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.

 

Creationism SHOULD be taught in school. ( alongside science theories! )

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

EVERY scientific theory has holes in it... Even the theory of Gravity, Cell Theory, and the theory of plate tectonics have holes in the theories. That doesn't mean they aren't true.




posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

I can agree with your post, thank you for not simply attacking my premise, but rather supplying your own solution.

Teach the kids how to learn, and let them do it for themselves - I like it.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Creationism should NOT be taught alongside, or as a part of a scientific education.

It should be taught in Religious Education classes, and not just the creation stories of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, but those of Hinduism, Buddhism, those of the worshipers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and as many other religions as can be covered in a mainstream class.

But at no point should a creation story be taught alongside a scientific theory.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Definition - As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts.


Ok. Good.


The science community does not have a general consensus on the creation of the universe. Many theories are guesses built on beliefs built on top of other theories.


You just posted the definition of theory and then proceed to contradict it in the next paragraph... WOW!


I fully admit I could be wrong, and have not researched extensively enough. If anyone has a link showing me that there's only one widely accepted theory in the science community on how the universe came about, and how that theory uses laws and consistent theories combined to explain, I will back down.


Big Bang Theory out, timeless universe theory in?

This is the latest science surrounding the BBT. Keep in mind that the article title is slightly misleading, the BBT isn't being presented as "on the way out" here. Just the idea of a singularity is.


Well, according to a new model proposed by Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada and Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, that’s exactly what happened. “The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there,” Ali told Phys.org. This alternative model for the Big Bag Theory takes into account both quantum theory and general relativity , as well as the existence of dark matter and dark energy. The physicists describe the universe as being kept at a finite size by quantum corrections, which give it an infinite age. What’s interesting about this new model is that it does not predict singularities like the Big Bang or the “big crunch.”

That said, this theory is very much work in progress for now, but it already solves a lot of problems and further research will probably yield even more interesting results. “It is satisfying to note that such straightforward corrections can potentially resolve so many issues at once,” Das said.



In the meantime, I debate further. There's far too many theories within the scientific community, so many built on different premises, even contradicting premises. One theory is that everything always existed, one is that everything spontaneously existed. There's no general consensus I can find, no eloquence, no consistency. Just one group of scientists beliefs, vs another's.


You should stop debating and start researching. Learn more about the topics you are discussing before you actually start discussing them.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yet it doesn't become a law until it is proven true beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Maybe kids should be taught laws, and the taught there's a myriad of theories for everything else, and they can learn for themselves.

For instance I loved being given a choice as a kid what to report on.

So, you could tell the students to give an oral report on the creation of the universe.. You'd be bound to have a mix of ideas and theories in the classroom, and kids could decide which theories spark their interest, which theories they think holds the best. They would better learn what's out there because they don't have one teacher or school system insisting on one idea over another.

I like this idea personally. What do you think?



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Lolz @ creationism, especially being taught in school. What a terrible idea to mislead children into thinking creationism is at all educational. I went to catholic school and they never taught such nonsense and nor will they ever.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
I fully admit I could be wrong, and have not researched extensively enough.


Good. Because both are true. I can't speak for others here, but I didn't go to high school and I have educated myself on the topic of evolution.



If anyone has a link showing me that there's only one widely accepted theory in the science community on how the universe came about, and how that theory uses laws and consistent theories combined to explain, I will back down.


If YOU want to know the truth, look it up and educate yourself. It's not up to ATS members to provide a link for common knowledge. You think fantasy should be taught in public schools on par with scientific knowledge because they're both "only theories". That's YOUR uneducated opinion and it's YOUR job to do something about it.
edit on 10/16/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Isurrender73

EVERY scientific theory has holes in it... Even the theory of Gravity, Cell Theory, and the theory of plate tectonics have holes in the theories. That doesn't mean they aren't true.


Which is exactly why none of it belongs in our school system, until college. Where the mind has developed enough to separate science, which is demonstrated by scientific method, and imagination and assumptions.

Some of the greatest science started as imagination. Some of the greatest inventions came from imagination.

Teach our children science by teaching them science that follows the scientific method and teach them how to use their imagination through music, prose and the arts.

This way when children who have scientific aptitude go to college they can use there own imagination and not be forced to follow what is unproven. It's possible we are not understanding origins of the universe better because we are stifling and pigeonholing the mind by teaching the unproven as fact, and ridiculing everyone who doesn't agree.


edit on 16-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yet it doesn't become a law until it is proven true beyond a shadow of a doubt.


Theories don't become law. Ever.


Maybe kids should be taught laws, and the taught there's a myriad of theories for everything else, and they can learn for themselves.


A scientific Law is defined by mathematical formulas. Theories try to explain those laws or use them to predict other events.


For instance I loved being given a choice as a kid what to report on.

So, you could tell the students to give an oral report on the creation of the universe.. You'd be bound to have a mix of ideas and theories in the classroom, and kids could decide which theories spark their interest, which theories they think holds the best. They would better learn what's out there because they don't have one teacher or school system insisting on one idea over another.

I like this idea personally. What do you think?


Maybe for an English report, but if you gave such a thing in a science class and they came back with a report on Creationism, then they should be failed. Creationism isn't a scientific law or a scientific theory. It can barely be called a scientific hypothesis. I'm not opposed to a free form report where the kid chooses his report, but he better actually pick a topic that is scientific in nature.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Isurrender73

EVERY scientific theory has holes in it... Even the theory of Gravity, Cell Theory, and the theory of plate tectonics have holes in the theories. That doesn't mean they aren't true.


Which is exactly why none of it belongs in our school system, until college. Where the mind has developed enough to separate science, which is demonstrated by scientific method, and imagination and assumptions.


So kids shouldn't be taught physics, biology, or chemistry either? Um... What?


Some of the greatest science started as imagination. Some of the greatest inventions came from imagination.


So?


Teach our children science by teaching them science that follows the scientific method and teach them how to use their imagination through music, prose and the arts.


This doesn't make any sense. You just said that we can't teach science to kids until college.


This way when children who have scientific aptitude go to college they can use there own imagination and not be forced to follow what is unproven. It's possible we are not understanding origins of the universe better because we are stifling and pigeonholing the mind by teaching the unproven as fact, and ridiculing everyone who doesn't agree.



Teaching the unproven as fact? That's called religion buddy. Science doesn't work like that. I'd explain why, but somehow I have a feeling you won't listen. You've already performed quite a few mental gymnastics to make your reasoning work out with the two posts we've conversed in this thread.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

www.space.com...

www.universetoday.com...

www.infoplease.com...

www.hawking.org.uk...

There's a lot more than that, but just a start of the theories of the universe.

The one you quoted does sound like the latest and greatest, but twenty years from now it's sure to look different - such is the nature of science, we think we understand something, based on our interpretation of evidence, only to find our interpretation was false. Perhaps one day they will call it a law and not a theory, perhaps.. As for now, it's just going to be looking back, realizing they were wrong at least in part, and adapting their new theory to meet the requirements of the new, likely misunderstood evidences. If old ideas can be disproven, expanded upon, replaced, etc.. Doesn't that make science a belief system that just reveres itself believing it has the facts until a later time?



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Evolution can be taught in schools, because it is an easily demonstrated reality. A teacher can teach evolution, offer living examples of evolution in action, and use experiments to show how it works.

Creationism can't be "taught" in schools. All you can do is say, "Or you can choose to believe everything was created by a mighty, powerful God, but you're just going to take it on faith." No teaching. no examples to show. No way to offer living examples or create experiments. Just "take my word for it."

That is not teaching.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Deadly hope......what exactly do you / do you not believe in..?

Regards

PDUK



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


So kids shouldn't be taught physics, biology, or chemistry either? Um... What?


Are you intentionally being obtuse?

I clearly stated that children should be taught science that can be reproduced by scientific method. Many things in biology, chemistry and simple physics can be proven by scientific method.

And none of these classes are teaching the children interpersonal skills, life skills or environmental skills. So maybe we should focus less attention on indoctrination into pseudo-science and more time on life skills that many of our teens appear to be lacking.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Teaching the unproven as fact? That's called religion buddy. Science doesn't work like that


Then why do you ridicule creationism? There is no imagined creation of the Universe that can be called scientific theory, yet here you are ridiculing people for believing God did it.


edit on 16-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Nope,disagree on that. There is a separation of church and state here and if we are going to teach about how people just up and appeared in Eden one day,then let them go to church to learn that. The teachers are in no way able to handle the different versions of how all that came about,nor should they have to worry about it. And once you open that forbidden door on creation,then it opens the door for other beliefs including other religions. Next thing you know,Islam is being taught in public schools whether the parents like it or not. And the teachers that ARE Muslim would just love that. They have been here and there trying to teach the kids about Islam sneaking it into the classrooms and parents have been screaming about it. I would be too.

If you are too lazy to take your child to church for a 'proper' upbringing,do not shove it on the public schools to do your job for you.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: PurpleDog UK

I believe that God is, and man kind could become so knowledgeable about physics, math, science in general that they could control things that are bigger and bigger, up to and including a universe.

I am fascinated by, and follow science theories, I enjoy them, believe many of them, etc. I also believe in a higher being, that a higher being could spark a big bang, put things into place, for instance.

Long story short, I believe God could be explained by a complex math equation, or by science - being a result of a form of evolution, but that God understands science and physics enough to manipulate them, to work within the rules to be something greater than us.

However, this isn't what I would advocate be taught in schools.

I simply advocate children know this is a commonly held belief, creationism. That it is a non proven alternative to what is being taught, not that it's equal, or just as valid - that would be up to the child to decide, not up to the teacher to teach. I just think it's common enough to be mentioned during a "creation of the universe" lesson. The teacher could even say "going away from the science, and towards culture, here's another idea."

For everyone reading this thread, I don't wish it to be taught equally to other theories. I simply think as many ideas as can be covered should be, starting with the most commonly accepted or believed. This includes creationism. Not as an equal or in place of, but in respect to what ideas are out there. If the kids are taught to be smart, and study, and use the scientific method like they should be, no one should be disappointed in the resulting mindset of the children.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
Evolution can be taught in schools, because it is an easily demonstrated reality. A teacher can teach evolution, offer living examples of evolution in action, and use experiments to show how it works.


This is nonsense. There is absolutely no proof of evolution past adaptation. We have never witnessed the arriving of a new species. We have never witnessed anything, even on a cellular level reproducing anything but its own kind.

Evolution only exists in the imagination and does not deserve the term theory.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Dimithae

For the tenth time, I'm not talking about any particular religion.

Not Adam and eve, not morality, not Jesus or the Bible.

"some believe these events happened on their own, others, commonly due to religious beliefs, believe a higher being had a hand in these events" type of thing.

It's like I believe med school students could be taught holistic, Alternative, herbal, and other types of Medicine, even including types not commonly believed in, in the West - it gives a bigger picture to what could be or might be, and certainly doesn't force any to believe in them, just to know that some have their reasons to believe in it. ( not to mention alternative medicine is gaining more and more ground, with more true trials proving the methods, or health regimes.)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

I personally believe in forms of evolution. There's certainly evidence that species can morph to different shapes and sizes over time, and that humans used to be different sizes and such.

As for being something entirely different... Most don't teach that. They don't teach fish to human.



new topics




 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join