Christians should keep Scripture out of politics

[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]

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]

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

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

 

[Xaquin44]

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]

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]

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.

 

[This_person]

And there is no source of God except from the word of Humans. The difference is one (Science) is actively researching the origin, the other (Religion) says the origin is known.

Okay, and the actual science behind each is equal.

 

[PsyOps]

And there is no source of God except from the word of Humans. The difference is one (Science) is actively researching the origin, the other (Religion) says the origin is known.

Well, isn't that interesting. We know the answer and you don't . Well, actually you do, you just refuse to accept it.

 

[PsyOps]

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'.

I'd hardly call believers complacent. I have a lot of questions. I haven't stopped reading and learning because I feel the bible gives me all the answers. The bible doesn't give me all the answers. So I am always interested in what science has to tell us about our universe. But I also take what they promote with a grain of salt.

 

[Xaquin44]

I'd hardly call believers complacent. I have a lot of questions. I haven't stopped reading and learning because I feel the bible gives me all the answers. The bible doesn't give me all the answers. So I am always interested in what science has to tell us about our universe. But I also take what they promote with a grain of salt.

so what's the problem?

 

[Xaquin44]

Well, isn't that interesting. We know the answer and you don't . Well, actually you do, you just refuse to accept it.

yeah .... show me the proof.

march god on down and ask him to show us how he did it.

ah.

heh.

 

[This_person]

yeah .... show me the proof.

march god on down and ask him to show us how he did it.

ah.

heh.

Once again, you show you get it, and yet don't understand that you do.

We have the same proof you do! (ie, you have the same proof we do) Makes our ideas equals.

 

[PsyOps]

yeah .... show me the proof.

march god on down and ask him to show us how he did it.

ah.

heh.

Here we go again.

Show me the proof that life sprang up out of nothing. March me right down to that black hole 50 billion light years away and show me it really exists.

 

[wildsage]

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

Scientists haven't duplicated evolution but they have discovered chemical reactions that are similar to what are believed to be the precursors of life. But since you are familiar with the term "abiogenesis" you already know that, you just choose not to believe it. Fine, your prerogative; but to continue this comparison of faith and science just provide some evidence, something that backs up your belief, that is as close to "proof" as that is, or just admit that you have nothing but a story in a book.

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

As if you didn't know (Peppered moth evolution): - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees.

 

[wildsage]

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.

I did not understand what your statement "faith in the intervention of a magical occurrence OVER SEVERAL MILLENIA" was trying to prove. If your claim is that religion has been around longer than science, then prove it. Did the earliest species of humans develop a theology before they mastered fire? Did they discover that meat helped them survive before they thought of a god to thank for it? (And if time is the yardstick, then Judaism, Buddhism & Jainism all have Christianity beat.)

Okay… give me the tangible elements that are defined under E=MC2? Energy. What specifically is energy? Mass. [...] But you can’t really prove it. You have to believe the math is right.

You want tangible? Jump out of an airplane at 10,000 feet without a parachute (E=mc²) while praying to your god of choice to save you from death (faith).

What natural laws? You mean laws that are only observable from earth?

At least those laws, upon which science is based, ARE observable. What does religion have that is equivalent?

That’s why I don’t dismiss anything.

From your posts, you apparently dismiss everything that has anything to do with math or science. To discard theories of the Einsteins & Hawkings of the world, one really has to be of the same mental caliber as them (which I do not claim to be).

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.

Actually, molecular bonding has been explained (and it is a bit easier to understand than black holes).

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.

Some of us believe in a human spirituality and that it resides in ourselves; we don't seek an external source for it. I am quite comfortable to let you have your belief without trying to force mine on you, and I ask the same. When it comes to equating your belief to knowledge (secular, rational, nondenominational) is where we have conflict. Once again, the definitions of faith & science are exclusive.

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 only question your belief in your deity when you try to validate it by comparing it with science, or claim that it is the "right" one over all of the others (or none at all). No one needs a reason to believe as they do until they try to convince (coerce) others.

Real, rational people believe in God.

And real, rational people also DON'T believe in a god.

 

[PsyOps]

But since you are familiar with the term "abiogenesis"

Don't you find it odd that they stole a biblcal term to name their theory?

 

[wildsage]

Don't you find it odd that they stole a biblcal term to name their theory?

(Does that mean Phil Collins is a god? Not hardly.)
From Merriam-Webster, "GENESIS, Latin, from Greek, from gignesthai to be born." Nothing about creation there.

 

[PsyOps]

(Does that mean Phil Collins is a god? Not hardly.)
From Merriam-Webster, "GENESIS, Latin, from Greek, from gignesthai to be born." Nothing about creation there.

Okay, that's lame. It's a biblical term that has a meaning. You gave me the meaning. I'm telling you it's a biblcal term.

 

[wildsage]

chicken or egg?

Okay, that's lame. It's a biblical term that has a meaning. You gave me the meaning. I'm telling you it's a biblcal term.

Okay, GENESIS is a biblical term because it is the title of the first book of the Old Testament. Was the Latin language based on the OT or was the OT written using the Latin language?
Science usually uses Latin (& Greek) root words for descriptive terms that name things or phenomena.

 

[Xaquin44]

Here we go again.

Show me the proof that life sprang up out of nothing. March me right down to that black hole 50 billion light years away and show me it really exists.

give it time. 100 years ago we didn't have thing like TVs or Radios or decent medicines etc. etc. Only by challenging the unknown and picking apart the everyday were discoveries like those made. If you assume you have all the answers you'd never find things like those because you wouldn't be looking.

one day perhaps science will find the proof you desire.

Or maybe it was god .... at least one side is looking.