Separation of Church and State. Why Anti-Theistic Theories don't belong in Public Education.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Isurrender73

The issue here is that teaching impressionable minds that "God did it" is the solution to everything so we should stop looking is not actually educating anyone.

Science really has little to do with religion, and does not preclude the existence of God in any way...

creation in Genesis has nothing to do with science either... its a story written by men who didn't understand what we do now because of science

And the fact that you feel the need to make your unproven point clear should prove that young minds don't belong in this debate.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

We all instill our beliefs in our children. I teach her both and why I believe what I do. She can make her own choice when she is older.

Theologically the debate is moot, since theology can adapt to changes as easily as science adapts to changes.

The idea is to eliminate a moral high ground in the education of children at public schools. Especially in subjects that do very little to foster the well being of our children.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Isurrender73

I realize this thread became a troll thread but that wasn't my original intention.

I was merely pointing out hypocrisy.

more-so "perceived hypocrisy". Most people here have already shown you multiple times that Science does not, nor has never dealt with the term 'Absolute Proof'.

Science is solely presented as 'our current best understanding - subject to change upon further evidence'

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Isurrender73
No one can prove origins, evolution from cell to man, age of the universe and many other pieces of science that conflict with creationism.

See, this is where you're continuing to have misunderstandings. You want absolute proof and nothing else, and you don't consider the other alternative.

The alternative is this: We discover a naturally occurring phenomena and ask a question > We then research that phenomena and gather evidence that leads to a likelihood of how that phenomena functions > We construct a hypothesis on the Evidence we've gathered > We devise and perform tests on our hypothesis to test its accuracy > We then form a conclusion on those tests and communicate the results with others for further testing and scrutiny.

Is this a way to find absolute proof? No...

Is this a way to verify consistencies within a specific phenomena and better our understanding of it? Yes...

Does that mean our understanding is flawless? No... it just means that from the evidence we've gathered, this is the MOST LIKELY explanation.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Isurrender73
Everyone must realize that for the theologian God has been proven, even though I can't make someone believe. To many scientists natural origins are the only logical explanation, but you can't make someone else believe.

Too many? Actually, it's ALL of science explanation for origins of anything are Nature, not the supernatural.

Why haven't scientists considered this? I'm sure many of them do have considerations at a personal level. However, science doesn't deal with the supernatural. Science is the study of nature. So no scientific field considers supernatural possibilities because supernatural isn't nature, is it?

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Isurrender73
It doesn't matter what label you give something, if you try to force someone to believe something before it is proven, this is mind control.

I have never heard of anybody forcing someone to believe in science. Science isn't a belief system, it's a system that an individual has the freedom to accept or reject hypothesis and theories.

On the other hand, you have things such as Gravity, which is an absolute fact. So you're confusion may reside with you misunderstanding the difference when someone says something along the lines of "This is both a fact and a theory".

Gravity is a naturally occurring phenomenon, that is a fact. We have a scientific Theory that attempts to explain its functionality. That is a theory.

Evolution is a naturally occurring phenomenon, that is a fact. We have a Theory Of Evolution that attempts to explain its functionality. That is a theory.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Isurrender73
With this being such a heavily debated subject it seems to the only way to satisfy the separation of church and state and to keep our children from pointless debates is to remove these sciences from public school.

Perhaps if you had paid more attention in school, particularly science class, you wouldn't have everyone telling you the exact same thing. That science isn't based on absolute proof, it's based on statistical values and our current best understanding, subject to change upon further discoveries.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Isurrender73
99% of science has nothing to do with origins or creation and therefore can't be considered a conflict between church and state. Moving this 1% of science to advanced education won't harm anyone, but will eliminate any superiority complex in our public school system based in one's belief in what is unproven.

You're wrong... again. Science can't be labeled as one specific field after another. It's incredibly common to have a theory that uses a plethora of scientific fields in order to come to a conclusion.

Take Evolution for example. To adequately understand evolution, you not only have to understand how to be scientific, (which is the real trick for most people) but you also have to know something about cellular biology, genetics, and anatomy, geology, particularly paleontology, as well as environmental systems, tectonics, atomic chemistry, and especially taxonomy.

Saying that we should take out this "1%" of science isn't exactly accurate.

The only real quarrel you have with it is that THIS particular theory has massive impact on YOUR particular belief system (from your perspective).

Light alone disproves more of genesis than Evolution does. Why not take that out instead?

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Isurrender73
The non religious dont want the religious condemning them to hell based on a belief. The religious don't want to be considered ignorant because they see the flaws in science theory as being only filled by God.

We don't consider you ignorant because you see the flaws in science. We consider you ignorant because you THINK you see flaws, and refuse to acknowledge your misunderstanding even when pummeled with article after article of information that really does prove your concept of science as totally and utterly false.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Isurrender73
If a scientists fully understands the religious perspective and a theologian fully understands the scientific perspective, yet both disagree, niether is ignorant for disagreeing.

You have yet to demonstrate you have any factual information on scientific studies of all fields. Perhaps you should abide by your own words before make a topic such as this?

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Isurrender73
The non religious should not be condemned at school nor should the religious be called ignorant.

Religious people aren't ignorant. However, people who reject new information, despite the blatant obviousness of that information, are ignorant. Religious people just have a tendency of falling into that category, as you have demonstrated.

a reply to: Isurrender73

What debate?

This thread isn't a debate...

Science seeks to find a solution giving who we teach it to "what we know so far"...

Religion says God did it, everything else is wrong... and tells fairy tales of how HE did it... which has no basis in proof outside of religious texts

One says this is what we have found and we are still looking... the other says "plug your ears and sing praise to God" because its the only answer.

One is Education... one is not

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Ksihkehe
Theologically the debate is moot, since theology can adapt to changes as easily as science adapts to changes.

HAHAHAHAHA. Yeah... no....

Carl Sagan said it perfectly when he stated:

"in science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know, that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken.' and then they would actually change their minds, and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But, it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or Religion." - Carl Sagan

a reply to: Ghost147

Well Carl Sagan never met me.

I am likely the most open minded person to post in this thread. I don't know if God did it or it all happened by natural origins. But I know that despite what many science minded people like to claim they don't know either.

And it is this lack of knowledge and the subsequent debate that young minds are not prepared for. So their is no reason to indoctrinate them into anything unproven at public school.

Scientists will say in one breath that nothing in science is proven and the next breath say they have proven evolution. Why is it so hard to see the hypocrisy?

Why does evolution and origins need to presented in public school? There are thousands of wonderful scientific theories to explore that don't contradict many peoples lawfully protected religious beliefs.

This is not a debate about right/wrong it's a debate about unproven science infringing on religious beliefs.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Ghost147

Well Carl Sagan never met me.

I am likely the most open minded person to post in this thread.

Hahaha. Now you MUST be trolling. Or just incredibly arrogant.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Ghost147
I don't know if God did it or it all happened by natural origins. But I know that despite what many science minded people like to claim they don't know either.

No one here that is "scientifically minded" has stated that they know anything as absolute truth.

I'm not sure how many times and how many people need to say it. Science doesn't deal with absolute proof. It ONLY deals with our best attempt at forming an explanation on a naturally occurring phenomena based off the evidence that we can observe and test.

You would think that "The most open minded person in this thread" would be capable of understanding that. Especially when every other person is showing that "mega open minded person" that their perceptions on a topic or entirely false.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Ghost147
And it is this lack of knowledge and the subsequent debate that young minds are not prepared for. So their is no reason to indoctrinate them into anything unproven at public school.

Indoctrinating how? Science isn't taught as absolute fact, because it doesn't deal with absolutes.

As I said earlier, you are likely confusing Fact and Theory due to your limited understanding of science. Gravity is a Fact, Our scientific Theory is not absolute. Why do you not understand this?

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Ghost147
Scientists will say in one breath that nothing in science is proven and the next breath say they have proven evolution. Why is it so hard to see the hypocrisy?

Yet again, you are viewing whatever subject you hate so much within science without doing any research at all. Can you show me a peer-reviewed scientific article that expresses the very notion you are claiming scientists to state?

Do you want me to show you how Evolution is both a Fact and a Theory? Just ask and you shall receive.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Ghost147
Why does evolution and origins need to presented in public school? There are thousands of wonderful scientific theories to explore that don't contradict many peoples lawfully protected religious beliefs.

It needs to be presented because those topics are relative to numerous scientific fields, and Evolution just so happens to be one of the most confirmed theories in all of science.

Conforming standard education to every single religious belief across the world would mean we wouldn't have an education system. Mathematics disproves a plethora of religious beliefs (including Christianity). Geology disproves a plethora of religious beliefs. History disproves the validity of religious beliefs. Science disproves religious beliefs.

The real issue here isn't that you want religion to be saved from evolution and origin. The issue is that YOU yourself, at a personal level, feel threatened by subjects that contradict your beliefs. You don't even realize that EVERY subject in school disproves YOUR beliefs in one way or another.

You might as well just refrain from stepping into any educational building at all. After all, the greatest defense for religious belief is a lack of education.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Ghost147
This is not a debate about right/wrong it's a debate about unproven science infringing on religious beliefs.

YET AGAIN. Science ISNT supposed to be taken as absolute fact. So if something is so incredibly obvious about its self acknowledgement on it's own notions that it isn't absolute, why are you so afraid of it?

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Ksihkehe

We all instill our beliefs in our children. I teach her both and why I believe what I do. She can make her own choice when she is older.

Theologically the debate is moot, since theology can adapt to changes as easily as science adapts to changes.

The idea is to eliminate a moral high ground in the education of children at public schools. Especially in subjects that do very little to foster the well being of our children.

You indoctrinate her into what you believe, which CANNOT adapt to changes since the texts are written and do not change. Morality is where you run into a problem with that statement because morality is completely subjective, the scientific method does not take morality into consideration. How do you feel about gay people or abortion, can you provide me some scientific basis for it? Science is based on observation and moral high ground is based on assumption. Science class does not create a moral high ground, religious beliefs do that.

The more you respond the more you out yourself. You have indoctrinated ideas that cannot be challenged. Science allows for challenges and is becomes better for it. Your ideas are set in stone. When is the last time evidence, rather than popular opinion, has changed theology?

a reply to: Ksihkehe

You guys are funny(all who posted), in the friendliest way I can say that.

I believe some people are born gay. Personally I am pro life, but I won't stand in anyone's way nor demonize them for exercising their civil liberties.

Most of our moral code hasn't been in debate for thousands of years. Since man has been making laws, lying, stealing and non defense murder have been considered immoral.

To Love your neighbor as yourself, or as a brother as described in the OT, has been taught for over 3500 years. And to love others as you do yourself, and do do no unjust harm to others are concepts as old as religion. The majority still believe in the Golden Rule.

The only real moral boundaries that have changed are sexual in nature or pertaining to religious ritual morality.

Most of the wrongs in humanity actually stem from the same ancient flaw. Most harm is justified by a sense of self-preservation, the need to eliminate another group of people do to ideology, religion or race. Not much new under the sun.

So your idea that morals are subjective has only limited support.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Ksihkehe

You guys are funny(all who posted), in the friendliest way I can say that.

Most of our moral code hasn't been in debate for thousands of years. Since man has been making laws, lying, stealing and non defense murder have been considered immoral.

The majority still believe in the Golden Rule.

So your idea that morals are subjective has only limited support.

My idea that morals are subjective only have limited support by those who are subjective.

When you say "our" moral code you mean "your" moral code.

The practitioners of science don't care about your holy texts, why is it that the practitioners of your religion care so much about science texts?

a reply to: Ghost147

Why are you trying to define science?

Their are only so many words in the English language that I can use to explain why I think evolutionary science and origins shouldn't be taught in school.

Maybe my vocabulary isn't large enough to better explain myself, but I know the difference between science and religion. I understand the difference between theory, hypothesis and law.

I understand that evolution can likely explain everything from Class/Phylum to species. But I choose to believe there is a boundary, and we have never witnessed it being crossed.

Everything always reproduces within its own genus. Everything outside of genius must be imagined. I simply choose, because I have a freewill mind to imagine, that God is the reason.

There is not enough science to prove this wrong. Abiogenesis and single cell to multiple cellular organism are major roadblocks for me to change my mind. When or If science breaks those barriers I have no problem excepting the science.

It is ok for me to use my imagination different then the scientists uses his imagination. No one should be forced to imagine anything. That is the beauty of having an imagination. I feel no reason to give my imagination away to what is not proven in science.

Right or wrong no one will ever change my mind about God. Even my belief in gound is grounded in logic. I believe it is more likely that something always existed rather then something came from nothing. Instead of believing that something is lifeless mass I believe that something is God.

I do understand what I have posted, and I do understand what everyone is trying to say. Most of you are failing to understand me, and unwilling to accept any hypocrisy in the area of the unproven.

I love the irony...

"Science is wrong! It's all just speculation! Science is just bunch of theories!"

Well, without science you wouldn't be on the internet or typing your young Earth, creationist "theories" yourself.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

The consistency of the law and modern psychology tend to agree with my assessment of morals.

My theory that morals haven't changed much since the beginning of religion is based on more observable evidence then your theory that suggests morals are completely subjective.

Plato and the religious texts, which 84% of the world claim to follow state that virtue is not subjective, but instead that morals are often ignored for personal gain or when it comes to ideas of self-preservation.

Never mind

a reply to: Isurrender73

I didn't quote you, nor did I use the "reply" button to any of your posts. You're free to jump to the illogical conclusion that I had you in mind when I posted, but you'd be wrong.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Isurrender73

My first post refuted one of things you said, you ignored it.
Carbon dating isn't used to measure the age of the earth.

I agree. My OP was misleading. I was only debating geological columns. My apologies for a misleading post.

a reply to: Isurrender73

No, worries

We all have our opinions, and topics like these can get heated! Hope you're having a good Saturday!

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Ghost147

Why are you trying to define science?

Because it has a definition, and you completely misunderstand it.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Ghost147
Their are only so many words in the English language that I can use to explain why I think evolutionary science and origins shouldn't be taught in school.

Maybe my vocabulary isn't large enough to better explain myself, but I know the difference between science and religion. I understand the difference between theory, hypothesis and law.

So you have a position, refuse to back up your position not only with evidence, but now with even an explanation. AKA, it simply 'exists' and that's that?

You do realize that, in the English Language, Words often mean a number of different things depending on the context they are used?

For instance. Theory, and Scientific Theory, have entirely different meanings? So far you've shown that you have absolutely no clue on the subjects you're trying so hard to abolish from the public.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Ghost147
I understand that evolution can likely explain everything from Class/Phylum to species. But I choose to believe there is a boundary, and we have never witnessed it being crossed.

No. You clearly do not understand evolution, because the process that occurs from the divergence of various species over time is the same, regardless of the taxonomic classification. The only choice you have made on the subject of Evolution is to reject all information and retain a misunderstanding regardless of how solid the evidence is and how numerous it is.

Quite the opposite of a person who claims to be "The most open minded person to post in this thread"

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Ghost147
Everything always reproduces within its own genus. Everything outside of genius must be imagined. I simply choose, because I have a freewill mind to imagine God as the reaon.

That is a gross misrepresentation of Evolution. Again, You have no idea what you're talking about or arguing against. However, If you make another topic on the matter with appropriate questions or suppositions, I assure you that a number of us will show you what Evolutionary Biology actually describes.

Once again, your choice isn't that you reject Evolution, its that you reject any new information that would alter your perspective on the subject you so readily slander with incorrect supposition.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Ghost147
There is not enough science to prove this wrong. Abiogenesis and single cell to multiple cellular organism are major roadblocks for me to change my mind. When or If science breaks those barriers I have no problem excepting the science.

Abiogenesis and Evolution have nothing to do with each other. Abiogenesis describes when life begins. Evolution occurs only once life is already in existence. And we have mounds of evidence to support both subjects. Once again, its not that science has 'barriers that it hasn't broken through" as you've described in this topics, its imply that you close your eyes, plug your ears, and scream as loud as possible when that evidence is presented to you.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Ghost147
It is ok for me to use my imagination different then the scientists uses his imagination. No one should be forced to imagine anything. That is the beauty of having an imagination. I feel no reason to give my imagination away to what is not proven in science.

This statement makes no sense what so ever and does not apply to scientific matters at all.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Ghost147
Right or wrong no one will ever change my mind about God.

RIght... because as you said previously "You're the most open minded person to post in this thread"

"I will never change my mind, even if i'm right or wrong"

The Epitome of open mindedness..

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Ghost147
I do understand what I have posted, and I do understand what everyone is trying to say. Most of you are,failing to understand me, and unwilling to accept any hypocrisy in the area of the unproven.

Right... because you're a special person who is far more angelic than any of us, humble and open minded....

We have, time and time again, showed that your preconceived accusations and 'hypocrisy' on scientific topics is based entirely off of inaccurate descriptions of what science actually is. The totality of the foundation of your arguments relies on falsehoods.

You are arguing something that doesn't even exist, and refused to acknowledge your lack of knowledge on the subject.

No one here is trying to convince you that god doesn't exist. However, everyone here is attempting to show you how your initial claims are inaccurate because your understanding of the subject of science is inaccurate. You simply reject any outside information because you've been instilled to have a natural fear of anything that doesn't related to your god. And that is terrifying for you.

We are truly and honestly sorry that you are so afraid of reality.

a reply to: Isurrender73
I can only say I agree that if Religion and its teaching is not allowed in school (any religion) then anti-religion teachings should not be allowed either.

No transidental Meditation or Tantric teachings because it is a practice of Hindus and Buddhist.

No prayer because all religions pray

No religion No anti-religion plain and simple.

a reply to: Ghost147

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Everything I asserted in the OP is supported by scientific evidence, most of it that can be repeated by scientific method.

The speed of light is not constant which is supported by scientific method.

The geological columns being inconsistent and inaccurate is supported by scientific method.

Evidence of single cell to multi-cell does not exist.

Without any scientific method to prove single cell to multi-cell you are still working with a hypothesis.

Without any scientific method to prove an organism can birth a new genus you are still working with a hypothesis.

The only thing that can be called theory is speciation. Which simply says a set of flies removed from a colony adapted past their ability to reproduce with the original colony.

There is almost no scientific method involved in understanding evolution. It is a mixture of many hypothesis which are incorrectly termed a theory.

Outside of evolution I intentionally stuck to things that were proven to be inaccurate based on scientific method. Hoping that I could have a real debate, without defending my intelligence.

If you can't grasp what I am saying, then you have been indoctrinated into the religion of pseudo-science where theories need not be supported by scientific method.