Is U.S. Becoming Hostile to Science?

What if it turns out that the Bible was just the Harry Potter series of its day?

So should you, since the Bible says none of these things, aside from "Satan tempted Jesus" - and there, it's probable the meaning was Satan as the Accusing Angel, sort of God's Prosecutor.

Y'know, I'm reading Alfred Ayer's work now... you should give that a look-see, since yer spouting the third type of proposition all OVER the place.

But just because there's no evidence that YOU see, does not mean that others can not believe in him or God for that matter. Perhaps others have matured spirtually and have felt a divine presence in their lives which cannot be explained by a science book. You opinion is greatly appreciated, but I think that instead of discussing your beliefs and sharing knowledge you may be attempting to trifle the beliefs of those who DO believe in such extraordinary beings. You cannot live in a diverse world such as ours and not appreciate or at least respect the beliefs of others. I would go crazy going through life debating everyone who believed in God or Allah, etc.

I don't debate the religious so much as I just dismiss them as irrelevant.

The book of Revelation is the book that sheds light on the rest of the Bible. Here are the scriptures that tell us Satan is indeed the serpent...

Revelation 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Revelation 12:8-10 (in Context) Revelation 12 (Whole Chapter)
Revelation 20:2
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

notice he is the deceiver, he started with Eve and worked his way thru humanity. He couldn't tempt Jesus even with the offer of ultimate world power. With Eve he offered knowledge of good and evil. He offered her the opportunity to be god.

I respect the beliefs of others up until they impinge on my freedom or the freedom of others. In regards to religion, I only tolerate it when it is separate from school, state, and my affairs. When it's hijacking a thread (this one), forcing pseudoscience into the classroom (ID), or making political decisions because one thinks god is acting through them (W), I rebel against it. I hope you can appreciate that.

~Ulrika~

Where in the world did you get this? Have you been studying the Scriptures or did you get this from a deluded website (possibly a Mormon website trying to twist the Scriptures to meet their needs)? This is absolutely not true. The name Lucifer was translated from Hebrew to the Latin Vulgate from 'light-bringer' or 'shinning one' from Isaiah 14:12. It was a bad translation that crept into the annals of Biblical history. It was wrong. It was based on the reasoning that Luke 10:18 was explaining Isaiah 14:12 which many modern theologians believe was not true. It does in fact belong as the king of Babylon, but there was none named Lucifer.

Satan however was used in several places in the Old Testament (KJV):
1 Chronicles 21:1
Job 1:6-9,12; 2:1-5,6,7
Psalms 109:6
Zechariah 3:1-2

It is also used in the New Testament (KJV):
Matthew 4:10; 12:26; 16:23
Mark 1:13; 3:23,26; 4:15; 8:33
Luke 4:8; 10:18; 13:16; 22:3,31
John 13:27
Acts 5:3; 26:18
Romans 16:20
1 Corinthians 5:5; 7:5
2 Corinthians 2:11; 11:14; 12:7
1 Thessalonians 2:18
2 Thessalonians 2:9
1 Timothy 1:20; 5:15
Revelation 2:9,13,24; 3:9; 12:9; 20:2,7

If you would like, we can go into what satan means. You can look it up for yourself. It is 7854 in Strong's Concordance.

This is thousand-year-old sexist bullshit.

~Ulrika~

I agree with the poster who said we should teach children to think for themselves I do not however agree with the term "creationist rants"

I think Creationism can be as much of a theory as Evolution and if you don't take the bible Literally but rather symbolically both can fit together.

I think that if Evolution is going to be taught so should creationism, but only if they can both be taught from an un-biased point of view to give students a fair view of both.

I really don't think a lack of understanding of evolution is the basis for the death of science in the U.S. But teaching Evolution to the exclusion of Creationisim is anti-religious which is against the U.S. constitution.

It's not hostility towards science, it's just following a constitution that allows freedom of choice when it comes to religion.

Personally I would much rather believe that we were created as we are by a God than having evolved from pond scum.

Fortunately, science isn't based on your opinion. Imagine how well automobiles would work if you would much rather believe that internal combustion is the result of angels' kisses instead of the Ideal Gas Law.

~Ulrika~

Revelations is a coded message against Rome, silly.

What do you mean?

~Ulrika~

The beliefs of posters to this thread are highjacking this thread? Care to elaborate?

Unfortunately doing this is contradictory. If we push evolution on school children which contradicts their religious teachings state is infringing on religion as much as religion wold be on state if we only taught creationism. It's as separate as it can be and still allow us the freedom to teach our children what we believe.

Seriously? You are slower than molasses in January, son.

~Ulrika~

This is a false. Teach science (a method) in school and teach religion (a belief) in church.

~Ulrika~

It's not opinion to me....and there are many scientific studies that prove creationism

before you discount creationism read this

http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/

but evolution is a scientific theory that contradicts the religious version of the same topic. you can't ask students to learn about it without contradicting what they are being taught in their religious institutions. If scientists would back creationism there would be no debate, both would be teachable in the public schools....however as long as creationism isn't welcome then evolution shouldn't be either.

They are both theories, yes, but creationism is not a scientific theory.



First, as Kevn pointed out, Creationism isn't in competition with evolution its an alternative to abiogenesis. Evolution is what happens after this point. Although some creationists go a step farther and say that evolution does not exist and everything was created as it is now.

Second, Creationism is not science. I've asked several times in this thread for someone to explain how it could be, but no one has done so. If we start teaching unfounded speculation in science class, then we will have to start teaching all kinds of unscientific speculations.

Third, teaching creationism (a religious doctrine) in a publicly funded school violates the the separation of church and state. (you have the statement backwards) People continue to be free to belive in creationism as much as they want, but it should not be endorsed or condemned by the govenment.



You are perfectly free to do so, no one is persecuting you. Just don't push religion into publicly funded schools.

Well, I'm being somewhat facetious, but as I recall, one theory as to Revelations is that it is an anti-Roman diatribe, dressed up in the skin of apocylptic literature and not untypical of the period.

The fact that so many Christians place such undue importantance on a book that many church leaders considered apocryphal at the time says much to me about how strange it is the unbelievers know more about the religion than the believers.

this is one of those debates that nobody can win because neither side believes in any way what the other does.

But wait, charging interest on loans is in direct violation of the Koran. Modern US banking contradicts this. If banks stopped charging (or paying) interest there would be no debate, both would be allowable. By allowing banks to charge intrest we are violating the freedom of religion.

The Islamic religious law also forbids women from appearing in public without covering their head and face.



Are you able to see the flaw in your logic now?

Ha ha ha! Where do you people come from? Each one is "smarter" than the next.

~Ulrika~

What is science...

sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

What in this definition would suggest ID can't be science? We observe the creation, we describe it, we do experiments, which show life is too complex for intelligent scientist to recreate, which would suggest an intelligence at least as high as the scientists who can't recreate abiogenesis. We theorize how life appeared.

Should students be denied both sides of the debate, or do only those who reject the notion of a creator decide what students can study?

Absolutely fascinating. I'm learning a lot in this thread, despite the fact that it's gone wildly off topic.

~Ulrika~