It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK bans teaching of creationism in any school that receives public funding

page: 14
42
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah, let's just stick to the science. Please provide the scientific evidence for creationism, not your stoner philosophy.




posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: chr0naut

I wish you would research a bit before posting.

RE is part of the national curriculum so your post is mute.

www.gov.uk...


Sorry, I was replying from my experience which is antipodean.

Here we have an issue that there are fewer and fewer teachers of religious education and so schools are simply dropping it from their list of available subjects. It is also an elective subject in Australian and New Zealand schools.

You are correct.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: NavyDoc
considering the topic of discussion--the failings of the UK education system.

No, the topic is about the UK preventing publicly funded schools from teaching creationism as a scientific theory, not 'the failings of the UK education system'.
I think you may be confused?


Considering the poster argues that people will not get a good education if creationism is taught in a minority of schools but then goes on to confuse "mute" with "moot," I think it was apt to point out the irony.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Yeah and I have explained I suffer from dyslexia so I get words jumbled up.
Do you want me to list my grades at school? I did very well. Pity my dad picked my subjects I had no interest in becoming a investment banker.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

I wasn't gonna say it, but yeah. If you're going to argue for education, at least make sure you don't confuse your words. Not to say I agree with your other point, I think religion has no place in public schools beyond history courses. However, you make a keen observation here.

ETA: Ah, Dyslexia could go to explain that, but that's more misplacing letters within a word, not confusing one word for another. I think it was more a harmless typo.
edit on 26-6-2015 by ScientificRailgun because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Also it is not hard to understand if science is taught in a science class and no myths more science can be taught.
Stop being a nob eh?.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: NavyDoc
considering the topic of discussion--the failings of the UK education system.

No, the topic is about the UK preventing publicly funded schools from teaching creationism as a scientific theory, not 'the failings of the UK education system'.
I think you may be confused?


Considering the poster argues that people will not get a good education if creationism is taught in a minority of schools but then goes on to confuse "mute" with "moot," I think it was apt to point out the irony.


This thread is about UK schools no longer teaching something that has no evidence whatsoever.

If Boymonkey gets the spelling of a word wrong that is a mistake on his behalf not because he was tought something at school that simply was not true.

Unless they taught you that "moot" was spelled "mute" at school because that what it said in the bible Boymonkey?



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: NavyDoc
considering the topic of discussion--the failings of the UK education system.

No, the topic is about the UK preventing publicly funded schools from teaching creationism as a scientific theory, not 'the failings of the UK education system'.
I think you may be confused?


Considering the poster argues that people will not get a good education if creationism is taught in a minority of schools but then goes on to confuse "mute" with "moot," I think it was apt to point out the irony.
Well certainly regarding kids at the religious schools which were caught teaching creationism in science classes, they will have a better chance at gaining critical thinking skills now they cannot be subjected to fairy tales as fact.

As I said earlier in the thread this law was brought in because the new 'academies' and 'free schools' which could be created by communities/faith groups/businesses in 2011 are not required to teach the national curriculum. Initially this wasn't a problem with only 200 or so new schools being created, but this had grown to over 3000 in 2014, with rising numbers of faith schools abusing the free rein they had.
The government stepped in as of course it is ridiculous to teach creationism in science lessons, if only because which myth do you teach? Greek, Norse, Hindu, Abrahamic?

I don't agree that the law banning it last year will make much of a difference to the average UK student because religion/faith is addressed in 'religious education' or 'philosophy & applied ethics' classes, but for those in independent state funded 'free schools' it forces the teachers to think twice before brainwashing the kids with their particular faith.
...and for as long as part of my taxes fund those schools I say it was a very good use of legislation.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah, let's just stick to the science. Please provide the scientific evidence for creationism, not your stoner philosophy.


I'm over 50 and did a degree in Astrophysics years ago and I still maintain an interest.

I don't like Marijuana, as I found it highly irritant and it made me feel nauseous and disoriented rather than high.

I don't think that qualifies anything I said as "stoner philosophy".

Please provide scientific evidence for abiogenesis, or for how supersymmetry was broken, for how singularities do not have a firewall at the schwarzschild radius or for a mechanism that explains inflation ... and not just another theory or concept, I want real measurable scientific evidence.

Just provide some scientific evidence.


edit on 26/6/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah, let's just stick to the science. Please provide the scientific evidence for creationism, not your stoner philosophy.


I'm over 50 and did a degree in Astrophysics years ago and I still maintain an interest.

I don't like Marijuana, as I found it highly irritant and it made me feel nauseous and disoriented rather than high.

I don't think that qualifies anything I said as "stoner philosophy".

Please provide scientific evidence for abiogenesis, or for how supersymmetry was broken, for how singularities do not have a firewall at the schwarzschild radius or for a mechanism that explains inflation ... and not just another theory or concept, I want real measurable scientific evidence.

Just provide some scientific evidence.



I believe he asked first, politness would suggest you should reply to his question before asking your own.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


Please provide scientific evidence for abiogenesis


You claim to be trained in science yet you utterly fail at thinking logically (see: affirming a disjunct or denying a conjunct ) and with intellectual honesty. Abiogenesis being wrong wouldn't make creationism right. As a scientist, you should know this. So far, you have not been behaving in the manner befitting a scientist but here's your chance to prove me wrong: show us the scientific evidence for creationism. Not inference, not inuendo, but actual explicit evidence.
edit on 26-6-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: NavyDoc

Also it is not hard to understand if science is taught in a science class and no myths more science can be taught.
Stop being a nob eh?.


"Nob?"

Again. I see obvious evidence about more things to be worried about in the UK school systems.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Why don't you start your own thread championing creationist myths?
Lots to choose from, Greek, Norse, Cherokee, Sumerian, Ancient Egyptian, even Maori.

The UK government has decided that any school receiving taxpayers money can not teach any spiritual/religious myths as fact in science lessons. There are no laws against privately funded schools teaching whatever fairy tales they wish to their students, just not on the taxpayers coin.

Now you can claim your particular myth is fact or whatever you like, but this thread is about discussing the legislation created last year in the UK, not a debate about your favourite brand of myth. I see your posts as derailing and irrelevant, so again, if you wanna argue that YOUR myth is true I say start your own thread and I can ignore your solely faith based ramblings.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: NavyDoc

I wasn't gonna say it, but yeah. If you're going to argue for education, at least make sure you don't confuse your words. Not to say I agree with your other point, I think religion has no place in public schools beyond history courses. However, you make a keen observation here.

ETA: Ah, Dyslexia could go to explain that, but that's more misplacing letters within a word, not confusing one word for another. I think it was more a harmless typo.


I haven't argued for keeping the course--in fact I've argued the opposite. What I have done was opine that this law really will not make any difference other than make some people feel good.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

I already made that thread. www.abovetopsecret.com...

No Creationist stepped up to the challenge though.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah, let's just stick to the science. Please provide the scientific evidence for creationism, not your stoner philosophy.


I'm over 50 and did a degree in Astrophysics years ago and I still maintain an interest.

I don't like Marijuana, as I found it highly irritant and it made me feel nauseous and disoriented rather than high.

I don't think that qualifies anything I said as "stoner philosophy".

Please provide scientific evidence for abiogenesis, or for how supersymmetry was broken, for how singularities do not have a firewall at the schwarzschild radius or for a mechanism that explains inflation ... and not just another theory or concept, I want real measurable scientific evidence.

Just provide some scientific evidence.



I believe he asked first, politness would suggest you should reply to his question before asking your own.


You may have missed it but I did reply to GetHyped that there was no particular evidence for either Creationism or the 'scientific' theories, apart from the existence of everything.

He wrote my reply off, I believe, as "stoner philosophy".

Since I have answered him, perhaps politeness would now dictate an answer, in turn, to my request.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Oh behave yourself.
By your reckoning all the typos I see from US folk on ATS should indicate your schools are crap.
Ridiculous. How about focus on the debate instead of the person.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah, let's just stick to the science. Please provide the scientific evidence for creationism, not your stoner philosophy.


I'm over 50 and did a degree in Astrophysics years ago and I still maintain an interest.

I don't like Marijuana, as I found it highly irritant and it made me feel nauseous and disoriented rather than high.

I don't think that qualifies anything I said as "stoner philosophy".

Please provide scientific evidence for abiogenesis, or for how supersymmetry was broken, for how singularities do not have a firewall at the schwarzschild radius or for a mechanism that explains inflation ... and not just another theory or concept, I want real measurable scientific evidence.

Just provide some scientific evidence.

If you have a degree in Astrophysics you have probably heard of the "God of the Gaps".

Any valley or void in our understanding of the universe is almost always explained away by the religious as God. What you're arguing is that because we don't have answers for these questions, it must be evidence of a creator. Why is that? Why does it have to be evidence of a creator? Look back several hundred, or thousand years. What we didn't know then was astonishing. Why do the planets move, while stars remain fairly static, moving much more slowly? Why that's God, they said. Well now we understand the motion of stars and planets, even galaxies. (For the most part, at least) and nobody with even a grade school education claims the planets' motion is Gods work.

You're falling into the same line of thinking as our ancestors. We don't understand yet why these things are so. What broke supersymmetry, Black holes in GENERAL and not just the Schwarzchild radius. You see gaps in our knowledge and exclaim "There, that is where God lies." And when those gaps are filled, the religious go scampering to find more gaps to place their deities.
edit on 26-6-2015 by ScientificRailgun because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

You may have missed it but I did reply to GetHyped that there was no particular evidence for either Creationism or the 'scientific' theories, apart from the existence of everything.


That's not evidence. It's not even an argument. It's just a statement of personal faith. You said the evidence was everywhere, yet apparently it's not? Righty ho.


He wrote my reply off, I believe, as "stoner philosophy".


I think I was too generous calling it stoner philosophy. It's not even that. You call yourself a scientist? For shame!


Since I have answered him, perhaps politeness would now dictate an answer, in turn, to my request.



Your question is logically invalid. For someone who proclaims to be trained in the scientific method, you should be thoroughly ashamed of the arguments you've put forth.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah, let's just stick to the science. Please provide the scientific evidence for creationism, not your stoner philosophy.


I'm over 50 and did a degree in Astrophysics years ago and I still maintain an interest.

I don't like Marijuana, as I found it highly irritant and it made me feel nauseous and disoriented rather than high.

I don't think that qualifies anything I said as "stoner philosophy".

Please provide scientific evidence for abiogenesis, or for how supersymmetry was broken, for how singularities do not have a firewall at the schwarzschild radius or for a mechanism that explains inflation ... and not just another theory or concept, I want real measurable scientific evidence.

Just provide some scientific evidence.



I believe he asked first, politness would suggest you should reply to his question before asking your own.


You may have missed it but I did reply to GetHyped that there was no particular evidence for either Creationism or the 'scientific' theories, apart from the existence of everything.

He wrote my reply off, I believe, as "stoner philosophy".

Since I have answered him, perhaps politeness would now dictate an answer, in turn, to my request.



I am happy to agree to that.

As long as you are happy to take his opinion as fact as that is exactly what you expect him to do with yours.

I think that seems fair.

I would like to ad that my spelling and grammer is also sometimes at fault. This is mainly the result of a head injury and not the failings of the UK schooling system.
edit on 26/6/2015 by nonspecific because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join