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.
Actually the more Christian one is the more conservative they are likely to be.
How do you figure? The overwhelming majority of the world's Christians are not conservative by American standards. Historically, even the most devout Christians would not necessarily be conservative. St. Augustine for example, while conservative on issues like sex, did not take Genesis literally.
While I don't think any social political title truly works for him, Jesus' teachings are much more line with socialistic liberalism than capitalistic conservatism. The Pharisees (Jewish religious leaders) that Jesus criticized constantly were the 1st Century's version of religious conservatives. Jesus favored the poor, the weak, the sinners, love, giving up your worldly possessions, fleeing from wealth, pacifism, etc. Those are qualities found in the most liberal nations in the world like Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, etc. The United States, the most conservative "Christian" nation in the world, is built on greed, capitalism, elitism, military dominance, catering to the upper class, vanity, possession, etc.
Conservatism is often in opposition to Christianity.
Except most Democrats are Christian, and plenty have very strong morals. However, morality is subjective.
What makes you think most Democrats are Christian (speaking of politicians)? If they were Chirstians, they would disavow most of what the Democrat Party stands for, because there is virtually nothing Christian about their ideology. Redistribution of wealth is not (it's theft, basically), gay "marriage" is not, socialism itself is not Christian, and let's be clear, the Democrat Party is primarily socialist in it's ideology.
Last but not least (you knew this was coming, didn't you?), abortion, the murder of the unborn, is just about as far from a Chiristian idea as one can get.
In other words, if you can't dis-prove it, it must be true. That to me violates one of the most basic tenets by which true scientists operate.
Yep, but the IPCC has already been outed as being a political organized and focused administration. They have been caught numerous times violating such basic principals as well as being involved straight out devious actions (citing grey literature as peer reviewed work). Not only that, but their models have consistently been shown to be off (by a large amounts) with that of the observed data concerning each report.
Moral of the story is, the IPCC is not a valid means of support, it is simply an appeal to authority, which is what it was designed to be from the beginning. That is not to say there are not some valid parts "within" the IPCC AR4 (as some of the information is from honest scientists doing honest work), yet that work specifically isn't proclaiming any conclusive means such as the IPCC is.
While I don't think any social political title truly works for him, Jesus' teachings are much more line with socialistic liberalism than capitalistic conservatism. The Pharisees (Jewish religious leaders) that Jesus criticized constantly were the 1st Century's version of religious conservatives. Jesus favored the poor, the weak, the sinners, love, giving up your worldly possessions, fleeing from wealth, pacifism, etc. Those are qualities found in the most liberal nations in the world like Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, etc.
...
Conservatism is often in opposition to Christianity.
And there is no doubt in my mind that if a Republican were to stand up and say that in public, he/she would be vilified by the extreme right wing of that same party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
What makes you think most Democrats are Christian (speaking of politicians)? If they were Chirstians, they would disavow most of what the Democrat Party stands for, because there is virtually nothing Christian about their ideology. Redistribution of wealth is not (it's theft, basically), gay "marriage" is not, socialism itself is not Christian, and let's be clear, the Democrat Party is primarily socialist in it's ideology.
Last but not least (you knew this was coming, didn't you?), abortion, the murder of the unborn, is just about as far from a Chiristian idea as one can get.
Can we talk about the money lenders here too? Whose idea was the bank bailout? Wasn't there something about not charging interest? So I guess nobody on Wall St is Christian either?
Perhaps you could look up what a Scientific Theory is yourself? Are you unaware that the layman's use of the word "theory" is quite different to a Scientific Theory?
The Theory of Evolution is an explanation of the demonstrable Facts of evolution.
Here's a simple explanation of the difference between how a layman uses the word "theory" and a scientist uses the word Theory:
In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.
Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.
Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinized for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.
Slow down Jaymax...
There is so much speculation involved with just creating a model by which the precursors of life would be generated that anything hoping to explain the the origin of life short of the production of a complete self-replicating man-made cell should be considered nothing more than just more creative speculation.
Some of the theories used to explain the origin of life require undersea vents varying in temperature from 100 C to 300 C. Others require ice formations to concentrate the building blocks of organic chemicals and their catalysts. Still others require coastlines, sunlight and electricity to produce what would become life. All of these theories differ significantly from one another and in most cases exclude the others.
Even with optimized laboratory conditions, biologists have come no closer to creating a cell than synthesizing amino acids and proteins which is still a long way from a self-replicating protocell.
There is so much speculation involved with just creating a model by which the precursors of life would be generated that anything hoping to explain the the origin of life short of the production of a complete self-replicating man-made cell should be considered nothing more than just more creative speculation.
Some of the theories used to explain the origin of life require undersea vents varying in temperature from 100 C to 300 C. Others require ice formations to concentrate the building blocks of organic chemicals and their catalysts. Still others require coastlines, sunlight and electricity to produce what would become life. All of these theories differ significantly from one another and in most cases exclude the others.
Even with optimized laboratory conditions, biologists have come no closer to creating a cell than synthesizing amino acids and proteins which is still a long way from a self-replicating protocell.
None of which has anythign to do with evolution.
Evolution doesn't deal with the beginning, just the ongoing process.
There is so much speculation involved with just creating a model by which the precursors of life would be generated that anything hoping to explain the the origin of life short of the production of a complete self-replicating man-made cell should be considered nothing more than just more creative speculation.
Some of the theories used to explain the origin of life require undersea vents varying in temperature from 100 C to 300 C. Others require ice formations to concentrate the building blocks of organic chemicals and their catalysts. Still others require coastlines, sunlight and electricity to produce what would become life. All of these theories differ significantly from one another and in most cases exclude the others.
Even with optimized laboratory conditions, biologists have come no closer to creating a cell than synthesizing amino acids and proteins which is still a long way from a self-replicating protocell.
And the Theory of Evolution has nothing, zero, zip, nada to do with the origins of life.
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.
