Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Since God created the heavens and the earth, then it's truth and should be taught just as anything else factual is taught.
Lol, coming out of nowhere.
And which god created the heavens and the Earth?
Can you please explain to me what you definition of faith is? I have heard many different versions of this and just want to clear it up.
The only one there is. The God you and I will stand before and give an account for ourselves. The one who has told us the end from the beginning, and documented them in the scriptures.
I am able to look at a fish and see it's design, keeping it alive, causing it to swim. I can look at a flower and watch it feed and grow, and reproduce seed after it's own kind. I can watch the water cycle as it's taken up in the air and distributed around the world only to be dropped as rain and then to to be picked up once more. I'm able to see the planets and the stars moving around in the heavens like some predictable mathamatical song. I can see the intricate designs in our DNA generating such amazing diversity among it's own kind.
I can see amazing design everywhere and in everything. Sorry, but I'm just not able to shut my brain down long enough to think of everything around us as chance any more than I can believe my computer can evolve from a pile of compost. I don't have a trust that is targeted towards nothing.
To fully understand faith in the context in which we are speaking you must also know the relationship it has with belief.
Belief is a intellectual exercise based in experience, and/or evidence. faith is the physical manifestation of said belief.
Your "faith" has you believe and preach that ALL scientific theory is doctrine. That a simple theory is akin to a scientific absolute or Law. That nothing of a scientific nature is a matter of blind faith or wishful thinking. That because science in one aspect can be trusted and believed completely, that anything labeled science deserves the same level of trust and respect. This belief is indeed a type indoctrination, because nothing except God Himself is worthy of this type of devotion. How do you not see this??
That is right because you have closed your mind to anything "science" has not pre-approved for you, and without a contrast that a opposing view points bring, True objective and analytical thought is impossible.
what you have without true unfiltered contrast, is propaganda.
What happens when people are subject to unchecked propaganda?
Indoctrination.
Why can you not see, that not all scientific data is of the same caliber? why are you comparing the results of absolute known quantity to a variable, and are claiming that the variable holds the same merit as the known verifiable quantity?
Because in the religious efforts surrounding True and pure science, you have been Indoctrinated to think that anything labeled science is of the same caliber.
My argument is a simple one. We need to teach creationism, not as a way to preach religion in schools, but as a tool for those who have a mind to think for themselves. So they can use the contrast of the opposing view to identify and truly understand what is actually being represented in either arguments. Rather than simply learning to digest a "thinkers" education and philosophy. Or even a religious education and Christian world view.
The only one there is. The God you and I will stand before and give an account for ourselves. The one who has told us the end from the beginning, and documented them in the scriptures.
I am able to look at a fish and see it's design, keeping it alive, causing it to swim. I can look at a flower and watch it feed and grow, and reproduce seed after it's own kind. I can watch the water cycle as it's taken up in the air and distributed around the world only to be dropped as rain and then to to be picked up once more. I'm able to see the planets and the stars moving around in the heavens like some predictable mathamatical song. I can see the intricate designs in our DNA generating such amazing diversity among it's own kind.
I can see amazing design everywhere and in everything. Sorry, but I'm just not able to shut my brain down long enough to think of everything around us as chance any more than I can believe my computer can evolve from a pile of compost. I don't have a trust that is targeted towards nothing.
This seems like faulty logic. Faith isn't a physical manifestation of anything, it's still an entirely philosophical construct.
Scientific Theory isn't doctrine, the scientific doctrines are things like falsifiability, an assumption of certain axioms (for example a+b = b+a) and the scientific method. Science is just a process.
Also, God in the second to last sentence with Thor and we're cool.
This is true to an extent, but the only way to find truth is to limit our thought to scientific processes. You have to say to yourself that belief is nothing and proof is everything.
Propoganda requires a purpose.
Indoctrination requires a doctrine.
Of course not. There are some very weak forms of science such as psychology which require relatively weak evidence and no understanding of the mechanical process, there are fairly weak theories such as Gravity where we understand how it mechanically works but don't have a great idea of the background behind it and there are strong theories like Evolution where we've shown how life started from a chemical bath, we've found many links that show how each species evolved, we've actually showed a complete macroevolution process occur in a lab and the theories have been shown to be logically sound through software simulations.
Of course not. Scientific theories are only valid if they're useful, and bad science isn't useful and can be disproven.
In a philosophy or religion class. Not a science class.
As said above, you clearly do not understand what a scientific theory is; and this is an issue. You also must go against your own ideas of learning both sides, because you would know what a scientific theory is if you looked at evolution or other scientific theories.
The fact is that evolution and the big bang are accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of scientists, whereas creationism is not.
So, this will be a half poll/half discussion thread.
There has been a lot of discussion in the past year or two about teaching creationism in American schools. The way I see it is that it is perfectly fine to teach it in religion, but to teach it in a science class is completely outrageous, as it is simply not a science.
Please give me your thoughts on the topic, whether you are a YEC or OEC and vote in the poll.
this may "seem faulty" if one does not yield to the "construct" of faith outlined in the bible. You may define faith anyway you wish, just know that when speaking to a Christian about faith you are going to have to learn to work with his definition or excuse yourself from the conversation. Because on this point there is no debate. Otherwise you would not be having a "christian" conversation.This seems like faulty logic. Faith isn't a physical manifestation of anything, it's still an entirely philosophical construct.
Again and again I have pointed out or excepted that scientific theory is not doctrine. What is doctrine is how one represents theory as a Absolute or a scientific truth. Or more recently when one pairs Scientific absolutes with "theory" to assert that unverifiable data has or carries the same weight as a scientific Law or absolute. This system of belief is not apart of pure science. In fact I would say this behavior is contradictory to the rules scientific observation itself. That is what makes this outpouring a religious, faith based effort.Scientific Theory isn't doctrine, the scientific doctrines are things like falsifiability, an assumption of certain axioms (for example a+b = b+a) and the scientific method. Science is just a process.
Good because I do not want to be uncoolAlso, God in the second to last sentence with Thor and we're cool.
Yet proof-less belief is what this thread is all about..This is true to an extent, but the only way to find truth is to limit our thought to scientific processes. You have to say to yourself that belief is nothing and proof is everything.
The purpose is to indoctrinate all "thinkers" to follow the findings of "science" without question. Again, this is how we are made to buy carbon credits, how we are made to spend trillions to convert to environmentally "safe" propellants and refrigerants, How we are made to fund R&D on alternative energies. Any time a government or big business want more money they throw a few scraps to a couple of starved scientists and ultimately they will tell us the sky is falling in some new and exciting way, and we must pay a new tax, or fund a new project by paying more at the pump or at the food market to make it stop.Propaganda requires a purpose.
That science is god. Those who present science are this god's prophets and are beyond question, except by other scientists. (who have more funding) Or you will be labeled a Heretic.Indoctrination requires a doctrine.
Not really addressing you nor anything you have said to this point, your response here has taken my original post out of it's context.Of course not. There are some very weak forms of science such as psychology which require relatively weak evidence and no understanding of the mechanical process, there are fairly weak theories such as Gravity where we understand how it mechanically works but don't have a great idea of the background behind it and there are strong theories like Evolution where we've shown how life started from a chemical bath, we've found many links that show how each species evolved, we've actually showed a complete macroevolution process occur in a lab and the theories have been shown to be logically sound through software simulations.
Then perhaps we should also take the theories that are not provable and place them in a philosophy or religion class as well. after all "logically sound" is not the same as the verifiable data that pure science is built on.In a philosophy or religion class. Not a science class.
this may "seem faulty" if one does not yield to the "construct" of faith outlined in the bible. You may define faith anyway you wish, just know that when speaking to a Christian about faith you are going to have to learn to work with his definition or excuse yourself from the conversation. Because on this point there is no debate. Otherwise you would not be having a "christian" conversation.
Again and again I have pointed out or excepted that scientific theory is not doctrine. What is doctrine is how one represents theory as a Absolute or a scientific truth. Or more recently when one pairs Scientific absolutes with "theory" to assert that unverifiable data has or carries the same weight as a scientific Law or absolute. This system of belief is not apart of pure science. In fact I would say this behavior is contradictory to the rules scientific observation itself. That is what makes this outpouring a religious, faith based effort.
Yet proof-less belief is what this thread is all about..
The purpose is to indoctrinate all "thinkers" to follow the findings of "science" without question. Again, this is how we are made to buy carbon credits, how we are made to spend trillions to convert to environmentally "safe" propellants and refrigerants, How we are made to fund R&D on alternative energies. Any time a government or big business want more money they throw a few scraps to a couple of starved scientists and ultimately they will tell us the sky is falling in some new and exciting way, and we must pay a new tax, or fund a new project by paying more at the pump or at the food market to make it stop.
In short The purpose of unchecked propaganda in the science class room is control of the mind who see themselves as "free thinkers." Control "free" thought and you have a well funded, well educated army of consumers at you beckon call.
That science is god. Those who present science are this god's prophets and are beyond question, except by other scientists. (who have more funding) Or you will be labeled a Heretic.
This sound pretty familiar doesn't it? Almost has a medieval ring to it
Not really addressing you nor anything you have said to this point, your response here has taken my original post out of it's context.
I was addressing a very specific argument being made by the OP.
Then perhaps we should also take the theories that are not provable and place them in a philosophy or religion class as well. after all "logically sound" is not the same as the verifiable data that pure science is built on.
The need to couple verifiable data with "reasonable sound data" is the religious aspect of Science that is being discussed here. I am attacking one, but not the other.
I'm sure this would make perfect sense if you used nouns.A religious attempt? Actually is an attempt to brainwash people into being an agnostic or athiesm from scientists who believe in this thinking and not facts.
If faith is a physical manifestation then what does it weigh, how fast is it, what is its color? I can accept that it's a metaphysical thing, but it certainly isn't physical.
They have been listed a couple time already in this thread. If you are truly interested then find them.Give me some examples then.
Which apparently is a non-proof faith, when a "theory" labeled as science.This thread is about what should be taught in schools.
This is naive explanation of this whole process. Regardless of how pure or neutral facts can be, they are currently being used to push political and cooperate agendas, and "we" simply accept or swallow what ever is served up because it is "science based." we do this because we are taught that science is our new god, and "we" can not question our new god because look at all that it has provided us with.Well, most of those things aren't science, they're politics, marketing or engineering. The science behind most of those examples is good (global warming has decent evidence, for example) but it's neutral on the morality or ethics. It simply says X is happening because of reasons A, B and C.
But priest do not work with you guys, and how long to you think the people of this country would stand for being made to pay more taxes at gun point?You don't need science for that, you just need authority. A priest telling you to give money to the church, a man with a gun telling you to pay taxes and a scientist telling you to buy carbon credits are basically the same.
The "straw man' here is the fact that people tend to identify a straw man fallacy when ever they do not want to address what has been stated.Well, when you make a straw man it sure does. Bring up some actual examples and maybe I'll take it seriously.
So rather than address content you have to address grammar? Is this all you have to say? Is this all you can say? If you are looking to address content simply substitute "prove" with support. If you are looking to grade my English composition then I know I do not have to spell check my next response.Science consists entirely of unprovable arguments. We can't even prove that your computer works the way we think it does or what gravity is. The litmus test for science is that it's supportable, not provable.
While an overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological origin,[1][2] creationists have asserted that there is a significant scientific controversy and disagreement over the validity of evolution.[3][4][5]
The Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent design lobby group located in the United States, also claims that because there is a significant lack of public support for evolution, that public schools should, as their campaign states, "Teach the Controversy". Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued official statements disputing this claim[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[6] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
But the works of the belief are indeed physical in nature.
what work can you do that is not produced in the physical realm?
They have been listed a couple time already in this thread. If you are truly interested then find them.
Which apparently is a non-proof faith, when a "theory" labeled as science.
This is naive explanation of this whole process. Regardless of how pure or neutral facts can be, they are currently being used to push political and cooperate agendas, and "we" simply accept or swallow what ever is served up because it is "science based." we do this because we are taught that science is our new god, and "we" can not question our new god because look at all that it has provided us with.
But priest do not work with you guys, and how long to you think the people of this country would stand for being made to pay more taxes at gun point?
Realistically subjugating people under the authority of a system of belief is the most effective way to win the hearts and minds of said people. If one can do this then they will be willing to open up their pockets and pay what you tell them to pay if you simply give them a self serving reason to do so. You have all of that under the name of "Science!" So why not use it?
The "straw man' here is the fact that people tend to identify a straw man fallacy when ever they do not want to address what has been stated.
So rather than address content you have to address grammar? Is this all you have to say? Is this all you can say? If you are looking to address content simply substitute "prove" with support. If you are looking to grade my English composition then I know I do not have to spell check my next response.
Impressing you or anyone else is not the goal. Forcing thought as evidenced by the multitude of responded i received is.If you're talking about the stuff that's been discussed in this thread, then yeah, it isn't even worth arguing about. I haven't been impressed with any of the arguments put forth here for science as doctrine.
Why do you all have so much trouble separating Theoretical science from verifiable science? My whole point is to shine the light on the religious movement or the faith one has to have by representing theoretical science as an absolute truth.Are you trying to say that theory isn't science?
And yet we can see it in full swing in all of your responses. Mindless devotion to the way you have been taught things ought to be. Apparently for no other reason than the devoted practice of preserving all that is labeled "science," and what you think that term should mean.This is actually a fairly well studied psychological phenomena and it has a lot to do with subservience for authority. Again, it can be very much found in religion and is one of the major driving forces for schisms (for example Martin Luther, Joseph Smith or the guy in Australia claiming he's Jesus). It's completely independent of "science".
Ask the British what happened when they tried to force some of their colonist in the Americas to pay increasing taxes by the point of a gun 200 or so years ago.The threat of violence has worked for at least four thousand years, I'm not sure why it wouldn't now.
"You guys is a figurative term, not necessarily referring to more than one person indicating a conspiracy.Also, I'm not sure who "you guys" are, there's no grand conspiracy.
You fool yourself with your own philosophy. Science my not strike at the heart, but it does pay homage to power of one's prized intellect,(Pride) which produces a similar result.And science is pretty terrible at this because it makes no claims for the hearts of the people. Religion is a much better tool for this. The Islamic world showed this well enough when the Caliphates were powerful.
you tell me. you evidently worship at this alter, is using a computer a form of worship to your gods?The idea that science is a god is patently ridiculous. Are you disobeying god's commandments by believing in your computer (one of the blessings of science)?
Apparently before we can move on to something more concrete we must revisit all of my 101 course studies, each and every time the screen name and avatar changes in my reply box. Generally Once we "step things up" and move past a "freshman understanding" I have to start over. So until I am sure you are ready, we will have to take it one step at a time.Again, bring up concrete examples, not freshman level rhetoric and I'll give you some reasoned arguments.
this is why i have chosen to say at a freshman level. If you wish to concentrate on vocabulary even after the grammatical error was redacted just to drive a moot point home, then you are not ready to move past where we are. Again, There is plenty more you could say to the support of the importance of proper grammar, or you could simply address the point being made in the original post with the corrections I have indicated that were necessary. If you still do not have a legitimate counter to my original argument, then i suggest that you keep on grading papers, and take the time to point out my mistakes. (Which are many)Let's compare two statements: First, God is Jesus. Second, God is Satan. It's a simple grammar change, but it completely changes the meaning of the statement. If the second statement was actually uttered seriously (I'm not doing that) then it would be outright blasphemous, while the first is fairly standard doctrine.
The words that we use are important. Your initial statement was simply wrong, just as if you'd said that the sky is pink.
Why do you all have so much trouble separating Theoretical science from verifiable science? My whole point is to shine the light on the religious movement or the faith one has to have by representing theoretical science as an absolute truth.
Theory is apart of science, but it should not carry the same weight as a scientific law or truth. to represent theoretical science as anything other than faith in facts is foolishness. This practice breeds mindless drones. why would you promote this way of doing things?
I think we found the fundamental problem. There is no such thing as verifiable science. We used to think that there was, back when we actually called things laws after they'd been proven a bunch. Newton's Gravity was considered one of the strongest, it explained why things fell the way they do and could accurately predict the movements of celestial bodies (as far as we knew). Then Einstein came out and proved that it was bull[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. After that, we tend to consider all legitimate science theoretical.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?