Momma Angel wrote:
If it is of man, then it will always have the possibility of being fallible. Some believe this of God and some do not. I do not believe this is something that will be ever 100% resolved in the minds of mankind.
Which takes us right back to the same place. You can't provide any experiment or recipe that would back up your claim. Science however does provide that. It is the same difference it has always been. Science gives its skeptics the tools to prove them wrong if the skeptics are willing to use them. Religion and philosophy doesn't.
echi,
Yes, a start. But, this is what the problems have been with religion all along? Everyone having differing views and opinions?
And, it seems we can't even agree right now on what the real reason is for taking God off the money. If it is used as a generic god, then that serves everyone except for those that don't believe.
Momma Angel wrote:I understand what you are saying but I do not believe faith is of man.
Well, what's the point in teaching faith to students then? By your own admission, they can't check if you are speaking the truth or not, so what are you going to persuade them with?
Quote:echi,
Yes, a start. But, this is what the problems have been with religion all along? Everyone having differing views and opinions?
That's exactly why it's important to explain what we mean by "God". I think that way there would be a lot more consensus and a lot less prejudice.
Thomas,
I don't think you can teach faith to anyone. Faith is something you have or something you don't have. If you have faith, you don't need proof. You cannot persuade someone to have faith or not, Thomas.
echi,
Yes, I agree with you.
Momma Angel wrote:I don't think you can teach faith to anyone. Faith is something you have or something you don't have.
Fair enough. Is it your opinion, then, that since faith cannot be taught it does not belong in schools? In your view, would that include faith based science surrogates such as Intelligent Design?
Lash wrote:BTW, however, I wouldn't advocate teaching ID in public schools--but I despise the double standard when many scientific theories are no more proven than the God Made It theory.
You need to go back to school Lash and find out what the scientific method is.
Start here.
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
A theory in science is not the same as the "god made it" theory. A theory in science started as an hypothesis and has been tested with hundreds if not thousands of experiments.
I don't know of a single reproducable experiment that supports the "God made it" hypothesis.
I think you need the trip back to school.
Show me the statement I made which you claim is in error. (For increased reading comprehension--not the statement of opinion you disagreee with--but the statement I've made which contains an error.)
Carefully now--I said there are scientific theories which are no more proven than the God Made It Theory. That is a fact.
I'm currently taking two science courses, hence my interest, and blistering correctitude.
I'm also ace-ing courses requiring reading comprehension. See if you can find where I stated that the God Made It theory was testable.
Getting back in school is easy, but you do have to take a reading comprehension test before admittance. I'll be glad to tutor you.
Thomas,
Everyone has a choice. This class is NOT being taught as a class of faith. Faith is a personal thing.
You can teach a class about what the Christian faith entails, but you cannot teach someone how to have faith.
Again, if it is a purely elective course, then I think there is nothing wrong with teaching what the Christian faith entails.
Quote:A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."
So, Lash.
Which theory in science have you been taught that has not been tested by several experiments?
Since the "God made it" theory is NOT testable then how can something that has NEVER been tested be the SAME as something that has been tested repeatedly? So lets be MORE specific. Cite one scientific "theory" that has NEVER been tested.
Momma Angel wrote:Thomas,
Everyone has a choice. This class is NOT being taught as a class of faith. Faith is a personal thing.
You can teach a class about what the Christian faith entails, but you cannot teach someone how to have faith.
Again, if it is a purely elective course, then I think there is nothing wrong with teaching what the Christian faith entails.
Are you sure you posted this to the right thread? It seems to belong to the one about the bible-as-literature thread. I'm on your side in that thread. If you did mean to post your message to
this thread, what kind of elective course are you referring to?
Thomas,
Oops! You are right. How in the world did I do that? Too many things going on at one time.
No, I did not mean to post it here. Please forgive my mistake.
The nebular theory has not been tested.
heh
I don't know why you're so bent out of shape.
There are currently five educated guesses about the origin of the cosmos. They are likely good guesses by nice men in white shirts. However, if you read back, you will see that I said:
the God Made It theory is equally proven as some scientific theories.
You are attempting to reframe my remarks, but alas, you may not.
The God Made It theory is equally proven as some scientific theories.
That is my statement.
Why not save yourself some time, and just agree.
After reading the first page of this thread, I don't understand the relationship betwen Ebonics and science. It's like trying to compare apples and oranges. They are both fruit, but for the sake of analogy, there's nothing to compare.
C.I.,
Well, so far, you are the only one that doesn't seem to see the comparison ebrown was making.
I find it a pretty fascinating thought.
She was attempting to say that Ebonics is dumbed down English for the hopeless stupids and ID is dumbed down science for a different variety of hopeless stupids.
I was sort of surprised, but why, really, anymore....
IF the Nebular theory has had no testing then please explain the following in light of the Scientific method Lash..
Quote: In 1992 the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) obtained the first images of these proto-planetary disks (sometimes shortened to 'proplyds') in the Orion nebula.
Some of the Orion proplyds are visible as silhouettes against a background of hot, bright interstellar gas, while others are seen to shine brightly. They are roughly on the same scale as the Solar System and lend strong support to the nebular theory of its origin.
You do realize that observations are a very important part of validating an hypothesis and moving it toward theory. Don't you Lash?
Quote:I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
I'm pretty sure parados called it apples-to-oranges before CI did. Maybe not in those words though.
You may be right Thomas. If I misspoke, I apologize.
