US Supreme Court Bans Government Funding for Science; Separation of Church and State

[tumbles]

Originally Posted by phlegm

Scientific theories are "narratives" that use defined "symbols" to express scientific "belief" and to guide "practice".

I'm sorry but once again we have given words meanings they weren't intended for

Actually a theory is is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:
1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and

2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

Its based on observation...not beliefs, when observations are interpreted differently it can take a long time for people to agree on observations to make them "truth". However it has nothing to do with belief, its trying to apply existing knowledge and existing rules to observable events.

I understand what you are saying but think where you were going was hypothesis:consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal redicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena (this is what we test and rest to "prove" a theory).

I'm not trying to be a smartass, but this is the underlying problem. We have moved away from the actual definition of words and interpret whole classifications incorrectly. If we used words like faith, science, belief, thoery, thesim correctly I highly doubt there would be any arguments or disagreements.

[tumbles]

Originally Posted by phlegm

Christian theology is science, and being a Christian is religion.

it by definition is NOT a science why can't we get through this....

you can't TEST it, so it can't by definition be part of the practice of science..why is this so difficult?

science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice which is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.


you believe it...where is your data? your tests? your outcomes? Although you can't see atom, quarks, or strange laws of physics without proper equipment..we CAN test them...and SHOW DATA....this is the great separation of religion and science

I can't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp.....I give up, we have to be the most retarded species in existence.

[phlegm]

Originally Posted by tumbles

I'm not trying to be a smartass, but this is the underlying problem. We have moved away from the actual definition of words and interpret whole classifications incorrectly. If we used words like faith, science, belief, thoery, thesim correctly I highly doubt there would be any arguments or disagreements.

What are the "actual" "correct" definitions?

Originally Posted by tumbles

science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice which is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.

I don't know your source, but Christian theology can fit your definition of science as a systematic knowledge-base.

[BillyTheMountain]

You believe in love, but you cannot demonstrate it exists.

You cannot arrive at the mathematical formula for love.

You cannot predict love.

Do you have Faith in Love?

[JJuggle]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

You believe in love, but you cannot demonstrate it exists.

You cannot arrive at the mathematical formula for love.

You cannot predict love.

Do you have Faith in Love?

[maestro8]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

You believe in the color blue, but you cannot demonstrate it exists.

You cannot arrive at the mathematical formula for the color blue.

You cannot predict the color blue.

Do you have Faith in the color blue?

There are many things which we cannot prove, yet we would never deny its existence. Some might call it common sense. Others may call it obvious. No faith required. It's just there!

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by maestro8

There are many things which we cannot prove, yet we would never deny its existence. Some might call it common sense. Others may call it obvious. No faith required. It's just there!

the formula for the color blue: http://www.easyrgb.com/index.php?X=MATH&H=01#text1

Blue will be here without any humanity or animals

[mscalisi]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Blue will be here without any humanity or animals

Not really. Colors are just different wavelenghts of light. Without eyes to receive or a brain to interpret, colors don't really exist.

[phlegm]

Originally Posted by mscalisi

Not really. Colors are just different wavelenghts of light. Without eyes to receive or a brain to interpret, colors don't really exist.

Are you saying that different wavelengths of light don't really exist outside of our perception?

Originally Posted by maestro8

There are many things which we cannot prove, yet we would never deny its existence. Some might call it common sense. Others may call it obvious. No faith required. It's just there!

Some people would put God in that category.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by mscalisi

Not really. Colors are just different wavelenghts of light. Without eyes to receive or a brain to interpret, colors don't really exist.

So you are the creator of colors!

You are the Creator!

[Happy Uni]

Seriously?
The whole thing about faith being taught in science classes is pathetic.
I myself am an agnostic and both atheism and agnostics are NOT a religion it is more the lack of such a religion/faith.
IF they feel they MUST teach faith in schools they should give equal time to teaching other such faiths as pastafarianism (Avery fun light-hearted parody religion.)
heres a link
http://www.venganza.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

[Happy Uni]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Blue will be here without any humanity or animals

So does this mean without time nothing exists?
Gives you something to think about

Well i think without time nothing exists...

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by Happy Uni

Seriously?
The whole thing about faith being taught in science classes is pathetic.
I myself am an agnostic and both atheism and agnostics are NOT a religion it is more the lack of such a religion/faith.
IF they feel they MUST teach faith in schools they should give equal time to teaching other such faiths as pastafarianism (Avery fun light-hearted parody religion.)
heres a link
http://www.venganza.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Faith existed before religion, and will continue after religion.

Why are you so obsessed with religion? Why do you have to keep talking about religion?

Can't you imagine Faith without religion?

[Happy Uni]

Define faith then...
and i don't think religion OR faith should be taught in school.

[maestro8]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Why are you so obsessed with Faith? Why do you have to keep talking about Faith?

Can't you imagine religion without Faith?

Put the shoe on the other foot, Billy, and tell me how the walkin' goes for ya, eh?