that species.

If we had already done that we wouldn't need to continue learning how it happened etc. etc.

 

[This_person]

Now your getting (a little) closer to the intent of the Founding Fathers, which was NOT an all encompassing centralized Government

We are 100% in agreement on that. I fully don't think they're intent was to keep religion from being discussed by schools, or politicians, or anyone else for that matter. Based upon their own words, actions, speeches, etc., I don't think they meant for religion to be kept out of politician's decisions, either. Just that the government would not establish the religion people must believe in, or stop them from believing however the people chose.

 

[This_person]

that is not accurate at all. not even close. all evolution is not the same (something you should know) and therefore isn't looked at and/or tested the same.

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.

which has little to do with the point that it would be literally impossible to test for god.

What exactly would you propose be taught about god in a science class?

Nothing. But, about ID - the same as what's taught about evolution, or abiogenesis, or any other mythology regarding life.

 

[This_person]

If we had already done that we wouldn't need to continue learning how it happened etc. etc.

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

 

[Xaquin44]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.