“Speaker Johnson: Separation of Church and State is a misnomer”

Complete waste of pearls of wisdom duly noted.

 

Creationism is NOT a Scientific Theory.

A Scientific Theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, some theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

Creationism has not (and can not) be tested.

 

A scientist can read a thousand books and still not know the answers
A religious person reads one book and thinks they have all the answers.

 

How do you research, test or falsify creationism? How do you research it? Is it open to revision and replacement by a better theory? I don't think so. It is taken on faith and pushed as doctrine.

 

Science is never a complete picture and certain knowledge. That is true. It isn't claimed to be. That's what distinguishes it from religious claims.

Science is our current best guess of what is based on evidence, examination, and testing of the world around us. Religion is what people decide to believe, usually with much more certainty, based on faith instead of evidence. These are opposite approaches.

 

It’s not that creationism or even God can’t be proven or disproven. It’s that science doesn’t give the same considerations to God as it does to everything else.


Meaning in order to test something you first have to make the assumption it exists. How do you measure the piece of wood without first assuming it exists and it’s not a figment if your imagination? How do you weigh it? You can’t. It’s impossible. So in order to prove or disprove something’s existence you have to first assume it exists.

But science doesn’t provide that for god. It refuses to assume his existence and as such can never prove or disprove him. Furthermore, just because we avent reached the technological point where we are able to prove God doesn’t mean God does not exist.

If someone had said black holes exist in 700AD. He would have been correct. But he had no way of proving it and no evidence suggesting they were real. As technology improves, that capability becomes more realistic. However to assert because we can’t prove something yet means it’s not real is preposterous.

 

It could result in 8. It could result in 4. It could even result in dozens. Or one. Or none. It has done all of the above.

I think your real question is why did bisymetry evolve. It has been researched. You can start here:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pn...phenotypic variation through random mutations.

 

We have seen science manipulated and corrupted time and time again. Scientists themselves reject scientific fact based solely on social ideology.

Perfect example. The idea that race does not exist and is a social construct. The physical differences between the races are irrefutable and uniquely distinct and have been documented for decades by forensic anthropologists. But science tells us they don’t exist, not because race does not qualify VERBATIM under the definition of sub-species, but simply because they don’t like what those facts insinuate.

When your system is inundated with ideology and the facts take a backseat to feelings, you’re pushing just as much of a religion as I am.

 

It could only do that if God could be tested and was falsifiable. How do you falsify the existence of God? Especially when God is so amorphous a concept and not operationally defined. You can't. So God can't be included in scientific inquiry.

No you don't. You have to postulate that it may, and then devise a way to test if it does or not. Science has done that numerous times. Germs, chemical compounds, atoms, etc.

This is true. You can't falsify an unfalsifiable claim.
The only versions of God that are falsifiable are specific claims that self-contradict (of which there are many).

That doesn't make it rational or sensible to believe the claim though. Insert reference to Russel's teapot or the invisible pink unicorn or Sagans invisible dragon here.

Do you think technology will ever be able to test, measure, or otherwise detect God?

So far the track record for faith based claims vs scientific theories hasn't been good. The latter has replaced so very many of the former.

 

I would have to say their underlying assertion is incorrect. They’re asserting that having symmetry is less complex than not having symmetry. Their claim is based upon the fact you need less variation in sub-cell structures. While that’s true, you have to get these variations TWICE, identical to the other and at the same time. In order to have symmetry (in the way we are discussing it) you have to have an identical physical manifestation of genetic mutations occur simultaneously.

Whereas it’s true that non-symmetry requires more variation at the sub-cell level, it allows for these variations to occur independently of one another and at completely separate times. Meaning they are far less complex to achieve two limbs without symmetry that occurred at different times as opposed to the complexity it requires to generate two limbs with symmetry simultaneously.

 

That's true. Bad science is bad science. Science is a method of study and when it isn't adhered to it is bad science, junk science, pseudoscience or non-science.

Scientists are human and are inhibited with human failings, such ego and pride and these can hamper scientific inquiry. But the beauty of science is that others will test and falsify even the most prestigious scientists thought previously to be the greatest.

Religion, again, doesn't work that way. It works quite the opposite way. You aren't encouraged to argue against or falsify your faith or replace it with better tested versions.

No. Just because research efforts and public understanding of science are tainted by politics doesn't not make it just as much a religion as faith based religion based on imaginative unfalsifiable supernatural beings. It just makes actual science that much harder to do.

 

Well if God is real then of course he CAN be proven. Now whether or not we are capable of doing that yet is a different question.

Do I believe we will get there some day? Absolutely. In fact I think that day may be closer than you realize. Because what’s going to end up happening is that science is going to end up proving that it’s not possible for life to have evolved the way it did, in the timeframe that it did without an intelligence behind it.

They’re already starting to get there
https://youtube.com/shorts/YOrwtZdH2Ms?feature=shared

 

But how do you “do actual science” when you can’t definitively state that the science you’re basing your science upon is legitimate?

 

You don't make an "assumption" that something exists to test for it.

You make an observation, attempt to explain it and then test that explanation.

God is not an explanation. God is the ABSENCE of an explanation (as you have been showing over and over on this thread). When you can't explain something you insert "God did it".

 

That’s incorrect.

Prove that computer you’re on exists and isn’t a figment of your imagination without first assuming it’s real. How you gonna measure it?

Philosophers reflected on this issue for centuries. The best answer they could come up with is “I think therefore I am.”

You cannot technically prove that any of this exists and isn’t a figment of the imagination. The only way science works is first to make the assumption it’s real.

 

Again you just don't understand he scientific method.

I can see the computer screen. I see the letters appear on the screen as I'm typing them. I see your responses. These are all things I observe. Now I come up with an explanation for those observations. And then I come up with a test to see if I can disprove my explanation. If I come up with the test and I do it and it does not disprove my explanation false then I come up with another one. I also write up my findings and give it to other scientists to see if they can see a flaw in my observations, my test or the interpretation of the results.

Do this enough times then the explanation becomes a hypothesis...test the hypothesis enough times and it becomes a theory. In science a Scientific Theory is the pinnacle of knowledge. It is the current explanation that takes into account all the known observations. Now there are some theories that do NOT take into account all the known observations...and that just tells us that the theory needs to be refined. That does not mean the theory is completely wrong and you have to start with square 1.

At no point in the entire history of science (about 1000 years now) has the explanation ever turned out to be "God did it". Not once.

 

Yes I do understand it. You don’t understand the question.

You say I observe something or I feel something. You observe things in dreams all the time. You feel them just as you would now. Prove that you’re not in a dream and that the observations you’re seeing and the confirmations from other scientists aren’t simply made up in your head.

 

You're talking about solopsism. The idea that nothing exists but yourself.

It cannot be disproven thus is not a valid scientific theory.

It is also a pointless position thus can be ignored. If all that exists is in my head and I can't disprove that position...then there is no point in dwelling on it. It furthers nothing by holding onto such a position.

If I reject the assumption that I am all that exists...then everything else I've said follows.

 

No, but it means only what it says. It does not say there shall be no connection between church and state. It does say that the government cannot establish any religion as official, and that it cannot prohibit anyone from practicing their religion whatever it is. Boebert is not correct: religion cannot dictate to the state, either.

 

You are harping on the word "Creator" and missing the context in which the word was used in the Enlightenment Philosophy. You may want to look at Immanuel Kant who wrote that time, space, causation, and were innate which all human beings form order on experience. At that time, all heads of state, the King, was also the head of the Church in that empire or country. As King, that person and that person alone dispenses who had and who did not have rights. American Enlightenment was formed under Locke who held a belief of the theory of contract under natural law. Morality in the Enlightenment period had a profound impact and the philosophers said government should be created to protect its citizens. We saw this within the English Reformation period, the 30 Years War, and our pilgrims who were persecuted for their beliefs by other Christians. The religious beliefs were based on their idealogy that everything was formed into one person, the King who had absolute authority. As for the First Amendment, freedom of religion, the idea of separation of Church and State is written within the two clauses. The First clause was the freedom to exercise one's religious beliefs. Thus, with different denominations, including Islam at that time, all were free to worship one way or the other. Thus, the government cannot say this denomination can and that denomination can't. In today's terms, it means that Christians, Jews, and even atheists can worship whatever they want. The second part is the no establishment clause. This also means that the government cannot officially establish a church under its name. In today's idealogy, Christian Nationalism would be forbidden under the no establishment clause in which the government dictates what is proper in religious terms and what is not.

The all created equal was meant to mean that all persons generally were free to decide their fate and don't need a king or monarchy to give permission. This is not insomuch as laws forbidding people from entering into Indian Territory or breaking Indian Treaties. But you are free to decide what business you want so long as it does not violate the secular laws of the country., generally.

 

I very much doubt this. It sounds like a god of the gaps argument, which is a fallacy. And even if an intelligence guided evolution, that would still be a long step away from proving Gods exist. Though I suppose that depends on how "God" is defined. It is an amorphous concept, defined differently by different people, and rarely defined in a way that is falsifiable and thereby applicable to scientific inquiry.

 

The first Congress, after enacting the 1st amendment, created the position and appointed the first congressional Chaplain to lead the legislature in prayer, and approved funds to print bibles to distribute in the territories. No one thought for a moment that they were in any way violating the first Amendment.

 

Same thing that stops SCOTUS from interpreting that the right to keep and bear arms is limited to people who are in a well regulated militia. Nothing.

 

BWAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHA!

You want to KNOW why that nonsense FAILS as a Hypothesis?

Because not even in my WILDEST dreams could I ever imagine BELIEVING the crap that is the CONTENT of your posts. Why would I even want to IMAGINE that such ignorance could exist given that actual KNOWLEDGE exists just a quick search away. EVERYTHING you tried would FAIL.

Having worked in IT probably longer than you have been alive I am well aware of CYBERSPACE as both a concept and a reality because I PARTICIPATED in making that CONCEPT into REALITY.

The HARSH reality is that Xtofascism is REAL and the #1 THREAT to our nation. Your TRAITOR-in-Chief is Public Enemy #1. The Xtofascist controlled GOP is DESTROYING the Great American Experiment.

That is NOT a dream, instead it is the NIGHTMARE that has become our REALITY.

 

Strongly agree.

The faith required by religions is the exact opposite of science and critical thinking. "The faithful" accept the dogma knowing it cannot be proved. The faithful cannot discern between fact and fiction.