Re:I'm a Christian, God made everything (Score 1)

When I say "atheistic scientists" I am using the word atheist as an adjective to describe the scientist. There are many many great Christians that use the scientific method to document God's creation. These Christians are scientists. They don't accept their findings as fact; rather, as tools to be used along with the creative possibility God gave them to create space programs, etc..

"Not false" to someone who believes in absolute truth means true. To someone who believes in relativism, "Not false" means "who knows?"

A scientist can believe in God. But there is no scientific evidence in support of God. Any scientist mixing their findings and God is no true scientist.

Actually, what I am saying is that space programs, computers, and cars have nowhere near the significance as a creator/savior. When using science as a tool to create, its great. Using science as a tool to destroy lives and cause eternal consequence is evil.

And what is religion? Surely a tool that destroys lives? More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other cause. There have been no crusades to convert people to evolution.

Why do my tax dollars have to pay for your belief, but yours don't have to pay for mine? You might want to reconsider your position. Home schooling growth is beginning to become out of control. The government funds schools per student. Each student a school loses hurts the school and students are leaving the education system in droves. Capitalism and free choice are about to destroy the public education system and birth a superior education system that takes place in the home, unless the politicians attempt to destroy home schooling and send our children to forced education (which is actually what is beginning to happen)

Because of the Constitution. I am granted a right to believe in Zeus, Inanna, God, A Dismembered Hand, or nothing if I so choose. Science is an important part of any education, and it is already trying to teach too much in too little time. There is no need to waste my child's science classroom time on something that is not even remotely a science. If your faith is so strong, it shouldn't be so hard for you to ignore the "harmful" bits. But I don't want your oppresive faith cutting into my son's biology classes.

The condescension here is dripping. You act as if your evidence is somehow valid and mine doesn't exist. Mine has existed for 2 millennia unchanged. Yours is new and is ever changing. I'm very confident of the mountains of evidence that support existence. The evidence is there. All you have to do is reach out and grab it.

It was meant to. Your evidence has existed unchanged because anyone who challenges it is excommunicated or killed. It is unchanged because when people propose facts they are met with torture and blind faith. I wouldn't be so proud of that, as all it proves is that change is actively resisted. Science is intelligent enough to understand that it doesn't know everything. Scientists are mature enough to accept changes to their theories. What evidence do you want me to reach out and grab? Saying "I believe it so it has to be true" is certainly not evidence.

Which facts? You are attempting to say that you have some corner on the market of "reason" and "facts". Are you to say that you and your tiny minority in the world are more reasonable than the rest?

My tiny minority? You mean the minority that comprises the largest single sect (unless, of course, you count the Orthodox churches, Roman Catholics, Protestants, and various Christ-confessing religions as a single sect)? What a strange minority, that. I would claim that I have a better corner on facts than you do, yes. Because I base my "beliefs" on observable, verifiable evidence. You base yours on a book that has not been changed in two thousand years that you believe without pausing to think about it.

Because you are trying to change the minds of billions of people and force them to convert to your faith?

I haven't told you to embrace my science, but you have told me to embrace yours. I'm not trying to convert you, I'm pointing out why I think you're wrong.

You mean you accept them as "not false". This is exactly my problem with the way science is taught. I may accept science results as a reasonable explanation or I may not; otherwise, an unproven theory. Don't teach my children to accept scientific findings "not false" without scrutinizing it. Don't teach my child to believe what a scientist says without looking over the findings themselves. Definately don't try to explain to my child that we were the product of random mutation and to stop believing silly "faith based" arguments as if science were a better explanation.

You're right, and I'm so wrong. We should not teach children to accept scientific findings without scrutinizing it. Let us instead teach them to accept the teachings of a book without scrutinizing it. Science is scrutinized constantly. Where is the peer review on the information in your Bible? I mean, aside from a bunch of people like you saying "it must be true!"

I would like your opinion on something. If two scientists have competing theories, do these scientists have open minded faith in their theories?

You'd really have to ask them that, wouldn't you? I'm confident that when a person makes a theory they believe their evidence supports that. But if the community disagrees, they at least try to convince them otherwise by doing more research and experiments to support their claim.