Matt Damon Rips Palin

[Spartan Rex]

That I totally agree with. But it still doesn't have the scientific data to back it up (as is the case with most matters of faith) and thus has no place being taught in a science class as a scientific possibility of the origin of the universe.

Maybe youre not looking in the right place:
https://www.thetruthproject.org/


A great course that takes all the "scientific" evidence head on.
Any open minded person seeking answers should take this course.
I did.
Creationists have nothing to fear from Evolutionists arguments,
they just need to stop being lazy and arm themselves for the culture war.

Watch the long trailer on that link and see if that doest stimulate your intellectual curiosity.

 

[Badvermin]

Every other president has believed the Red Sea was parted and the the son of God was resurrected.

The founding fathers were deists, not fundamental Christians. They didn't believe any of that stuff. Jefferson even rewrote the Bible and removed the supernatural elements.

 

[barbelith]

I can't speak for others, but as a Christian, I would rather it be brought up and rationally discussed than BANNED.

I don't object to Creationism being brought up by students provided parents accept that science teachers are quite rightly going to shoot it down as unscientific. I also don't object to Creationism being brought up in other relevant classes provided parents accept that teachers are quite rightly going to position it as one of several competing origin myths.

I think it's fairly obvious there will be a vocal subset of parents who object to both of these.

Unfortunately, most lib minded teachers I've had would have no respect for belief systems and would have probably ridiculed anyone who believed God started it all.

I know we disagree on this but I think that's fair in an academic environment. There is no independent support for any theistic proposition or belief and a compelling argument to be made that religion is cultural storytelling. Bear in mind atheists only believe in one less God than Christians. A simple thought experiment is to imagine that schools did everything you want them to do about Christian mythology ... except with Hinduism.

Regardless, all the scientific proof I've ever been offered has never contradicted the possibilitity that evolution, the big bang theory (or whatever the farthest back in creation of the universe a scientist can go) that God didn't press the button at the beginning of it.

Sure. But there is also no evidence to support the supposition in the first place, which puts it firmly outside the realm of science and on equal footing with Norse mythology.

 

[wofford29]

Why is it that people seem to believe science holds all the answers? Whats your take on a disease that can't be diagnosed and science can't explain it? Does the disease then become myth as well? I'm all for science, but it doesn't and can't explain everything.

 

[pixletwin]

I think the root of the debate is a misunderstanding of the term "science".

Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific methods.

Matters of faith do not meet this criteria, else they would no longer be matters of faith. Its not that there isn't a God or that the earth wasn't created in a 7 day period or a 7,000 year period. Its about covering knowledge which was "obtained and tested through scientific methods."

To further define:

The scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

 

[barbelith]

A great course that takes all the "scientific" evidence head on. Any open minded person seeking answers should take this course.

It's pretty easy to convince people who aren't experts in a given field of anything, especially when it sounds plausible and supports a religious bias. But there's a reason The Truth Project is a joke among scientists who understand how these processes work and have intimate knowledge of the data. To see how funny it is, imagine a layman taking on the entire sum of nuclear physics and visualize how seriously he should be taken.

The founding fathers were deists, not fundamental Christians. They didn't believe any of that stuff. Jefferson even rewrote the Bible and removed the supernatural elements.

This is one of those things, like "scientific theories are just theories," that tells you right away you're dealing with an idealogue instead of someone who knows what they're talking about.

 

[Spartan Rex]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ8ikrDisDU

 

[pixletwin]

Why is it that people seem to believe science holds all the answers? Whats your take on a disease that can't be diagnosed and science can't explain it? Does the disease then become myth as well? I'm all for science, but it doesn't and can't explain everything.

You are taking his (albeit inflammatory) use of the work "myth" in the wrong context. When he says myth he really mean "lacking in observable and testable evidence".

 

[barbelith]

Why is it that people seem to believe science holds all the answers? Whats your take on a disease that can't be diagnosed and science can't explain it? Does the disease then become myth as well? I'm all for science, but it doesn't and can't explain everything.

I don't think anybody believes science holds all the answers; this is a straw man held up by people trying to make a wedge for religion. No scientist believes science has anything to say about whether the last episode of Weeds was funny, for example.

But the absence of a scientific explanation does not lend credence to other hypotheses. We do not assume leprechauns are any more likely to exist just because science has not cataloged every species on the planet. Science having only a sketchy proposal for abiogensis does not make religious stories any more likely, nor the Christian story in particular any more likely than the Egyptian story.

 

[barbelith]

You are taking his (albeit inflammatory) use of the work "myth" in the wrong context. When he says myth he really mean "lacking in observable and testable evidence".

Yes. It is not meant to be inflammatory.

 

[wofford29]

I don't think anybody believes science holds all the answers; this is a straw man held up by people trying to make a wedge for religion. No scientist believes science has anything to say about whether the last episode of Weeds was funny, for example.

But the absence of a scientific explanation does not lend credence to other hypotheses. We do not assume leprechauns are any more likely to exist just because science has not cataloged every species on the planet. Science having only a sketchy proposal for abiogensis does not make religious stories any more likely, nor the Christian story in particular any more likely than the Egyptian story.

It also doesn't make it any less likely.

I believe Einstein to be dead on the money when he said...

"the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."

 

[barbelith]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ8ikrDisDU

It doesn't even pretend to not be a religious front.

 

[Spartan Rex]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXhKZhMNQAQ

 

[pixletwin]

It also doesn't make it any less likely.

I believe Einstein to be dead on the money when he said...

"the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."

True. But Science class is about the discussion of evidence which has been tested with sound scientific principles. Its not about what may or may not have come about based on faith. It has no place in a science class as it is not scientific. Its quite simple.

 

[barbelith]

It also doesn't make it any less likely.

True. But I think this sums it up:

https://juanfont.eu/logica.html

 

[carbo-fation]

Another polictical thread with the same kind of BS!

 

[barbelith]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXhKZhMNQAQ

What are we meant to be looking at? This doesn't actually say anything.

 

[wofford29]

You are taking his (albeit inflammatory) use of the work "myth" in the wrong context. When he says myth he really mean "lacking in observable and testable evidence".

Disease and illness is easily observable and testable. Where's the cure for cancer? Where's the prevention of alzheimers? These are just basic examples, but science is not the answer to everything.

 

[pixletwin]

Another polictical thread with the same kind of BS!

Yup. ..........

 

[Anzik]

The founding fathers were deists, not fundamental Christians. They didn't believe any of that stuff. Jefferson even rewrote the Bible and removed the supernatural elements.

The phrase “Founding Fathers” is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were other important players not in attendance, like Jefferson, whose thinking deeply influenced the shaping of our nation. These 55 Founding Fathers, though, made up the core. The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists – Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin – this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.