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.

 

Why Creationism Should Never be Taught in Science Class

page: 8
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer




but you've never given me cause to dislike you.


Well it isn't for lack of try'n Beer.




posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

To say its all fables when there are similaities looking through all ancient scripture through to t more modern bibles is crazy. It may have goten distorted and misconsieved through different language and the evolution of the human brain even that doesnt mean its fake. All science started from one mans perseption of goings on then turned to fact through blind belief of his perseption. That belief for all we know totally wrong. Everybody can sees flaws in darwins theory which perhaps could be explained because of previous misconception now believed to be fact. Im not saying to read the book of genesis in a science class but keeping science open minded to what whas discuvered,using scientific facts and observation maybe cant be explained but shouldnt be discredited in the classroom. Teach how to think not what to think.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 12:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147

You know what smart guy fabricator?
Show me evolutions eureka moment?

All it ever was and ever has been, is confirmation bias.

From the G-D get go pal.


Here you go!

If that doesn't suffice, you're more than welcome to ask for something more specific.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Evolution was created. It exists so therefore must of been created. By somthing scientificlly goddley.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Simple answer why the two are mutually exclusive:

Conservation of Energy

-vs-

'poof' there it is...


Please explain how one could hold to the conservation of energy (and other thermodynamic laws) and to the inflation of the universe after the Big Bang?



The universe is made up of energy; the energy may change form however it is never eliminated nor is it created from nothing.

Oh yeah, you mean the Big Bank Theory right?!
edit on 7-7-2015 by notmyrealname because: Theory



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: reptildibz
a reply to: flyingfish

To say its all fables when there are similaities looking through all ancient scripture through to t more modern bibles is crazy.


You do realize that a lot of those "similarities" you speak of are just plagiarized stories? The key word is "Stories". Ancient Books are all nice and fun and all that, but they are also just hearsay, fictional work, until actual hard evidence that proves their accuracy.


originally posted by: reptildibz
a reply to: flyingfish
It may have goten distorted and misconsieved through different language and the evolution of the human brain even that doesnt mean its fake.


The evolution of the human brain huh? In 2-6 thousand years?

Well that explains your misconceptions you've been presenting about evolution. There weren't any significant mutations in the past 6k years that would alter the human mind so much that it would effect the depictions within your fictional books.


originally posted by: reptildibz
a reply to: flyingfish
All science started from one mans perseption of goings on then turned to fact through blind belief of his perseption.


Not only do you not understand Science in general, but now you are completely misrepresenting history as well. Science was never "one man's perception". It was a global tool used to describe naturally occurring phenomena that was build from scratch from virtually every strong culture around the world.


originally posted by: reptildibz
a reply to: flyingfish
That belief for all we know totally wrong.


Exactly what "belief" is science? Could you elaborate?


originally posted by: reptildibz
a reply to: flyingfish
Everybody can sees flaws in darwins theory which perhaps could be explained because of previous misconception now believed to be fact.


Once again, Evolution is BOTH fact AND theory. Evolution is a naturally occuring phenomenon, this is a fact. Our Theory OF Evolution is our attempt at explaining that naturally occurring phenomenon. Just as Gravity is a fact, and we have a Theory of how gravity functions.

The misconceptions are strong with this one....


originally posted by: reptildibz
a reply to: flyingfish
Im not saying to read the book of genesis in a science class but keeping science open minded to what whas discuvered, using scientific facts and observation maybe cant be explained but shouldnt be discredited in the classroom. Teach how to think not what to think.


Clearly you weren't paying attention in school, because Science isn't a belief system, nor does it deal with finding the "Truth", and it certainly isn't an unfalsifiable subject. To be scientific a theory MUST BE FALSIFIABLE.

So your entire argument that science is just stating it's the only option and it cannot be wrong is in itself intrinsically incorrect.

Sorry, but you need to educate yourself before entering this discussion. These are VERY basic concepts and you haven't even gotten into the actual details within the fields of study yet.

You are not prepared for this debate.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: reptildibz


Evolution was created. It exists so therefore must of been created. By somthing scientificlly goddley.


No. Evolution was Discovered. The THEORY of Evolution was developed to describe the Naturally occurring Phenomenon of Evolution.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I wonder if Beer, or any of the other science minded
members of ATS would agree that " The Origin of Species"
is evolutions eureka moment?

I ask Beer because I've found him to be fair in the past.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar
Every once in a while I would like to show more appreciation than just a star for a comment; this is one that I strongly feel that way about. Thank you for having the time to actually post with patience, logic and reason. I enjoyed it greatly even if the person you responded to will likely dismiss it.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Considering it was the foundation of the theory of evolution (for the most part), yes, it would be the "eureka moment".

Of course, you're free to not be so vague in your ridiculous comments and just get to the point on what you directly want.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

He's on my friends list. That says a ton right there.
Not that my friends list is full of elites but we are staunch
in our opposing views and he has my respect.
edit on Ram70715v51201500000049 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: hudsonhawk69


However evolution isn't exactly science either is it. Neither should be taught in schools!


That statement ^^ is ridiculous.
But, I bet you're just trolling and trying to be funny....right?


Actually no... Evolution is based on as many unfounded assumptions as creationism is...



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Actually, I've never read "Origin of Species" or any other book related to evolution. I don't remember a single biology lesson from school. Most importantly, I do not consider myself all that knowledgeable about the theory of evolution. I understand it well enough though, and also have a level of trust in those that have studied it far more than I have. I consider myself analytical, not scientifically minded. I can go read this or that wall of text about evolution and while I may not understand everything I can still follow along well enough.

However, I would hazard a guess that Darwin and others, had many eureka moments studying evolution.

ETA: I've decided to add "Origin of Species" to my reading list, alongside "Voyage of the Beagle" (also by Darwin).
edit on 7-7-2015 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Wrong one has evidence one doesn't.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: reptildibz
All ancient writing depicts a creator of some sort. Can u argue with that or is it just made up writing. Ur gunna discount historical discoveries made using science like dead sea scrolls. Any sumerian scripture heiroglyphics etc and say it doesnt warrent being discussed in school. Sound like an easy way out of what science know is true but cant explain. Ur not in control and their will always be the unexplainable but lets include it to discussion not ignore what created the very subject he/she/it put here for us all to advance.


You don't get it do you? No one's suggesting you can't learn the evolution of religions and mans accent from superstion. What do you think elective courses are? And what is this "what" in your "but lets include it to discussion not ignore what created" comment?
Let me guess..Your favorite flavor of diety? Dieties are not science, your still trying to shoe horn your beliefs into the class, science is not a belief system it does not require faith, it requires objective reasoning!



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 01:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: hudsonhawk69


However evolution isn't exactly science either is it. Neither should be taught in schools!


That statement ^^ is ridiculous.
But, I bet you're just trolling and trying to be funny....right?


Actually no... Evolution is based on as many unfounded assumptions as creationism is...



Could you point out a specific unfounded assumption that the Theory of Evolution makes? I'd like to discuss it with you if you wouldn't mind?



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Teaching creationism in astronomy classes would be like teaching about the burning bush in thermodynamics classes and the making of Eve from Adam's rib in biology classes.



.... and on Sunday kiddies, we'll teach you all about the laws of general relativity, chemical compounds, and neurological synapses during your bible studies.




posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Did we already do this thing?


Scientific theories PREDICT or can be used to predict events.
Like the evolution of an animal in the future.
Like influenza prediction. Which works quite well.


Can Creationism do this, too?



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 03:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Simple answer why the two are mutually exclusive:

Conservation of Energy

-vs-

'poof' there it is...


Please explain how one could hold to the conservation of energy (and other thermodynamic laws) and to the inflation of the universe after the Big Bang?



The universe is made up of energy; the energy may change form however it is never eliminated nor is it created from nothing.

Oh yeah, you mean the Big Bank Theory right?!


I like that, the Big Bank theory!


But the universe expanding faster than light, from a singularity until 10^-32 seconds afterward when it just stopped, the entire mass of the universe i.e: tremendous momentum, just stopped? and you are suggesting energy was conserved?

And if the energy pre-existed the Big Bang, then space-time also must have pre-existed and you are starting to sound like you are describing a steady state or oscillatiory universe cosmology, both of which have less evidence than the Big Bang.

So we don't know. And stating that energy was conserved makes sense now but maybe doesn't under inflation.

Admitting we don't know allows us to see more possibilities than assuming any one pet theory is right.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Please kindly do not confuse the Law of Conservation of Energy with any theories as you are not comparing the two in a proper manner. You can talk all you want about the theory and it is still only a theory.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join