We need to all vote libertarian, just to see what its like. As it is, we keep going back and forth with half the country hating the gov and each other. I think I speak for many on both sides when I say, we are tired of the red and blue.

I get it, I don’t think a national standard is a bad thing. I think more people would be fine with the DOE if public schools didn’t teach kids to think politically this way or that about current societal issues. Teaching politics is fine, but children are more easily manipulated. Basically keep current politics out of school because children aren’t wise enough at that age to handle it. But, that is why those who want to make changes always go after kids. I think a lot of people feel the DOE has been involved in doing this.

I get what you’re saying, but I still think the federal gov has there hands in too many things. The states can be responsible for themselves, if they aren’t doing a good job, then it’s up to the people to vote in leaders who will do a better job.

I don’t need to do a search. We have not proven the age of the universe. What some scientist says it is, may be based on research and math and whatever else, but its still a theory.

Kind of like when they look at a star in space and then tell us what that star is made of. They do not know, they are guessing, based on other things we do know. But its still only a guess. What it is made of can’t be proven without going to that star and testing it, which has not been done.

Are there any assumptions made, in the determination of the age of the universe? I’m pretty sure there are. If so, then it has not yet been proven and its a theory.

No, what I meant was, that two religions can be contradictory based on just one belief. Depends on the belief though.

We know the age of the universe? Please, that’s ridiculous. We don’t know, we have done math, and made guesses. If we have an age for it, it’s just a theory.

Yeah, I think both religion and science have taken a back seat to just plain ol’ greed and power.

“But religions aren’t like that” Yeah, some religions are like that.

Well, religion is based on faith and history (but at a certain point falls back on faith since you aren’t there in the past), and science should be based on empirical evidence. So both realms can’t operate exactly the same, although they can cross over.

Many people do research on many faiths, and their research convinces them that a particular one is correct. They can live the rest of their life believing that particular faith is correct, and stick with it, even if they are open to being proven wrong.

And with science, if you actually prove something true, you do not have to act as though you have not. Now, if you only have a theory, then yes, you should be questioning it until it can be proven. I think modern science has disregarded the scientific method as not required anymore to make claims about what we “know”.

*“Achieving actual, “true”, positive knowledge of the world… is not something modern science event attempts at.” * -Well, that there is the problem. And if that’s the case, and modern scientists believe this, then why are they always talking about something as if they know it for a fact?

“Karl Popper famously stated that science cannot prove that anything is true, only that something is false.” -Well, he is wrong, of course you can prove things to be true.

If you’re science is replaced, then you never proved anything, and should not speak as if you know for sure what you are talking about. But modern scientists talk this way all the time.

If two faiths flat out contradict each other, they can’t both be right.

Faith A says that God doesn’t care what you do or believe. Faith B says that God does care what you do and what you believe.

Both can not be correct. Can they both be paths to God? That’s the thing, because of their statement, they’d have to believe in different Gods. So they would not be on two different paths to the same God. If they were, then God would not be stable, and in the case of faith B, God would be a liar.

I like nature, history, discovery shows and documentaries. But they are always giving different ages of the earth, (ages of various plants, animals, events, etc.) Like, vastly different. So no, there is no overwhelming agreement, other than they may all say a long time ago.

Correct. You can have minor disagreements about some things that aren’t clear. But if the bible and the pope disagree on whether all faiths are valid, then biblical Christianity and catholic Christianity are not the same faith. If the pope says biblical Christianity is valid and true, and the bible says that what the pope is teaching is false, then he just invalidated himself. See why saying all faiths are valid can’t work?

Yeah, there are also Christian scientists who do lots of research and studies and come to the conclusion that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Because they challenge modern science with valid questions that get ignored, they are considered quacks. Like why you can listen to 20 different scientists who are all respected in the field, and get 20 vastly different answers on how old the earth is. You don’t come up with 20 different answers (as though they are truth) by using the scientific method. Which would have to mean at least 19 of them are only guessing.

lol, actually, good science would be on the left side of the image, at least after giving an answer to a question. Good science will actually prove something, then give the answer, then have no reason to continue to find another answer for it (whatever the issue is.) If you are giving a different answer year after year (like say for the age of the earth), then aren’t you admitting that so far you haven’t known the answer?

Only thing I’d say about the christian scientists who say the earth is billions of years old, is that they’d have to deny the scriptures of their faith in order to believe that. Seems like an odd thing to do. Either they really believe it and not what their faith (religion) teaches, or they just want acceptance from non Christians.

I guess in the end, if you are on the right side of the image, (in the religious or science realm), maybe you should consider the other sides arguments. Maybe its just that they actually figured out the answer and have no need to continue searching. Maybe they don’t have the answer, maybe they do.

Well honestly, (since you mention Christians), if they are true, they’d have to say it is the only way. Not because they are bigoted, but because all the various religions disagree. But, that view (that Christianity is the only way) may have been achieved by doing lots of research. I think its kinda foolish to say all the religions are different paths to God if they disagree with each other. Any religious person who says all faiths are valid paths to God, are either fools, or liars. Some of the popes have said that, and that would make them not Christian.

Same here. It wasn’t required.

This isn’t true at all. It all depends on the person. People could fit into:

Religion - I know everything. Religion - I don’t know enough. Science - I know everything. Science - I don’t know enough.

You know, some people even love both religion and science!

The fed gov could lower their taxes that are used for it, and the states could raise theirs. The fed should not be taking care of states except helping in emergency situations. States should be taking care of themselves financially.

I get what you’re saying, but you’re also saying some states are too dumb. If their leaders are too dumb, then they can replace their leaders, same as we do with the fed gov.

“Oh no, what will we ever do if the federal government doesn’t set our standards? We are too dumb to set our own standards!”

I’m pretty sure the states can figure it out on their own. And any school can feel free to set their own standards even higher if they wish.