Creationism in School

[mulimulix]

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?

 

[Faulty]

Lol, coming out of nowhere.

And which god created the heavens and the Earth?

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.

 

[drich0150]

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.

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.

 

[mulimulix]

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.

Well, there's two things here:

Firstly, you cannot know that your chosen god is the one true god. And secondly, all of the things you have listed and deemed to be unexplainable are in fact explained.

 

[novembermike]

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.

This seems like faulty logic. Faith isn't a physical manifestation of anything, it's still an entirely philosophical construct.

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??

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.

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.

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.

what you have without true unfiltered contrast, is propaganda.

Propoganda requires a purpose.

What happens when people are subject to unchecked propaganda?

Indoctrination.

Indoctrination requires a doctrine.

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?

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.

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.

Of course not. Scientific theories are only valid if they're useful, and bad science isn't useful and can be disproven.

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.

In a philosophy or religion class. Not a science class.

 

[mulimulix]

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.

Wow, thanks; good responses. It's funny, because I haven't come across a single other Christians who has the opinions of drich.

 

[salida]

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.

What do you mean by evolution and accepted fact? There are many creation scientists who would disagree with you who are scientists who have PhD's.

 

[salida]

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.

Its not the overwhelming majority of scientists.

60% of doctors take an ID position
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/05/poll_60_percent_of_doctors_reject_darwin000937.html

Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design (Gallup)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx

http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation

 

[drich0150]

This seems like faulty logic. Faith isn't a physical manifestation of anything, it's still an entirely philosophical construct.

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.

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.

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.

Also, God in the second to last sentence with Thor and we're cool.

Good because I do not want to be uncool

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.

Yet proof-less belief is what this thread is all about..

Propaganda requires a purpose.

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.

Indoctrination requires a doctrine.

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

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.

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.

In a philosophy or religion class. Not a science class.

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.

 

[salida]

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.

 

[salida]

http://www.historicalchristianity.com/my_weblog/2009/11/how-to-brainwash-a-nation.htm

Its a form of brainwashing and indoctrination.

 

[novembermike]

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.

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.

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.

Give me some examples then.

Yet proof-less belief is what this thread is all about..

This thread is about what should be taught in schools.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Well, when you make a straw man it sure does. Bring up some actual examples and maybe I'll take it seriously.

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.

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.

 

[novembermike]

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.

I'm sure this would make perfect sense if you used nouns.
EDIT: Subjects, it needs a subject.

 

[novembermike]

Not to mention that the logic used to get creationism into a curriculum can be used to insert a unit on Atheism and the arguments for it into the same curriculum. Would you want authority figures to be mandated by the state to tell your children that God isn't real?

 

[drich0150]

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.

But the works of the belief are indeed physical in nature.

what work can you do that is not produced in the physical realm?

Give me some examples then.

They have been listed a couple time already in this thread. If you are truly interested then find them.

This thread is about what should be taught in schools.

Which apparently is a non-proof faith, when a "theory" labeled as science.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Well, when you make a straw man it sure does. Bring up some actual examples and maybe I'll take it seriously.

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.

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.

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.

 

[mulimulix]

Mainly for Salida, but I'll just leave this quote from Level of support for evolution here:

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.

 

[novembermike]

But the works of the belief are indeed physical in nature.

Not all of them. You could probably split it into the personal strength gained from faith, the interpersonal bonds of shared faith and the charity that comes from it. The charity is usually physical, but the others are not.

what work can you do that is not produced in the physical realm?

This is kind of a weird thing because it depends on how you define the physical realm. This statement holds in a purely atheist physical ontology, but IIRC it breaks down when you hold a christian assumption of a soul.

They have been listed a couple time already in this thread. If you are truly interested then find them.

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.

Which apparently is a non-proof faith, when a "theory" labeled as science.

Are you trying to say that theory isn't 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.

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".

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?

The threat of violence has worked for at least four thousand years, I'm not sure why it wouldn't now. Also, I'm not sure who "you guys" are, there's no grand conspiracy.

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?

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.

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.

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)? Again, bring up concrete examples, not freshman level rhetoric and I'll give you some reasoned arguments.

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.

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.

 

[drich0150]

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.

Impressing you or anyone else is not the goal. Forcing thought as evidenced by the multitude of responded i received is.

Are you trying to say that theory isn't science?

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?

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".

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.

The threat of violence has worked for at least four thousand years, I'm not sure why it wouldn't now.

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.

Also, I'm not sure who "you guys" are, there's no grand conspiracy.

"You guys is a figurative term, not necessarily referring to more than one person indicating a conspiracy.

On a side note unless you were apart of a "grand conspiracy" how could you verify whether or not one existed?

Also i ask that you Do not let this be your swan song. I had higher hopes and more respect for you than this. Meaning when people generally want a way out of an argument they were not prepared to argue as they thought they were in the beginning they either simply stop responding, Try and regain control by changing the topic (this is usually done by nitpicking a small insignificant point into a reason to discontinue the conversation.) or in a panic stop situation they Identify a fatal flaw in the persons Character, label them some sort of social outcast and then turn the attacks personal.

You have shown two hallmarks that would indicate the beginnings of a hasty bridge burning exit strategy. I ask that you take the High road.

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 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.

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)?

you tell me. you evidently worship at this alter, is using a computer a form of worship to your gods?

If it is then I am sorry to use your form of worship as a tool to promote the might and wisdom of My God.

Again, bring up concrete examples, not freshman level rhetoric and I'll give you some reasoned arguments.

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.

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.

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)

Those who can, do. those who can't, teach what they know. If grammar is your thing, maybe we should revisit all of what i have said to this point, and maybe we will not have to go any further than my freshman studies. Maybe all that needs to be said has already been said but in the wrong way. Perhaps you should be looking for a pink sky rather than a blue, but have dismissed the idea..

On another side note, Did you know that the sky here is indeed often pink in the mornings and evenings? Just because you are looking for a specific usage or construct in a word or thought, it does not mean that all that does not fit what you are looking for is wrong. Sometimes like with the pink sky you just need to know where and when to look.

 

[novembermike]

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.

 

[drich0150]

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.

A rose by any other name..
No matter what you wish it to call or how you wish to define the most stable or reliable aspects of science, these assertions or "theories" are indeed verifiable to at least some extent. We can and do calculate, built on and even over come principles like gravity. where other aspects like string theory or even your account of origins, is all based on pie in the sky observation of what some deem as evidence.

We are looking for a singular perspective, in a relatively fixed point and time in space. and from this we are supposed to be able to calculate the very nature of time and the known universe itself. This is utter foolishness. How can anyone claim complete or definitive knowledge to the nature of the origins of an expanse so vast we do not have a way to accurately measure it. To us, from our fixed perspective it seem infinite. Yet after 150 of our years observation from our singular perspective we somehow can claim to know of it with the Same or greater certainty of the fundamental principles that keep us from spinning off into space.

What you speak of may find its origins in true science, but your simple will to believe the latest hypothesis to the nature of the evidence found from our fixed perspective, is just plain old Faith. The same faith we use to believe in God.

I know you have been taught to look at what you believe to be better than what we believe, because you believe that evidence is king, but what you fail to acknowledge is that your belief in the interpretation of said evidence still comes down to simple faith.