Separation between Church and State - Page 7 - JeepForum.com
Search  
Sign Up   Today's Posts
User: Pass: Remember?
Advertise Here
Jeep Home Jeep Forum Jeep Classifieds Jeep Registry JeepSpace Jeep Reviews Jeep Gallery Jeep Clubs Jeep Groups Jeep Videos Jeep Events Jeep Articles
Go Back JeepForum.com > General > General Discussion > Separation between Church and State

CCOR is your 1 stop source for everything Jeep!TJ 5.25" Speaker Adapters - NalinMFGSteinjager TJ tube doors

Reply
Unread 01-01-2008, 07:23 PM   #91
BLS33
Chief of the brain police
 
BLS33's Avatar
1985 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: WI
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Cooper
I am corrected, I looked it up, must have been in the half of everything I didnt know, lol

Believe me that is one of the most believed myths out there, I remember hearing it a lot throughout my life even from my teachers.

BLS33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-01-2008, 07:58 PM   #92
Mike Cooper
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Posts: 543
You dont know how many people believe that, even some real intelectuals that I talk with think that.

Great having these converasions with you
Mike Cooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-01-2008, 09:16 PM   #93
rockhopper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: /lo-kashen/ a position or site occupied or available for occupancy or marked by some distinguishing feature
Posts: 311
I participate on a lot of forums online. Every one has a "General" forum, and every one broaches this topic on a regular basis.

This is the first one I've seen make it to page 7 without getting nasty, and devolving into name-calling, posturing, and outright lying to "win" the argument.

JeepForum is a fairly uniform (comparatively) group, too, which makes it all the more surprising to see any topic debated openly, when, no matter what the topic is, there is a pretty clear majority and minority. Typically the "mob mentality" of the majority takes over pretty quickly.

You guys all deserve a
rockhopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-01-2008, 09:18 PM   #94
PM Thor
Super Duper Guy
 
PM Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Banging your head against a wall uses 150 calories an hour
Posts: 1,097
You suck Rockhopper.


Someone had to do it.
__________________
During Awards shows, why do they show reaction shots of Daft Punk?
PM Thor is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-02-2008, 12:50 AM   #95
Kyoseki
Inconceivable!
 
Kyoseki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: A wretched hive of scum and villainy
Posts: 6,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Cooper
I am not suggesting we teach creationism, as yes, outside the Bible we do not have 100% fact that it is true, but it is the same for evolution, we do not have 100% proof it is true, yet we teach it. All I suggest that if we are going to offer theories, offer a few theories, but dont go teaching theory as fact
I think you're misunderstanding what exactly is meant by the scientific term "theory".

String theory, quantum theory, the theory of gravitation, these aren't just hypotheses, the use of the word "theory" does not imply conjecture or supposition, just because we do not completely understand natural processes it doesn't mean that the mechanic is flawed - we don't completely understand how gravity works, but we certainly have enough of an understanding to use it to design systems and tools. Would you support the teaching of "intelligent falling" since our established understanding of gravity is only a "theory"?

As stated before, evolution is subject to the scientific method, it can be tested and proven or disproved, the theory changes (evolves if you will) to accommodate new discoveries.

Creationism (or even Intelligent Design) cannot, they simply are, you either believe them or you don't, any proof that either theory is incorrect is simply disregarded by it's proponents who say that you obviously screwed up in gathering it (the age of the Earth argument springs readily to mind).

Because these are based on principles of faith, they don't invite questions, which is the exact antithesis of the scientific method, that is why they belong only in a theology class and not in a biology class.
__________________
Due to lack of interest, tomorrow has been canceled
Kyoseki is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-02-2008, 06:10 AM   #96
tbonez
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 31
Does anyone have reference to a founding document that outlines separation of church and state? I would like to read it and understand its context....A few years back I read an article that stated separation of church and state was not in the Constitution. I thought that it had to be wrong so I decided to re-read the constitution and I couldnt find it either. In the end I have a hard time believing that our founding fathers were extremely concerned about separation of church and state yet they failed to mention it in our most important founding document…
__________________
[COLOR=blue]Blue jeep club member #65[/COLOR]
2001 Outlaw edition
1 inch body lift
31x10.50 MT baja claw
more mods to come...
tbonez is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-02-2008, 06:30 AM   #97
PJL
Registered User
1998 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Schenectady, NY
Posts: 1,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbonez
Does anyone have reference to a founding document that outlines separation of church and state? I would like to read it and understand its context....A few years back I read an article that stated separation of church and state was not in the Constitution. I thought that it had to be wrong so I decided to re-read the constitution and I couldnt find it either. In the end I have a hard time believing that our founding fathers were extremely concerned about separation of church and state yet they failed to mention it in our most important founding document…
The "separation of Church and State" is a phrased coined from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church in 1802 discussing the 1st Amendment (Jefferson calls it "the wall of separation"). I posted the text of both the letter and the original draft of the letter on page 4 of this thread. Look for a big wall of quoted text.

The text of the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or inhibiting the free exercise thereof. The "wall of separation" is an interpretation of what "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means.
PJL is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-02-2008, 09:02 AM   #98
Mike Cooper
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyoseki

As stated before, evolution is subject to the scientific method, it can be tested and proven or disproved, the theory changes (evolves if you will) to accommodate new discoveries.
Thats what I an getting at right now. Science implies evolution is true, and when a new discovery is made, they change the story on how and what happened, and yet wont be open to other posibilities. Science is about collecting evidence and finding out what makes sense, Not adjusting your theory to fit what has been found.

I dont think gravity is a theory, we know it work, we can see it and feel it, especialy as we get older, lol. We have never seen what is known as macro evolution, where living forms come from swamp sludge, or one animal truning to another. We have seen micro evolution, where slight changes have happened to an animal to adapt to its invoronment. So although we know gravity works, but not understand it, great, teach it, but we dont know evolution has worked, but we seem to think we understand it? We should teach it as fact. Who has kids here that come home and know that evolution is a fact or theory?

Agreed, I glad this can be discussed as humans, and not apes, lol. No pun intended.
Mike Cooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-02-2008, 09:20 AM   #99
PJL
Registered User
1998 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Schenectady, NY
Posts: 1,350
^ This is a satirical argument made by a predominant physicist on the theory of gravity.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm

By the way, gravity is a theory (actually, a couple of them - Einstein's theory of gravity isn't the same as Newton's, and the whole idea of quantum physics is changing our understanding of gravity as well) - just because something is observable doesn't mean we completely understand it. To say it's a law just because you know it's there doesn't make any sense. Most things are hypothesized about because they're observed and then people want to get an understanding of them. Also, because the distinction between macro and micro evolution is a red herring.

Quote:
It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.

Last edited by PJL; 01-02-2008 at 09:40 AM..
PJL is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-02-2008, 09:57 AM   #100
BLS33
Chief of the brain police
 
BLS33's Avatar
1985 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: WI
Posts: 3,245
I again have to say theories are the most important thing in science. How can you not teach the most important part of a subject in school? If you are only going to teach law or what might be considered fact then our kids will be pretty ignorant of science. I mean if you drop something and it falls upward should we completely toss the gravitational theory? No you try and figure out why it did that. Micro evolution is proven year in and year out, the flu being a good example. Macro evolution is not an observable phenomena, it happens over long periods of time, but through genetic science and micro biology we can see that certain animals are related. We know that genetic mutations happen in 3 varieties, harmful, benign, and advantageous which plays a big part in natural selection and evolution. I'm not sure what you want taught in science class, but evolutionary theory has just as much right to be taught as gravitational. Evolution has stood the test of time and we learn more about it every year, it has been decided in the courts by religious judges that creationism is not science and should not be taught in science class, you can't argue that evolution isn't science.
BLS33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-02-2008, 05:37 PM   #101
Kyoseki
Inconceivable!
 
Kyoseki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: A wretched hive of scum and villainy
Posts: 6,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Cooper
Thats what I an getting at right now. Science implies evolution is true, and when a new discovery is made, they change the story on how and what happened, and yet wont be open to other posibilities. Science is about collecting evidence and finding out what makes sense, Not adjusting your theory to fit what has been found.
On the contrary, science is exactly adjusting your theory to fit what has been found, evidence is collected that disproves the existing theory or illuminates flaws in it, so the theory needs to be revised.

Religion on the other hand, does not allow for itself to be revised, it's truth is the only truth and that is that, any scientific evidence that contradicts established dogma is disregarded, for example, dinosaur fossils and carbon dating that prove the earth is substantially older than the Bible states.

Evolution is still our current best guess at the processes whereby life came to exist in it's present form, just because macro evolution hasn't been proven, it doesn't mean the only possible alternative is creationism/magic.

The Theory of Evolution is subject to review and modification, the dogma of creationism isn't, it does not belong in a scientific classroom.

Hell, even if it does, every religion has it's own creation myth, are you proposing that all of them are taught in biology class? After all, we are supposed to be open to other points of view right?
__________________
Due to lack of interest, tomorrow has been canceled
Kyoseki is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-02-2008, 10:16 PM   #102
Mike Cooper
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Posts: 543
I have already shown the flaws of carbon dating, and dinosaur fossils, and how they dont prove the earth is billions of years old, so please show me a better example of proof.

You tell me science prooves that because me see that certain animals are related that prooves evolution happened, and I say the opposite, it prooves creation happened. From your point of view, and what the secular world wants to teach us is that because I share a simular bone structure, brain functions, and other things of an ape, because we are more advanced, we must have come from apes, ureka! Evolution!

So lets use that in other examples. I see the first ford ever built, and then I see a new Jeep in a show room, they have 4 wheels each, a motor, a horn, but the new jeep is far more advance, wow, through time that old ford must have evolved by itself into a jeep. But we know thats not how it is. Through years of creation, we have developed better vehicles, not some majic force. Lets also look at a new dodge caliber, and jeep compass. We can say they are related because they share a chassis, and many other parts, would you say thats evolution, or a designer who designed one also designed another, and used some of the same parts for both.

This is exactly how evolution is flawed because it see 2 items close to the same, but one is more advanced, it must be evolution, and not another possibility. Does it not make sense that if you or I desgned many creatures on earth, we would not use simular items in the creatures. We dont go re-inventing the wheel every time we make a new car do we, no, we use what we know works, and improve on it as we go, as any good designer would do.
Mike Cooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-02-2008, 11:53 PM   #103
Kyoseki
Inconceivable!
 
Kyoseki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: A wretched hive of scum and villainy
Posts: 6,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Cooper
This is exactly how evolution is flawed because it see 2 items close to the same, but one is more advanced, it must be evolution, and not another possibility. Does it not make sense that if you or I desgned many creatures on earth, we would not use simular items in the creatures. We dont go re-inventing the wheel every time we make a new car do we, no, we use what we know works, and improve on it as we go, as any good designer would do.
Then how do you explain vestigial traits in current animals? There are, for example, parts of the human body that serve no purpose like the appendix, why would any designer leave those in?

To further your analogy, it would be like finding a cranking handle on a vehicle with an electric start, or a fuel injected car with a carburetor that wasn't hooked up to anything.

A designer wouldn't leave extraneous parts on a machine if they serve no purpose, especially not a designer who was supposedly both omniscient and omnipotent.

That aside, how do you prove creationism is fact instead of belief?

What provable tests can you come up with to prove that your particular creation myth is the right one? Bearing in mind that you aren't only up against science, but also every other religion on the planet both past and present.

If you can't prove it, it isn't science and short of the second coming I can't see that happening.
__________________
Due to lack of interest, tomorrow has been canceled
Kyoseki is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-03-2008, 02:22 AM   #104
Mike Cooper
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Posts: 543
Vestigial traits could be a part of micro evolution, something we needed at one time but have grown out of, and that could prove an omniscient and omnipotent God by him designing us with an organ that was need at one time, but when we didnt need it, could be removed with out the need of a transplant, fully able to live with out it.

Also, some theories of God say that just because God can see all things, in all times, doesnt mean he chooses to, some minor things may not be important to him, I dont know, and I cant say, Its like me trying to debate about what your thinking right now, I just cant.

I cant proove creationism is a fact, As I have said a few times. But when you study creationism VS evolution for a while, and look at the evidence, I still say it takes more faith to believe in evolution. Again going to the point of why dont we teach more than one thoery other than evolution. When you look at all the odds of a random planet, of a random solar system, of a random universe, evolving human beings with a concience that science cannot explain, and we have no single part in us that science can explain gives us free thought. The odds are more than I can even type on here. Every thing from DNA, to how our unique solar system works, has been a very well timed created system to give us life. If our planet was any further/closer to the sun, we would have no life, If our planet didint orbit the sun in as close as a cirle as it does, the temperature changes would be severe life would not be here. I will dig up a book I have and give you some specifics tomorrow.
Mike Cooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-03-2008, 08:03 AM   #105
PJL
Registered User
1998 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Schenectady, NY
Posts: 1,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Cooper
I cant proove creationism is a fact, As I have said a few times. But when you study creationism VS evolution for a while, and look at the evidence, I still say it takes more faith to believe in evolution.
Yet odds aren't evidence. You're also dabbling in the "we can't explain it, so it must be God" rationale that BLS was talking about previously. The other consideration for practical purposes is that evolution is only incompatible with the literal biblical version of creation. For example, if you were a deist, you would believe that God created the universe and then did nothing else. So then you have a supernatural beginning, but evolution occurred on its own.
PJL is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools


Suggested Threads





Jeep, Wrangler, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, and other models are copyrighted and trademarked to Jeep/Chrysler Corporation. JeepForum.com is not in any way associated with Jeep or the Chrysler Corp.