Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What's wrong with having Christian values? How can anyone argue that the Ten Commandments aren't a good code to live by? Some of our laws are based on them. One doesn't have to be a church goer or a religious nut to see the value in living by them.
No one would argue that. No one would argue that codes written by Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists and many others before and after those aren't (mostly) good values to live by either.
But why have a "brand"???
I think you have arrived at the crux of the issues.....so we are once again at the founding. The Founders, when asked very specifically about the Christian Religion, said exactly what many of us here are saying. They said
"The scriptures contain a bunch of moral values that represent the highest levels of moral and ethical thinking BUT we don't believe in miracles, idol worship, superstition, etc."......
I am certainly not religious in the traditional sense, but would never - for example - classify myself as anything (an atheist, etc.)....rather I would attempt to set examples by my own life and actions.
If Americans were to accept this premise we'd be better off then "My tribe is better than your tribe".
George Washington himself wrote to the Jewish Community in Newport...
"The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.
It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."
Putting it in a more modern fashion, don't steal from your neighbors or create violence against them and PAY YOUR TAXES. Don't ask for tax cuts out of future generations. Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
This isn't true either. I am arguing science. Something remains a theory until it is proven. It has become an accepted theory. We have proven that the Earth revolves around the sun. That means it is no longer a theory.
No issue there.
This is only part of the definition of scientific fact. Scientific facts are simple observations of the world, and they do not change over time.
Some scientist consider evolution to be both theory AND fact. Others, just fact. But to call it just theory would be wrong. As I said, no serious scientist believes the evidence for evolution will be overturned by new evidence.
A scientific fact is generally recognized as a critical observation of some phenomenon (object or event) by many independent critical observers, and their observations are virtually the same.
In contrast, the word "fact" in its non-scientific usage can refer to anything considered to be real.
A scientific theory is a deeply established explanation for a broad feature of the natural world that is well supported by an abundance of critical investigation and resulting evidence. It can include facts, laws, models, inferences and tested hypotheses (tentative explanations).
This is only part of the definition of scientific fact. Scientific facts are simple observations of the world, and they do not change over time.
They at times do get redefined over time. Science does change the meaning behind what they have observed for years when new discoveries are made.
Quote:
Some scientist consider evolution to be both theory AND fact. Others, just fact. But to call it just theory would be wrong. As I said, no serious scientist believes the evidence for evolution will be overturned by new evidence.
I don't need to read the article. I am not arguing against evolution. I am arguing science. No actual scientist would argue something as fact that has not been proven as fact.
People refuse to believe these discoveries. It doesnt reflect their narrative. Some believe man and dinosaurs were on earth at the same time. So when they watch the Flintstones with their kids, they can call it a documentary.
Yet there is dragon folklore in numerous, disparate cultures. The Chinese zodiac calendar has 11 "real" animals and one "imaginary" one: the dragon. Why would the Chinese do that? Have you ever considered the significance of such widespread dragon folklore? Overwhelming historical evidence (including from Herodotus, Alexander the Great, Marco Polo, among others) attests to human encounters with dragons, which we now know by the neologism "dinosaur."
Yet there is dragon folklore in numerous, disparate cultures. The Chinese zodiac calendar has 11 "real" animals and one "imaginary" one: the dragon. Why would the Chinese do that? Have you ever considered the significance of such widespread dragon folklore? Overwhelming historical evidence (including from Herodotus, Alexander the Great, Marco Polo, among others) attests to human encounters with dragons, which we now know by the neologism "dinosaur."
They at times do get redefined over time. Science does change the meaning behind what they have observed for years when new discoveries are made.
I don't need to read the article. I am not arguing against evolution. I am arguing science. No actual scientist would argue something as fact that has not been proven as fact.
You are using layman’s terms. I am using the scientific definition. I can list hundreds of articles, written by scientists, if that will help you.
How many peer reviewed scientific studies have your name on them? I have 3.
Cool. No I am not the one using laymen's terms. Science never defines something as proven until it is.
Again, layman’s terms. Proven and fact have two very different definitions in science.
Besides, scientists don’t usually do “proven”, they do “disproven”.
Last edited by AnesthesiaMD; 07-07-2019 at 08:22 AM..
Reason: Typo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
