• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Christian churches began the system of education in America and form its backbone today

Once Christianity started 2000 years ago, Christians took over pretty much every important discovery since.
Lol hahah now that is funny.....

Sent from my JSN-L21 using Tapatalk
 
Re: Caveat emptor

Darwinists make a huge mistake when they refuse to consider the fact that God created the universe and life on earth.

Since neither the creation of the universe nor the beginning of life are part of the theory of evolution, it’s not really relevant.
 
Re: Caveat emptor

Darwinists make a huge mistake when they refuse to consider the fact that God created the universe and life on earth.

Is it a fact? It's certainly a belief among the more conservative Christians. But if it were a fact, it would be provable, yes? Or perhaps the proofs don't match up well with the requirements of scientific proof?
 
Re: Quo vadis?

Evolution is a theory which started as speculation. Darwinists over time have added massive amounts of new speculations, assumptions, biased interpretations and guesses to the mix and have com up with a monstrous edifice they call settled evolutionary science. There is nothing whatsoever settled or scientific about evolution assumptions.

I assume that all theory ... started as speculation. But the point of the speculation is to start from facts, & try to find a pattern or theory that will tie together & explain the facts.

Given their respective track records to date in Western Civilization, I prefer science to theology. @ least, we no longer dunk accused witches to determine their innocence or guilt. Surely that's an improvement?
 
Re: Bingo, anyone?

Our church still supports Christian education and our Christian school kids are getting a high quality education compared to most public schools. Our kids do as well in life as any, with some doing much better than others, just as is true among all high school graduates from all schools.
The problem is that you are attributing a larger condition to a single source. All private schools, religious AND secular, are doing better than public schools. For that matter, homeschooling, both religious AND secular are doing better than public schools.

Now if you want to try to make the argument that religious private school or religious homeschooling is doing better than their secular counterparts, you better be able to bring non bias sources to the table.


Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Christian churches built all the first universities in America which still stand today. Christians also bore the lion's share of responsibility for educating grammar school kids for the first few hundred years in America.

Leftists mock Christianity and Christian education today but they are not wise for doing so.

Yeah, it's a shame that religion has turned back into bronze age dumbassery, right?
 
So you're not actually referring to atheists taking over at all, you're just (mis)using the word atheist as a term of hate and attack for people and policies you don't like, regardless of whether then people involved are actually atheist or not. And now you're doubling down with the even more irrelevant term "hedonist".

If you have any actual points to make about what you believe should or should not be taught in schools and why, feel free to start a discussion about them.

I group all those who disbelieve the Bible as atheists. Those people calling themselves Christian who do not believe God created Adam and Eve are functional atheists.
 
Re: Caveat emptor

Is it a fact? It's certainly a belief among the more conservative Christians. But if it were a fact, it would be provable, yes? Or perhaps the proofs don't match up well with the requirements of scientific proof?

Truth does not have to be comprehended or understood to be true.
 
Re: Quo vadis?

I assume that all theory ... started as speculation. But the point of the speculation is to start from facts, & try to find a pattern or theory that will tie together & explain the facts.

Given their respective track records to date in Western Civilization, I prefer science to theology. @ least, we no longer dunk accused witches to determine their innocence or guilt. Surely that's an improvement?

Abiogenesis speculations are not pure science, they are pure speculation.
 
Re: Bingo, anyone?

The problem is that you are attributing a larger condition to a single source. All private schools, religious AND secular, are doing better than public schools. For that matter, homeschooling, both religious AND secular are doing better than public schools.

Now if you want to try to make the argument that religious private school or religious homeschooling is doing better than their secular counterparts, you better be able to bring non bias sources to the table.


Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

We teach kids in our Christian school the difference between scientific fact and scientific speculation.
 
Re: Bingo, anyone?

We teach kids in our Christian school the difference between scientific fact and scientific speculation.
Nothing supporting a 6k year old earth or creation in 6 24 hour periods is scientific fact either. Even within the theory of evolution, it is noted that it is based on the current available information and evidence, and newer evidence could change current ideas.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Atheists mock what they do not see nor understand.
What is it with you and pot kettle statements?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Re: Caveat emptor

Quote Originally Posted by southwest88 View Post
Is it a fact? It's certainly a belief among the more conservative Christians. But if it were a fact, it would be provable, yes? Or perhaps the proofs don't match up well with the requirements of scientific proof?

end quote/

Truth does not have to be comprehended or understood to be true.

Not religious Truth, perhaps, as that's apparently meant to be taken on faith.

Scientific truth does not run on faith, however; it runs on repeatable experiments, delivering consistent results each time the experiments are correctly set up & run. That's the problem that science has with faith issues in general - faith isn't consistent, it's not repeatable time after time, yielding up the same results whenever the experiment is correctly set up & run.

You'll just have to live with it. There's no alternative, as far as I can tell. Religion & science don't treat the same World. TMK, there's no way to focus science on the supernatural facets of religion - which is where most of the latter's operations apparently take place.
 
Re: Caveat emptor

Quote Originally Posted by southwest88 View Post
Is it a fact? It's certainly a belief among the more conservative Christians. But if it were a fact, it would be provable, yes? Or perhaps the proofs don't match up well with the requirements of scientific proof?

end quote/



Not religious Truth, perhaps, as that's apparently meant to be taken on faith.

Scientific truth does not run on faith, however; it runs on repeatable experiments, delivering consistent results each time the experiments are correctly set up & run. That's the problem that science has with faith issues in general - faith isn't consistent, it's not repeatable time after time, yielding up the same results whenever the experiment is correctly set up & run.

You'll just have to live with it. There's no alternative, as far as I can tell. Religion & science don't treat the same World. TMK, there's no way to focus science on the supernatural facets of religion - which is where most of the latter's operations apparently take place.

He is correct though. A scientific truth does not have to be comprehended or understood to be true. Take for example Uranium. It gives off radiation. That is truth and a fact. Our ancestors didn't comprehend or understand this for the longest time, but it remained true nonetheless. That radiation existed even if we didn't have the means to detect or measure it. The lack of ability to prove something is true or exists does not mean it isn't true or that it does not exist.
 
Re: Caveat emptor

He is correct though. A scientific truth does not have to be comprehended or understood to be true. Take for example Uranium. It gives off radiation. That is truth and a fact. Our ancestors didn't comprehend or understand this for the longest time, but it remained true nonetheless. That radiation existed even if we didn't have the means to detect or measure it. The lack of ability to prove something is true or exists does not mean it isn't true or that it does not exist.

He wasn't addressing scientific truth, as far as I can tell. He was addressing the Truth of God's creation of the World, the Universe, space-time, the whole Meshugga. (Whenever someone capitalizes Truth that way, they typically mean some metaphysical or supernatural Truth, far beyond whether something is merely true or not. as in a truth table, for instance.)

As far as the radioactivity of uranium - certainly M. & P. Curie noticed that the uranium/radium samples they were handling glowed (in the dark) & were warm. & over time, they noticed skin problems & cataracts (from handling & carrying around samples, without taking protective measures against radiation). The understanding just wasn't there, & the radiation dosages they were getting were low enough that it wasn't immediately apparent that they were in contact with dangerous materials. So they were detecting radiation effects; what they lacked was any framework that they could fit those observations into.
 
Re: Bingo, anyone?

Nothing supporting a 6k year old earth or creation in 6 24 hour periods is scientific fact either. Even within the theory of evolution, it is noted that it is based on the current available information and evidence, and newer evidence could change current ideas.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

You are wrong about that. There is plenty of evidence supporting a young earth and plenty of problems with old earth dating methods.
 
Re: Caveat emptor

Quote Originally Posted by southwest88 View Post
Is it a fact? It's certainly a belief among the more conservative Christians. But if it were a fact, it would be provable, yes? Or perhaps the proofs don't match up well with the requirements of scientific proof?

end quote/



Not religious Truth, perhaps, as that's apparently meant to be taken on faith.

Scientific truth does not run on faith, however; it runs on repeatable experiments, delivering consistent results each time the experiments are correctly set up & run. That's the problem that science has with faith issues in general - faith isn't consistent, it's not repeatable time after time, yielding up the same results whenever the experiment is correctly set up & run.

You'll just have to live with it. There's no alternative, as far as I can tell. Religion & science don't treat the same World. TMK, there's no way to focus science on the supernatural facets of religion - which is where most of the latter's operations apparently take place.

Too much of what is commonly accepted as scientific 'truth' is often merely supported by bad assumptions, speculations, conclusions, interpretations and deductions that so many untaught and unlearned are unaware of.
 
I group all those who disbelieve the Bible as atheists. Those people calling themselves Christian who do not believe God created Adam and Eve are functional atheists.
If you're just going to make up new definitions of established words without explaining them, there is even less point in trying to discuss anything with you. Good luck in your campaign for a theocratic dictatorship.
 
Christian churches built all the first universities in America which still stand today. Christians also bore the lion's share of responsibility for educating grammar school kids for the first few hundred years in America.

Leftists mock Christianity and Christian education today but they are not wise for doing so.

Christianity - Forms of Christian education | Britannica

In North America, Christian education took a different course. From the beginning, the churches took over the creation of general educational institutions, and various denominations did pioneer work in the field of education. In the English colonies that later became the United States, the denominations founded theological colleges for the purpose of educating their ministers and established universities dealing with all major disciplines, including theology, often emphasizing a denominational slant. Harvard University was founded in 1636 and Yale University in 1701 as Congregational establishments, and the College of William and Mary was established in 1693 as an Anglican institution. They were followed during the 19th century by other Protestant universities (e.g., Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas) and colleges (e.g., Augustana College, Rock Island, Illinois) and by Roman Catholic universities (e.g., the University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana) and colleges (e.g., Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts). In addition, many private universities were based upon a Christian idea of education according to the wishes of their founders.

But who will begin the task of teaching the constant users of different sixes of bold type that this custom is boring, pretentious, silly and anti-social?
 
Re: Bingo, anyone?

You are wrong about that. There is plenty of evidence supporting a young earth and plenty of problems with old earth dating methods.
Provide that unbiased evidence then. The Bible cannot be used as evidence in isolation. It must be collaborated by other evidence. Evidence that even a non believer looks at it and says, yep that is valid evidence. Science works because to be accepted the evidence has to be repeatable from multiple independent attempted. It's why any one study is not proof of something, but multiple studies done to prove the assertion.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Re: Caveat emptor

He wasn't addressing scientific truth, as far as I can tell. He was addressing the Truth of God's creation of the World, the Universe, space-time, the whole Meshugga. (Whenever someone capitalizes Truth that way, they typically mean some metaphysical or supernatural Truth, far beyond whether something is merely true or not. as in a truth table, for instance.)

As far as the radioactivity of uranium - certainly M. & P. Curie noticed that the uranium/radium samples they were handling glowed (in the dark) & were warm. & over time, they noticed skin problems & cataracts (from handling & carrying around samples, without taking protective measures against radiation). The understanding just wasn't there, & the radiation dosages they were getting were low enough that it wasn't immediately apparent that they were in contact with dangerous materials. So they were detecting radiation effects; what they lacked was any framework that they could fit those observations into.

A truth is a truth, regardless of the topic it addresses. A claim of what is the truth does not make it so. The inability to comprehend a truth does not render it false. Evidence available can provide a contradictory conclusion to the truth. Take geocentrism for example. For almost as long as man has been around, we have lacked the ability to tell that the earth was the object moving, not the sun. It's only relatively recently, historically speaking, that we have been able to learn otherwise. But the earth moved regardless throughout all that time. The shortsightedness of some people when dealing with science, is that they can't comprehend that something can exist or be true unless it is proven scientifically. Unless something can be proven mutually exclusive to that in question, the original has the possibility of existence. There is either proven false, or no evidence to support it true. There is no supportable position of no evidence therefore false. Even with the radiation example, they were not detecting radiation itself, but it's effects, which could have been the results of multiple sources. Granted the unusualness of what they observed lead them to discover the existence and how to detect radiation. But that still required all the other scientific advances that came before. The framework that you noted is part of science as well. But the point still stands. Inability to detect does not render something untrue.

Keep in mind that I am not in agreement with marke's conclusions. However, that particular piece of logic is valid. The steps that follow are not, but you addressed the one step moreso than the ones that followed in that particular post, thus I had to note that the specific step was indeed valid.
 
Re: Caveat emptor

Too much of what is commonly accepted as scientific 'truth' is often merely supported by bad assumptions, speculations, conclusions, interpretations and deductions that so many untaught and unlearned are unaware of.

Do you have specifics in mind, or is this just an oracular statement?
 
Back
Top Bottom