- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,577
- 52,499
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
Bots can't make "mistakes". Yeah, sure. You AV either really don't know what computers can do, or you are playing fool to make others believe you.
Then your teacher did a bad job.the idea that there are other theories and thoughts should be presented but not any faith specific education, no. My teacher (against the law btw) taught creation, creational evolution and evolution to us and stated "this is your choice, this is what science teaches, I will not present a biased view, either for or against any of these ideas". I loved it. It was great.
No.So you'll learn to respect my position?
Do you accept 95% of 'my' theology, and hold the Bible up to an equally High Standard?
I got one or two that follow me around and make comments.
Just like Paul in the book of Acts, when he went into a city -- it wasn't long before his stalkers showed up to undermine everything he said; then he would have to write a letter (epistle) to the church there and undo the damage they had caused.
I got one or two that follow me around and make comments.
Just like Paul in the book of Acts, when he went into a city -- it wasn't long before his stalkers showed up to undermine everything he said; then he would have to write a letter (epistle) to the church there and undo the damage they had caused.
and it is also good so you can see WHY there is a controversy between evolution and creationism.
Allegedly. Science doesn't start from the a priori position that God exists and that God set these things up. It only seeks to describe them, to acquire knowledge - whether they're from God or not is an unanswered question, and is potentially unanswerable.Science is basically experimenting, observing and testing the evidence against the laws of nature, that God created.
So things like chemistry, physics and biology and geology would be science. This would be chemical equations and reactions, molecular makeup, looking at chromosomes and traits, calculating forces, observing the movements and interactions of earth and sea. All things God who is the prime mover originally created and puts into action.
Not really - science settles on the most parsimonious, most well-evidenced explanation for phenomena. There's nothing to prevent God from being that explanation - it's just that he isn't. There's no phenomenon in the known universe that is best explained by God.theories however would be things like evolution, psychology, relativity, big bang, alchemy, uniformatism overarching attempts at explaining the processes and trying to make a STORY to explain them without God, since God cannot be seen, or measured, or tested in anyway, scientists deliberately ignore Him and leave him out of the equation.
Agreed, that is indeed what a lot of Christians believe.Now Christians believe since God created these laws he also is free to break them, (actually in essence, speed them up) hence, miracles. He also is outside of time, so He can do this. God is Spirit.
Yes! And that is the wonder of science: there is always more to learn, always new things to discover and new information to be acquired.Science ignores spirit, so ignores God. That is where science falls down, and why science can never come to the truth. It is always seeking, but never finding. If there is a new finding it will always lead to more questions. Like the atom once found, scientists looked into smaller and smaller parts of it. Or the universe, scientists will continue looking further and further into space. Or geology, digging deeper and deeper into earth. Or classifying animals and plants, species will always be looked for. It is a never ending quest, an all consuming hobby. You might decide to count all the grains of sand. One day you may think yes I've counted them all! You may present your figures to the world and pat yourself on the back. Finally! But the next day you'll find you missed some.
And that is a claim which is not supported by the experts and scholars of history. And there very much is something wrong with teaching Biblical Creationism in the history classroom - it's not history. The established consensus in science and history is that the literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong. Why, then, should we teach it as if it's not?There is nothing wrong with teaching biblical creationism as history. People are free to believe what they like about history. We can't all trust that all history is true, but we trust what is documented, and the Bible is as well documented and preserved as any other written document . If you have something against the Bible, then that is your problem, with the content, not the actually history of it. Other creation histories are not as well doscumented or as influential as the Genesis account.
Evolution isn't obvious, and the evidence could only be accrued in sufficient amounts with the advent of the scientific and industrial revolution. Evolution is an established scientific fact and theory, and should be taught as such in science. It is a gross waste of time to teach every alternative to evolution in the science classroom.If one doesn't have the knowledge of Genesis then it will be difficult to teach the rest of history because much of Western civlisation is grounded in this belief, and it is also good so you can see WHY there is a controversy between evolution and creationism. If you only teach evolution, or worse, present it as fact, then your students won't be able to grasp why Darwin's ideas were so controversial, or why nobody ever thought of evolution before Darwin. If evolution was so obvious, it would be apparent to us.
Tell me, would you be up in arms if people taught the Qu'ran as a literal, historical account? Would you be up in arms if public schools preached from the Vedic texts of Hinduism, instructing students to honour and respect cows and to eschew meat? Of course you were, for exactly the same reason we'd be up in arms if teachers started preaching from the Bible.It's not hard to teach creationism - just have your students read the first few chapters of Genesis. Don't be so up in arms about people reading (gasp!) the Bible. Those who can learn from it, will, and the truth will be revealed to them. Those who don't, won't.
Science is basically experimenting, observing and testing the evidence against the laws of nature, that God created.
So things like chemistry, physics and biology and geology would be science. This would be chemical equations and reactions, molecular makeup, looking at chromosomes and traits, calculating forces, observing the movements and interactions of earth and sea. All things God who is the prime mover originally created and puts into action.
theories however would be things like evolution, psychology, relativity, big bang, alchemy, uniformatism overarching attempts at explaining the processes and trying to make a STORY to explain them without God, since God cannot be seen, or measured, or tested in anyway, scientists deliberately ignore Him and leave him out of the equation.
Now Christians believe since God created these laws he also is free to break them, (actually in essence, speed them up) hence, miracles. He also is outside of time, so He can do this. God is Spirit. Science ignores spirit, so ignores God. That is where science falls down, and why science can never come to the truth. It is always seeking, but never finding.
If there is a new finding it will always lead to more questions. Like the atom once found, scientists looked into smaller and smaller parts of it. Or the universe, scientists will continue looking further and further into space. Or geology, digging deeper and deeper into earth. Or classifying animals and plants, species will always be looked for. It is a never ending quest, an all consuming hobby. You might decide to count all the grains of sand. One day you may think yes I've counted them all! You may present your figures to the world and pat yourself on the back. Finally! But the next day you'll find you missed some.
There is nothing wrong with teaching biblical creationism as history.
People are free to believe what they like about history. We can't all trust that all history is true, but we trust what is documented, and the Bible is as well documented and preserved as any other written document .
If you have something against the Bible, then that is your problem, with the content, not the actually history of it.
Other creation histories are not as well doscumented or as influential as the Genesis account.
If one doesn't have the knowledge of Genesis then it will be difficult to teach the rest of history because much of Western civlisation is grounded in this belief, and it is also good so you can see WHY there is a controversy between evolution and creationism.
If you only teach evolution, or worse, present it as fact, then your students won't be able to grasp why Darwin's ideas were so controversial, or why nobody ever thought of evolution before Darwin. If evolution was so obvious, it would be apparent to us.
It's not hard to teach creationism - just have your students read the first few chapters of Genesis. Don't be so up in arms about people reading (gasp!) the Bible.
Those who can learn from it, will, and the truth will be revealed to them. Those who don't, won't.
If it's repeatable and observable through testing, then by definition it is science. Science speaks on its own. Theres no reason for a molecular biologist (who appeals to molecules) ask a telescopic astronomer for permission to make protein synthesis science. Science doesn't start with a priori or assumption as science doesn't think. It is unbiased and objective and "if it fits, it ships". You are mistaking materialistic integration for pure science and believing that overcoming the bias instilled in physical scientists is a requirement.As already pointed out, science does not operate on the assumption that God or any supernatural agent is involved. The fact that it's managed to explain so much more than religion, which appeals to supernatural agents at every opportunity, speaks volumes.
"Science is basically experimenting, observing and testing the evidence "
Nope, all of the above (with the possible exception of alchemy, although modern chemistry did grow out of it) are science according to your definition - there have been plenty of experiments involving the above and the evidence checks out.
Well you just said that God cannot be seen, or measured, or tested, so it's hardly "ignoring" God if he doesn't want to be seen, now is it? It's more like that God is ignoring us - but then Yahweh does come across as not being that serious on the whole wanting to save people thing.
That said, if you think God can engage with the laws to perform miracles, then that IS something that would be observable scientifically - you can't have both miracles and a God that can't be tested.
I love this one. More questions does not mean your level of knowledge has decreased, it means that your knowledge of your level of knowledge has changed.
Except that it isn't?
By the by you would first need to explain your point of view of the gods and why you think refinement means exclusion.If you trust what is documented, then why don't you worship the Greek pantheon, as documented by Hesiod in the Theogony?
Er....its content is a claim ABOUT history - so having a problem with the content IMPLIES having a problem with the history too.
Logic 101, honey.
Neither of which are compelling arguments for believing in it.
That's nice.
Keeping slaves was also a pretty big part of Western civilisation - so what? What has that got to do with scientific fact?
You keep appealing to these incredibly naive arguments. Scientific theories are nearly always presented with evidence. What's not to grasp? People's response to a theory is irrelevant to its validity, as is when it was discovered. Hindsight is 20:20, as they say.
That's essentially preaching, so people will get up in arms about it.
And if you do this in the public schools, then every believers of every creation myth will want their story to be heard - Muslims, Hindus, Satanists etc.Creationists need to be careful what they wish for.
Those who can think will ignore it, in other words.
If it's repeatable and observable through testing, then by definition it is science. Science speaks on its own.
Science doesn't start with a priori or assumption as science doesn't think. It is unbiased and objective and "if it fits, it ships".
You are mistaking materialistic integration for pure science and believing that overcoming the bias instilled in physical scientists is a requirement.
By the by you would first need to explain your point of view of the gods and why you think refinement means exclusion.
Logical analysis is a loaded term.You're forgetting something important, a hypothesis and a logical analysis of what is observed. Observation and repetition are part of the package, but not all of it.
We don't insert anything. It is objectively there. If you think that it's different then try providing evidence for magnetic fields without assuming that magnetic fields are there.Right, like I said, it doesn't operate on an assumption, which is what the insertion of deities always ends up being.
Logical analysis is a loaded term.
We don't insert anything. It is objectively there.
If you think that it's different then try providing evidence for magnetic fields without assuming that magnetic fields are there.
Of course everyone uses it. By that's just the thing. You've heard it before under "same evidence, different interpretations" or "same science, different logical analyses".Not hardly - it's a system that everyone uses - and I don't for one second believe that YECists and IDists don't abide by it for the most part, otherwise they wouldn't be able to dress themselves in the morning.
There's no need.Rubbish. Even if it were, there is no way of determining the action of one deity acting from another.
No, we're actually doing this.In other quarters of the internet, asking how magnets work is a surefire sign of trolling.....
Yes, the effect of that force is observable, but you are assuming that there is an invisible force in the first place. Do you believe in fairies too? This is simply a future visible process.There's an observable force on charged objects in the presence of certain sources, with a different magnitude at every point in space - this fits the classic definition of a force field (hence the name).
Of course everyone uses it. By that's just the thing. You've heard it before under "same evidence, different interpretations" or "same science, different logical analyses".
There's no need.
No, we're actually doing this.
Yes, the effect of that force is observable, but you are assuming that there is a force in the first place.
Do you believe in fairies too? This is simply a future visible process.
You really have no idea what the word THEORY in science means!Science is basically experimenting, observing and testing the evidence against the laws of nature, that God created.
So things like chemistry, physics and biology and geology would be science. This would be chemical equations and reactions, molecular makeup, looking at chromosomes and traits, calculating forces, observing the movements and interactions of earth and sea. All things God who is the prime mover originally created and puts into action.
theories however would be things like evolution, psychology, relativity, big bang, alchemy, uniformatism overarching attempts at explaining the processes and trying to make a STORY to explain them without God, since God cannot be seen, or measured, or tested in anyway, scientists deliberately ignore Him and leave him out of the equation.
Right now you're so far from science it's ridiculous. But that was the pointOne interpretation or analysis ends up being the illogical one -
So you used the effect to define the cause? Is that what you're saying? Don't we first have to discover magnetic fields before we include them in science as a cause?If you can see a mass accelerating, diddums, there's a force - that's what a force is defined as - it's defined entirely through observables, no assumption required.
Don't forget your magnetic fields. You and your future visible processes.No, I don't believe in fairies - there is as little evidence for them as there is for your God, i.e. none.
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?