Posted on Oct 31, 2014
Why do science and religion always have to be different?
6.57K
231
109
2
2
0
My question is from a place in my childhood where to me I thought of an idea that could combine religion and science.
Why is it that no one agrees? It's either one or the other.
Hasn't anyone ever thought that maybe science and religion are the same. Look at the bible it states the fact that earth was created in seven days. Well the bible has been said it is the word of God so why can't seven days for him be more than a millennium for us? Or even centuries?
Why is it that no one agrees? It's either one or the other.
Hasn't anyone ever thought that maybe science and religion are the same. Look at the bible it states the fact that earth was created in seven days. Well the bible has been said it is the word of God so why can't seven days for him be more than a millennium for us? Or even centuries?
Religion
Science
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 34
13
13
0
A1C,
I do not believe science and religion conflict. It is what you choose to believe, they are many things in science that are stated as factual which are actually assumptions or approximations. With as many translations and interpretations of the Bible, the seven days could mean a whole lot of different things. Just because someone tells you or teaches you something and says it is correct , does not mean it is. You need to make your own determination and not follow the 'herd' so to speak. Just because the majority believes something to be true, does not make it so.
I do not believe science and religion conflict. It is what you choose to believe, they are many things in science that are stated as factual which are actually assumptions or approximations. With as many translations and interpretations of the Bible, the seven days could mean a whole lot of different things. Just because someone tells you or teaches you something and says it is correct , does not mean it is. You need to make your own determination and not follow the 'herd' so to speak. Just because the majority believes something to be true, does not make it so.
(13)
(0)
SGT Kristin Wiley
I would counter back with, what religion does conflict with science? Or is it just your perception of science and those religions that conflict? Is your perception of science based in fact or based on being taught that it was fact? Of those 'facts' how many of them actually are?
Intelligent scientists put stipulations in their work such as: if Hubble's Law is valid, then we can conclude a, b and c. Rather than concluding that Hubble's law is valid, they are stating that to their knowledge nothing opposing the validity of this law has been found. Unless you personally observe the science and draw your own conclusions, how can you verify the accuracy of these concepts?
Then of course you have the question of the origin of the universe, and my response to that is, where is the proof that my God or someone else's God (I could argue they are the same) did not put into motion the 'Big Bang' or Evolution? If God is really all-powerful no amount of 'science' can disprove his existence. You can theorize that is has been disproven, but who is to say he or some other entity (ie Satan) did not influence you to draw those conclusions? I can't speak for all religions or all individuals (because individual belifs differ despite the religion) on this matter, but I hope you see my point. Though if you want to continue this conversation, I would still be interested on hearing what religious beliefs you feel conflict with science.
Intelligent scientists put stipulations in their work such as: if Hubble's Law is valid, then we can conclude a, b and c. Rather than concluding that Hubble's law is valid, they are stating that to their knowledge nothing opposing the validity of this law has been found. Unless you personally observe the science and draw your own conclusions, how can you verify the accuracy of these concepts?
Then of course you have the question of the origin of the universe, and my response to that is, where is the proof that my God or someone else's God (I could argue they are the same) did not put into motion the 'Big Bang' or Evolution? If God is really all-powerful no amount of 'science' can disprove his existence. You can theorize that is has been disproven, but who is to say he or some other entity (ie Satan) did not influence you to draw those conclusions? I can't speak for all religions or all individuals (because individual belifs differ despite the religion) on this matter, but I hope you see my point. Though if you want to continue this conversation, I would still be interested on hearing what religious beliefs you feel conflict with science.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SGT Kristin Wiley You bring up a lot of good points. As did 1LT L S. There are many facets to what you are saying. First a base line must be established. (Just for your information I am Deist, I do swing towards the christian prospective at times though) Now with that being state I really don't have a dog in this fight. But then I don't have to as my perception of religion if really relative to those who are bringing it up.
Now I don't necessarily take the bible for word. I agree with lesson in it but if you ask me if Sara was actually turned into a pillar of salt I really don't have an opinion as the lesson is delivered. I don't fear being turned into a pillar of salt. The regret of looking back is the punishment enough.
If you really want to challenge religion you have to have a base like. In science you must have factually data or information to form your conclusion of what you are trying to find. I am not going dive into the religion vs. religion piece. But one need not look much further than the earth. I don't think we should distance ourselves from science or ignore it. We should challenge it. One of my heroes is Thomas Jefferson. He wrote
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
He wasn't a by the book religious person. He lived the values but not by the bible. Itself. He even went as far to write his own version of the bible. He found what was important in it. Many don't. They cling to every line and attack anyone who challenges it.
The bible is not a scientific document. It is a religious text. You can't really use it in such a way to prove scientific facts. That was not the purpose. We know that the world is a lot older than the christian bible says. We know that Dinosaurs were around before humans. We know there were different species of humans. One could view these facts with their servile prejudices but would that just limit our ability to explore any research that is contrary to religion. Long ago it was thought that many illnesses were caused by daemons. We know a little bit different now. We also know that ailments can be passed from one generation to another. Is that cursing all generations or is that just a disease. I could go on about burning witches and the other stuff but I think you get the point.
Now I don't necessarily take the bible for word. I agree with lesson in it but if you ask me if Sara was actually turned into a pillar of salt I really don't have an opinion as the lesson is delivered. I don't fear being turned into a pillar of salt. The regret of looking back is the punishment enough.
If you really want to challenge religion you have to have a base like. In science you must have factually data or information to form your conclusion of what you are trying to find. I am not going dive into the religion vs. religion piece. But one need not look much further than the earth. I don't think we should distance ourselves from science or ignore it. We should challenge it. One of my heroes is Thomas Jefferson. He wrote
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
He wasn't a by the book religious person. He lived the values but not by the bible. Itself. He even went as far to write his own version of the bible. He found what was important in it. Many don't. They cling to every line and attack anyone who challenges it.
The bible is not a scientific document. It is a religious text. You can't really use it in such a way to prove scientific facts. That was not the purpose. We know that the world is a lot older than the christian bible says. We know that Dinosaurs were around before humans. We know there were different species of humans. One could view these facts with their servile prejudices but would that just limit our ability to explore any research that is contrary to religion. Long ago it was thought that many illnesses were caused by daemons. We know a little bit different now. We also know that ailments can be passed from one generation to another. Is that cursing all generations or is that just a disease. I could go on about burning witches and the other stuff but I think you get the point.
(1)
(0)
SGT Kristin Wiley
1LT L S, twisting words does not win a debate. English grammar lesson: "You can theorize that is has been disproven, but who is to say he or some other entity (ie Satan) did not influence you to draw those conclusions?" A question mark is “the punctuation mark, used at the end of questions and in other contexts where doubt or ignorance is implied." Okay, then how about the use of parentheses: "Parentheses are used to enclose incidental or extra information, such as a passing comment, a minor example or addition, or a brief explanation." So from my three paragraph response, you're saying that an example I used in a questioning statement is somehow me saying "that others came to conclusions because Satan put those thoughts their head"? If your only retort to my argument is to take a question completely out of context, then yes we can say you ‘misunderstood’ my point.
CPT (Join to see), I don’t disagree with you. I think religion and science both need to be challenged. When we question things, it encourages us to seek the answers. Whether or not I agree with someone is irrelevant to the questions asked. I question many facets of both religion and science. My job in the military is to analyze data and identify bias. Science is made up of testable explanations, so when I find bias in those explanations of course I question them. Religion is a set of beliefs that despite the baseline will differ from individual to individual. These personal beliefs and scientific biases are what dictate whether or not there is conflict. As long as you can reasonably argue why you believe something, and don’t believe it blindly then I personally have no issues with differing opinions.
CPT (Join to see), I don’t disagree with you. I think religion and science both need to be challenged. When we question things, it encourages us to seek the answers. Whether or not I agree with someone is irrelevant to the questions asked. I question many facets of both religion and science. My job in the military is to analyze data and identify bias. Science is made up of testable explanations, so when I find bias in those explanations of course I question them. Religion is a set of beliefs that despite the baseline will differ from individual to individual. These personal beliefs and scientific biases are what dictate whether or not there is conflict. As long as you can reasonably argue why you believe something, and don’t believe it blindly then I personally have no issues with differing opinions.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
The shortest answer to your question would be simple; narrow minds. People don't like thinking that they could possibly be *gasp* wrong.
For example, I am a Christian, and I believe that the bible is the word of God. Because of that, I believe in the inerrant quality of it. God's word is perfect, but that does not mean I am interpreting it correctly. For that reason, I should keep my mind open to the fact that I can be wrong.
Science is defined as "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." That very definition explains that a true scientist is always learning. You cannot learn if you believe you are already right and have all the answers.
For example, I am a Christian, and I believe that the bible is the word of God. Because of that, I believe in the inerrant quality of it. God's word is perfect, but that does not mean I am interpreting it correctly. For that reason, I should keep my mind open to the fact that I can be wrong.
Science is defined as "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." That very definition explains that a true scientist is always learning. You cannot learn if you believe you are already right and have all the answers.
(6)
(0)
5
5
0
I feel they do combine in some ways. Faith teaches us to trust in the unknown while science gives us the details of that unknown. You can be wrong in science in that it is solely based off theory of studies. Some may get different results, who knows but faith is truly guidelines to saying your able I take. Religion is positive in guidance and so is science in my opinion.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
Faith is just that. The belief in something that cannot be proven. If we make up our mind, one way or the other, we dismiss what goes against our beliefs and embrace the supporting evidence. I got it. I am a Jesus loving believer and I am proud. I believe what I believe and you can believe what you want. I never met Jesus. I am not qualified to explain how everything is the way that it is. I am not God. We have experts and scientific giants who brought us such known facts in the past as "The earth is the center of the universe".... "The earth is flat".... "Germs don't exist because they can't be seen"....."The Black Death was because we are sinners"......"The sound barrier doesn't exist".....We can do this all day. If your point is to prove that I am an idiot for believing in an invisible all wise all knowing being then there is plenty of "evidence" to have me locked up and have the key thrown away. I'll still believe what I believe. I will not fly a plane into a building. I will not kill anyone who believes differently from me. I am not a minister. I don't even go to church. I just try to live as best as I can and give God the glory. My shortcomings are my own.
(5)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
A1C (Join to see) I took no offense with your post but don't totally agree with the premise.
(0)
(0)
A1C (Join to see)
Just making sure. But do at least catch a glimpse now at what I'm getting at. Even some questions about putting the two in sentences can bring about a rise in others feelings. Call me a hippie or not I feel the same way as y'all. I just don't understand why religion and science can't come to mutual grounds. Both belive in something why does one or the other need to pressure the other into what they want. Why control when it only generates hate amongst our selves?
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
A1C (Join to see) Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness. Despite these differences, most scientific and technical innovations prior to the Scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Much of the scientific method was pioneered first by Islamic scholars, and later by Christians. Hinduism has historically embraced reason and empiricism, holding that science brings legitimate, but incomplete knowledge of the world. Confucian thought has held different views of science over time. Most Buddhists today view science as complementary to their beliefs. You should look up Deism it is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a Creator, accompanied with the rejection of religious knowledge as a source of authority. Many of the founding fathers were Deism Christians. It may help you put your question into perspective. And a glimpse of why some believe as they do.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I see that Deism is impacting others now. If one is Deist this isn't isn't even an issue. We are still looking at this from a solely christian perspective. What about Hindu? They are even older than Christians. So wouldn't they have more experience with this.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
A1C (Join to see) There are some other people who think the two can co-exist.
“God is not a magician, with a magic wand”: Pope Francis schools creationists
The pontiff admits he believes in evolution and the Big Bang, says science and religion can peacefully coexist
(5)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
1LT Leo Sudnik As I see it outside of an occasional abortion clinic that Christianity has come of age, as far as acting out violently. In a way Christianity is fighting a kind of spiritual Cold War with vestiges of old school and those who feel disaffected because of sexual proclivity or anything else.
But these wars of a kind continue in all religions, idealisms and even the crazies with their scorched-earth politics. What we see is a kind of state mentality where a religion or political type fight for dominance. But it is not the rank-and-file but the extremists elements within each.
Like the One Sgt who wanted everyone to play nice and his point is give up your most sacred values while he offers nothing in return. The stick with no carrot and for those mired in unabated sorrow seek for anything to place their faith in. If Religion is a kind of balm that can sooth or an irritant whose leaders exploit that malaise.
Yeah it would nice to find a common ground, I just wonder if the terrorist types would consider that. Sadly, I doubt it.
But these wars of a kind continue in all religions, idealisms and even the crazies with their scorched-earth politics. What we see is a kind of state mentality where a religion or political type fight for dominance. But it is not the rank-and-file but the extremists elements within each.
Like the One Sgt who wanted everyone to play nice and his point is give up your most sacred values while he offers nothing in return. The stick with no carrot and for those mired in unabated sorrow seek for anything to place their faith in. If Religion is a kind of balm that can sooth or an irritant whose leaders exploit that malaise.
Yeah it would nice to find a common ground, I just wonder if the terrorist types would consider that. Sadly, I doubt it.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Einstein's reservations were tempered with doubt tempered by the times in which he lived and his own heuristic observations. Even many of today's theoretical physicists want more than "it can't be ruled-out' as it pertains to some of the more exotic issues like Brane Worlds, Supersymmetry, and Multiverses as Lee Smolin contends. The Standard Model is fairly tight in that Math can validate it for the most part. The catch with the newer ideas is that they are building a concept upon a concept and might be missing the mark.
It is remarkable that Einstein had some Math to question the physics itself but not enough to advance Mathematically.
Now to the little green men or literal arks and that kind of thing, their position was also hampered by their times. But assuming that the Higgs-Boson defines unassailable proof is going a bit too far. Exciting yes! Even Professor Cox at CERN admitted that they might to have to rethink some of the assumptions, stating in essence that that too is a good thing. To rule out something. Today's theories are more suggestive than finite. In that, we achieve some vague results by seeing what is not happening. There are many ideas floating around in the nano-world to get us a lot closer to get what it all means.
At the same time if you asked anyone at CERN would they bet their lives on their theories most would say 'no'. There are the theoretical physicists and those who only accept the Standard Model as being conclusive. That is a healthy apprehension of absolutes. If you believe in God, then he could or would be the ultimate alchemist. Like a mad scientist under the dome. lol
It is remarkable that Einstein had some Math to question the physics itself but not enough to advance Mathematically.
Now to the little green men or literal arks and that kind of thing, their position was also hampered by their times. But assuming that the Higgs-Boson defines unassailable proof is going a bit too far. Exciting yes! Even Professor Cox at CERN admitted that they might to have to rethink some of the assumptions, stating in essence that that too is a good thing. To rule out something. Today's theories are more suggestive than finite. In that, we achieve some vague results by seeing what is not happening. There are many ideas floating around in the nano-world to get us a lot closer to get what it all means.
At the same time if you asked anyone at CERN would they bet their lives on their theories most would say 'no'. There are the theoretical physicists and those who only accept the Standard Model as being conclusive. That is a healthy apprehension of absolutes. If you believe in God, then he could or would be the ultimate alchemist. Like a mad scientist under the dome. lol
(1)
(0)
SGT Alicia Brenneis
I am religious and I love science. What I find funny is that neither can be fully verified. The both require belief in what can not be proven. Science if full of "theories" . Theories that can not be proven, like the THEORIE of evolution. We all know its possible but we cant prove it. The same with God. We choose to believe in what we cant prove......but we also choose to not believe either science or religion for the same reason. Doesn't make much since to me.
(0)
(0)
SGT Alicia Brenneis
I am religious and I love science. What I find funny is that neither can be fully verified. The both require belief in what can not be proven. Science if full of "theories" . Theories that can not be proven, like the THEORIE of evolution. We all know its possible but we cant prove it. The same with God. We choose to believe in what we cant prove......but we also choose to not believe either science or religion for the same reason. Doesn't make much since to me.
(0)
(0)
6
5
1
Science teaches us to fly, religion tells us to fly into buildings.
Truth is, new knowledge always upsets the status quo. If we are able, we adapt. If we can't adapt, we fight to keep it the way we knew it.
There are scientists devout in their faith and true to science, so the two are not mutually exclusive. But for most, the cognitive dissonance won't let us pursue both at the same time.
Truth is, new knowledge always upsets the status quo. If we are able, we adapt. If we can't adapt, we fight to keep it the way we knew it.
There are scientists devout in their faith and true to science, so the two are not mutually exclusive. But for most, the cognitive dissonance won't let us pursue both at the same time.
(6)
(1)
CPT (Join to see)
CW2 Joseph Evans I totally agree with you. We limit ourselves at times. It has happened in history. But no one wants to rock the boat.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Divine intervention vs. human discovery, hmmm... Most of what we consider science is purely theoretical, proven on paper only, yet we affirm it as truth and gospel.
Has anyone traveled through a worm hole or at the speed of light? Has anyone found the definitive evidence of how humans came to being? Does Earth have a true biological clock that tells us how old our planet is? Are science and religion really that different? IMHO they are merely different theories & points of view of the event in question.
Has anyone traveled through a worm hole or at the speed of light? Has anyone found the definitive evidence of how humans came to being? Does Earth have a true biological clock that tells us how old our planet is? Are science and religion really that different? IMHO they are merely different theories & points of view of the event in question.
(4)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca Awesome pic!! I have one with my classmates and fellow Scout Warriors on a camping trip. By the way they pulled up my tent stakes one night and it rained!!! LOL
(0)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
I figured it was time for a throwback pic SSgt (Join to see), being Halloweenie time and all.
(0)
(0)
SGT Kristin Wiley
SFC (Join to see)
Sir,
I think you quoted the theory incorrectly. It would take infinity energy for anything having a mass to travel at the speed of light. Light (photon) is commonly believe to be massless.
Sir,
I think you quoted the theory incorrectly. It would take infinity energy for anything having a mass to travel at the speed of light. Light (photon) is commonly believe to be massless.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
A1C (Join to see) - I think that is the rhetoric being taught to many these days that religions are trying to stop kids from being educated. Secondly, Religion is not Science and I as a Christian keep religion and science apart, at least in terms of defining scientific theory.
I also chafe at the notion that if you are a Christian you cannot be a scientist. This leads to a huge misunderstanding about Christians and the ability to learn.
I also chafe at the notion that if you are a Christian you cannot be a scientist. This leads to a huge misunderstanding about Christians and the ability to learn.
(4)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Sgt John Meister, which god? You did posit a familiar philosophical argument. It is called Pascal's Wager. I have provided a link for you, in order for you to provide a more complete argument, respectfully:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/pasc-wag/
It's actually pertinent to a collision of views between fundamentalists and the non-religious, and has been a point of contention for centuries.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/pasc-wag/
It's actually pertinent to a collision of views between fundamentalists and the non-religious, and has been a point of contention for centuries.
Pascal’s Wager about God | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)offers a pragmatic reason for believing in God: even under the assumption that God’s existence is unlikely, the potential benefits of believing are so vast as to make betting on theism rational. The super-dominance form of the argument conveys the basic Pascalian idea, the expectations argument refines it, and the dominating expectations argument gives a more sophisticated version still.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) I have heard of this and in many different ways. Ultimately the long road seems to lead to certain inevitable conclusions, most of which we can comprehend as suits our needs.
(1)
(0)
Sgt John Meister
Very interesting Erin that you would cite Pascal. But Pascal speaks of God existing in a certain form. It is said that God made man in his image but what does that really mean? I am speaking of God our father and Christ his son who died on the cross for our sins. The liberal movement to deny religion and specifically God and Christ is directly born of satan. You cannot conquer or control a people of faith, but remove that faith and they can be led like sheep to the slaughter. Multiple examples in history of this and this is what is happening to our country. It has been done before and it is being done now and many people are too blind to see it.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Science and religion don't conflict with each other. In fact, nowhere in science is God or religion even a factor. Science explains HOW, without caring about the WHY. The WHY is up to you to decide.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Science and religion are not the same. One is a way to guide human conduct and one is a way to describe the physical world. Two totally different concepts with different objectives.
Politically, it is not a choice between religion and science. Remember your grade school science. Gregor Mendal was one of the first genetic researchers; he was a monk. The Catholic church discovered the problem with the old Jullian calendar and instituted the Gregorian calendar.(Astronomy) Check out This Sacred Heart Review article: http://newspapers.bc.edu/cgi-bin/bostonsh?a=d&d=BOSTONSH18920730-01.2.26 for other scientific discoveries by members of the Catholic church. Google inventions by Baptists etc. also.
The idea of dividing politics and religion originally came about here because England and other European countries had manditory state religions. Our founding fathers insisted on not having such a thing.
Today, its a more a political football stating federal money can't be used to benefit a religious organization. Its taken to extre
mes by some who say a religous school can't be part of reduced lunch programs and church leaders can't talk about political issues. Some go further to say a student can't carry a bible to school to read during reading free times, no one can wear religious medals, crosses or other items in public, etc. It is a movement to remove religious references of any kind from public view, No statues to commemorate religious leaders, no 10 commandments, no praying in public or posting a prayer or saying bless you at a high school commencement. Its PC police taking away the free speech rights of people that have a religious point of view.
Ironically, it is what Russia was before the fall of the iron curtain. As soon as their government fell, one of the first things done was clean out the old churches and have open free services again. Its what China has. Religious people have to hide and meet in secret there.
What you are seeing today in America are groups that want freedom FROM (Any) religious content.
What the Constitution did was give citizens freedom OF religious expression and association.
I follow a religious teaching.
I accept scientific studies and discoveries when done according to proper scentific procedure and practices.
Politically, it is not a choice between religion and science. Remember your grade school science. Gregor Mendal was one of the first genetic researchers; he was a monk. The Catholic church discovered the problem with the old Jullian calendar and instituted the Gregorian calendar.(Astronomy) Check out This Sacred Heart Review article: http://newspapers.bc.edu/cgi-bin/bostonsh?a=d&d=BOSTONSH18920730-01.2.26 for other scientific discoveries by members of the Catholic church. Google inventions by Baptists etc. also.
The idea of dividing politics and religion originally came about here because England and other European countries had manditory state religions. Our founding fathers insisted on not having such a thing.
Today, its a more a political football stating federal money can't be used to benefit a religious organization. Its taken to extre
mes by some who say a religous school can't be part of reduced lunch programs and church leaders can't talk about political issues. Some go further to say a student can't carry a bible to school to read during reading free times, no one can wear religious medals, crosses or other items in public, etc. It is a movement to remove religious references of any kind from public view, No statues to commemorate religious leaders, no 10 commandments, no praying in public or posting a prayer or saying bless you at a high school commencement. Its PC police taking away the free speech rights of people that have a religious point of view.
Ironically, it is what Russia was before the fall of the iron curtain. As soon as their government fell, one of the first things done was clean out the old churches and have open free services again. Its what China has. Religious people have to hide and meet in secret there.
What you are seeing today in America are groups that want freedom FROM (Any) religious content.
What the Constitution did was give citizens freedom OF religious expression and association.
I follow a religious teaching.
I accept scientific studies and discoveries when done according to proper scentific procedure and practices.
(3)
(0)
SSgt James Stanley
PO3 Thornburg, A perfect explanation of why we have this problem of the separation of church and state. They didn't want the same problems the other countries were having with a state religion.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google