Christians should keep Scripture out of politics

[PsyOps]

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.

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]

all religions are equally provable

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]

supernatural vs. natural

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]

everything in its place

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[wildsage]

is faith-healing magic?

Let me correct you here:
How’s that?

"a" magical occurrence over several millennia? I don't get it. Do you mean several millennia of belief in alleged miracles?

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

Science can't be described with ambiguous equations; when they are ambiguous, they are hunches, wishes or lies.

You simply refuse acknowledge that your belief in certain sciences simply goes no further than faith.

Call it faith if you will; it is a belief that everything abides by the natural laws. A chemical reaction will go the same way -- everytime -- if all the variables are controlled. Physical entities are subject to certain forces and must react in certain ways.

And according to you none of us (that believe in a God) are right. Muslims, Christians, Hindu, etc… we’re all wrong.

Not necessarily; I don't have all the answers. All I can deduce is that if religions hold mutually contradicting beliefs, and one of those beliefs is "true" then the others have to be false. Which one? Pick the one that you feel comfortable with and accept it as religion, just don't try to teach it as fact.

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.

It is PHENOMENAL that the universe exists, and that life developed as it did. It would be magic if the universe was devoid of energy yet life existed; it would be magic if, in our universe, hydrogen and oxygen didn't combine to form the compound water that has all of its specific properties yet lifeforms as we know them existed anyway.

 

[wildsage]

good for you, just not for me

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.

I will not dispute the major role that religion has played in the development of humans. And I agree that teaching about the various religions is useful and valid -- even in school but in the proper context, as theology not as fact.
I am not so sure which came first, however, religion or science. Did the earliest species of humans develop a theology before they mastered fire? Did they discover that meat was good before they thought of a god to thank for it? It seems likely that as the primate brain developed, the various trial & error strategies that resulted in greater survival for a tribe (repeated observations that allowed them to draw conclusions) were scientific even if they didn't have the math or chemistry to complete the reasoning. But to grant any validity to that idea, one has to believe that man wasn't formed in his current state, capable of reading the Bible.
The mind is a wondrous thing. Humans have had millennia to think, and to learn to think. Once basic survival was handled, the brain was freed up for less-essential tasks. It would be amazing if, given the brain's capacity, humans had never developed inspirational things like Art & Religion.
Some of the laws in religious doctrine probably developed as necessary rules for getting along as society developed; many others come across as unreasonable superstition. Neither of those ideas precludes the fact that many people "get" something good from their religious faith -- and I don't mean something as crass as answered personal prayers; I'm thinking more of the intangible inner peace.
Cool. I am sincerely happy for them but not envious. I just want them to understand that in the viewpoints of others their choice of the one & only may not be right given that so many other possibilities have existed. The believers don't suffer that doubt because they to have faith -- belief in the absence of proof; that is the definition. Isn't that enough without trying to mix it up with science?

 

[This_person]

completely false as usual.

We can test for it

Please link me to a test, or a book on a test done, that provides ANY (even less than 100% conclusive) test demonstrating any of the things I described

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?

I'm certainly not for a closed mind, not doing research, not finding out HOW things happened. I've never said nor implied anything of the sort! I'm just saying there's no more proof, no more reason to believe scientists' fantasies and mythology than there is ID, because there is exactly 100% as much to back up what they're saying as what ID says.

 

[This_person]

creating a hypothesis and testing it?!

Again, show me the test for the origins of life. Show me the test for human evolution concurrent with plant evolution from the same life source.

why, that's hardly science?!

Exactly, there's no science to any theories or hypothesis regarding these issues

 

[This_person]

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

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.

 

[This_person]

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."

So, again, show me the test for human and plant and insect "evolution" from a single life source.

What, there isn't one? Well, then certainly there's been a test that shows offspring species that are more advanced than the parent species, right?

What, no? Well, I guess evolution is just a "hunch", or "a story you believe in" or "an idea that you hope is true in the absence of anything tangible", since it meets none of your definitions of scientific theory!

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.

Or, scientific myth/fantasy, in this case.

 

[Xaquin44]

Again, show me the test for the origins of life. Show me the test for human evolution concurrent with plant evolution from the same life source.

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.

 

[Xaquin44]

there's no science to any theories or hypothesis regarding these issues

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

 

[PsyOps]

"a" magical occurrence over several millennia? I don't get it. Do you mean several millennia of belief in alleged miracles?

I thought we were talking about religion. Religion as a mystical magical belief system. Now you want to narrow this discussion to miracles? For Christianity as a whole miracles are low on the totem pole of what defines our faith. I was addressing your contention of science being around centuries and contending that my faith has been around for much longer. If time is even an arguable factor.

Science can't be described with ambiguous equations; when they are ambiguous, they are hunches, wishes or lies.

Okay… give me the tangible elements that are defined under E=MC2? Energy. What specifically is energy? Mass. How does a physicist actually know the mass of the sun just by observing it from 92 million miles away? How can we really be sure that’s how far the sun is from the earth? Prove it. Constant. Scientists already know that light is not a constant. It’s velocity changes when affected by gravity. The theory breaks down around black holes and dark energy. Prove to me that time actually changes at the speed of light. You can’t. So you are left with math to state its truth. Short actually proof all you have are number to say it happens. But you can’t really prove it. You have to believe the math is right.

Call it faith if you will; it is a belief that everything abides by the natural laws. A chemical reaction will go the same way -- everytime -- if all the variables are controlled. Physical entities are subject to certain forces and must react in certain ways.

What natural laws? You mean laws that are only observable from earth? This implies that because we have defined these laws that are limited to what we can observe on this earth that they are uniform across the universe. Are these “natural laws” the same inside a black hole? Will a chemical reaction produce the same results in a black hole that it produced on earth? What was the first chemical reaction that spurred on the first inkling of life? Is that still happening? If so, where? If not, what conditions changed? And what were those special condition that, when life did not once exist suddenly came to be? How do you recreate that though a chemical reaction?

Not necessarily; I don't have all the answers. All I can deduce is that if religions hold mutually contradicting beliefs, and one of those beliefs is "true" then the others have to be false. Which one? Pick the one that you feel comfortable with and accept it as religion, just don't try to teach it as fact.

Either do I. That’s why I don’t dismiss anything. I believe all these factors co-exist. I believe just as we have several dimensions in space and time that there is also a spiritual dimension that science prefers to ignore for reasons I can’t explain. To me it’s less about deciding which religion is right and coming to the conclusion that there is a spiritual world that exists and we should seek it out. I have and believe as a Christian. In the end God will decide who is right.

It is PHENOMENAL that the universe exists, and that life developed as it did. It would be magic if the universe was devoid of energy yet life existed; it would be magic if, in our universe, hydrogen and oxygen didn't combine to form the compound water that has all of its specific properties yet lifeforms as we know them existed anyway.

What is this energy though? You can’t just say something is there without asking how it got there. What is it that causes hydrogen and oxygen to cling together to form water? Certainly not magic. I mean water is one our more simple compounds and we can’t even explain what energy causes these two elements to cling together in such a perfect manner to form water.

It’s not my intent to disclaim science. I’m simply playing the reverse role of questioning the validity of it in the same way you question the validity of God. I think it’s easy to call into question things we can’t actually observe through our physical senses. It’s difficult to take the leap of faith to believe these things are true. I refuse to limit myself to things that can only be observed through my physical senses. I am always on a path to seek out all things spiritual and physical. Things like faith don’t exist in a vacuum. Real, rational people believe in God and a spiritual plane. There has to be more to it than just magic.

 

[Xaquin44]

So, again, show me the test for human and plant and insect "evolution" from a single life source.

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

What, there isn't one? Well, then certainly there's been a test that shows offspring species that are more advanced than the parent species, right?.

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).

What, no? Well, I guess evolution is just a "hunch", or "a story you believe in" or "an idea that you hope is true in the absence of anything tangible", since it meets none of your definitions of scientific theory!Or, scientific myth/fantasy, in this case.

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

 

[This_person]

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]

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]

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.