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.

 

Separation of Church and State. Why Anti-Theistic Theories don't belong in Public Education.

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
The unproven anti-theistic sciences

1. Age of Universe

The problem with Hubble Constant - Red Shift & speed of light assumptions



initial studies was the suggestion that galaxy redshifts take on preferred or "quantized" values.

First revealed in the Coma Cluster redshift v.s. brightness diagram, it appeared as if redshifts were in some way analogous to the energy levels within atoms.

These discoveries led to the suspicion that a galaxy's redshift may not be related to its Hubble velocity alone. If the redshift is entirely or partially non-Doppler (that is, not due to cosmic expansion), then it could be an intrinsic property of a galaxy, as basic a characteristic as its mass or luminosity. If so, might it truly be quantized?
www.cs.unc.edu...




One may assume, for instance, that all galaxies of the same type are the same physical size, no matter where in the Universe they are. This is known as "the standard ruler" assumption.

To use this assumption, however, we have to know the actual size of the "ruler" and to do that, we need the distances to the galaxies that form our standard ruler. So, since we are working with spiral galaxies, we choose nearby galaxies such as Andromeda, Triangulum, Messier 81, and others to which we have found an accurate distance measure using variable stars or other reliable distance indicator.www.astro.washington.edu...


These "know distances" can only be determined by assuming the speed of light is a constant

Both Einstein's theory of Relativity and what we visually observe by scientific method suggests that gravity can impact the speed of light.

Gravity is not a concept that is anything more than knowing something we call gravity exits. The exact mechanisms of gravity are a bit elusive.
www.dailygalaxy.com...

It would be arrogant to assume the speed of light was similar in the big bang to what it is now since we have no working model to make such an assumption.

My imagination
Is the Universe expanding do to the big bang shockwave?

These guys think the earth could be the center of the Universe and have math that suggests they could be right. Personally I think the Milky Way Galaxie could be the Center and the math would still work.
www.popsci.com...

2. Age of the Earth - Corrupted Geological Columns



Misconception No. 3. The strata systems of the geologic column are worldwide in their occurrence with each strata system being present below any point on the earth's surface.

Misconception No. 4. Strata systems always occur in the order required by the geologic column.

Misconception No. 8. Radiometric dating can supply "absolute ages" in millions of years with certainty to systems of the geologic column. 10

Misconception No. 10. The geologic column and the positions of fossils within the geologic column provide proof of amoeba-to-man evolution.
www.icr.org...


3. How old our the bones?

We don't actually date the bones we date the surrounding sediment. Refer to misconception 8 above.

Carbon dating

The carbon clock is getting reset. Climate records from a Japanese lake are set to improve the accuracy of the dating technique, which could help to shed light on archaeological mysteries such as why Neanderthals became extinct.

Carbon dating is used to work out the age of organic material — in effect, any living thing. The technique hinges on carbon-14, a radioactive isotope of the element that, unlike other more stable forms of carbon, decays away at a steady rate. Organisms capture a certain amount of carbon-14 from the atmosphere when they are alive. By measuring the ratio of the radio isotope to non-radioactive carbon, the amount of carbon-14 decay can be worked out, thereby giving an age for the specimen in question.

But that assumes that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere was constant — any variation would speed up or slow down the clock. The clock was initially calibrated by dating objects of known age such as Egyptian mummies and bread from Pompeii; work that won Willard Libby the 1960 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. But even he “realized that there probably would be variation”
www.scientificamerican.com...


Theory of Evolution
Here is an old thread of mine.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

To separate Church and State we must remove all Anti-Theistic Theories from the Public Education of minors.

Being told to believe in what cannot be proven is a form of mind control, whether it comes from science theory or religious theory.

I prefer to teach my daughter both theories at home and let her make up her mind. But if science insist we teach unproven anti-theistic views I insist we also teach the unproven theistic view as well.

Private school is always an option for those that wish to teach either a theistic view or anti-theistic view. These choices are best left to parents not publicly funded schools.

Noah's Flood

Science is looking for uniform proof. But this is a false assumption, especially after looking at the geological columns. Evidence of ancient floods exits everywhere.

There are many reasons that we don't see the uniformity that science wants to find even outside of the flaws of the geological column.

Subsequent floods, Ice Ages and plate tectonics changed the landscape enough that finding evidence of a single flood is impossible.

When the ice caps melt do to rising temperatures, clouds form higher because of the temperature variation.

Higher cloud formation traps a greater amount of moister in the form of gas in the atmosphere. As gases only condense at or near the cloud level.

Waters from the deep backfilled the oceans as the pressures changed. This backfill takes massive pressure to be pushed back down underground. Much more then the pressure that was released. The underground ocean www.theguardian.com...

With the higher temperatures the clouds take longer to condense and produce rain. The combination of groundwater breaking free from below, similar to the pressure release of a deep sea oil well, and a blocked sun do to global cloud formation a 40 day rain that flooded the earth occurred. The temperature increase that resulted in the global cloud cover subsequently blocked the sun for long enough that this also began one of earths historical ice ages.

The moral to Noah's Flood

You don't want me teaching the flood to your children even though I could sophisticatedly convince young impressionable minds that it happened.

You would prefer to keep unproven events out, I agree.

Separation of church and state should include separation of unproven anti-theistic science.
edit on 17-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



+15 more 
posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Once again - all wrong. All the science is posted in the library - and on this board about a thousand times. Why regurgitate ignorance that has been proven as such??



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
Once again - all wrong. All the science is posted in the library - and on this board about a thousand times. Why regurgitate ignorance that has been proven as such??



Your opinion is posted. Your theories which have subsequent opposing theories within the scientific community.

I am not a member of the religion of pseudo-science and prefer my child not be indoctrinated into your cult.

Without proof I should have this right as a separation of church and state.

You can't refute what is posted above with proof.
edit on 17-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
So you only want children to learn "proven" science? Yes or no?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
So you only want children to learn "proven" science? Yes or no?



I only want children to be taught proven science in public schools until they are adults in college.

When they fully understand the difference between scientific law and scientific and theory.
edit on 17-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

What "proven" science are you referring to?


+8 more 
posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

You don't understand any of the things you just copied and pasted into this thread do you? How can one person get EVERYTHING wrong????
edit on 17-10-2015 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)


+1 more 
posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
There are a lot of holes in your theories. For one, the earth isn't even in the center of our galaxy, how could it be the center of the universe??

You also ignore the fact that they've drilled through hundreds of thousands of ice layers which shows that the earth is vastly older than what creationists teach.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Isurrender73

What "proven" science are you referring to?



Biology, Chemistry, Botany and Physics that can be proven with mathematical calculations that always achieve the same results.

There is plenty of proven science to give our children a taste of science without shoving theory into their mind and thus limiting their imagination.


(post by notmyrealname removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I would like to educate a little bit on the subject of proof in science.

Im in college and in my Biology Lab class our teacher made it very specific that we would get -10 on our Lab Report if we posted the word proof or proven in our conclusion. That's because science doesn't prove anything.

That's basically accepted in the science community, nothing is proven. So I see science illiteracy whenever I see someone writing "proven by science" or "unproven science".



edit on 17-10-2015 by danielsil18 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
There are a lot of holes in your theories. For one, the earth isn't even in the center of our galaxy, how could it be the center of the universe??

You also ignore the fact that they've drilled through hundreds of thousands of ice layers which shows that the earth is vastly older than what creationists teach.


I said that was my immigration, but there is math on the link provided that suggests the expanding universe is answered simply by placing the earth in the center.

This is why we shouldn't teach young impressionable minds anything but verifiable scientific law.
edit on 17-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

They don't use carbon dating for the age of the earth, it doesn't have a long enough half life.


None of what you presented should be presented as fact and it isn't.
It is presented as what fits the evidence we have.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Isurrender73

What "proven" science are you referring to?



Biology, Chemistry, Botany and Physics that can be proven with mathematical calculations that always achieve the same results.

There is plenty of proven science to give our children a taste of science without shoving theory into their mind and thus limiting their imagination.


There are no absolutes in science or in this universe. Everything can be questioned. If we accepted your position on education, no one would be prepared to move forward by the time they got to college. Mathematics itself isn't necessarily correct in each and every case.

In addition, children need to learn to think creatively, not like robots. Without theoretical challenges and thought problems, their brains would be fried by the time they reach college.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73




Biology, Chemistry, Botany and Physics that can be proven with mathematical calculations that always achieve the same results.


Which is funny, since many of those fields are used to get the very things you don't want taught.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Let's pretend for a moment that all of your objections about the science are true, what is your point? That people should be able to teach Christianity in SCIENCE classes? Either way science is science and creationism is mythology - whether or not science has found the right answers yet doesn't make it anti-theistic and doesn't mean Christians get to sneak in their religion.



Being told to believe in what cannot be proven is a form of mind control, whether it come from science theory or religious theory.


Creationism is not science. Science class teaches science, not religion.

Students, I should point out, are NOT TOLD WHAT TO BELIEVE, they are told to learn the information and then tested on it. If they wish they can still believe whatever it is they want. I made it through high school while still a scientifically ignorant Old Earth Creationist. I managed to learn what little the school system is brave enough to teach about evolution and still reject it.



You don't want me teaching the flood to your children even though I could sophisticatedly convince young impressionable minds that it happened.


Of course you could convince innocent ignorant children of anything, the question is when they decide to think for themselves and search out the answers what will they find. My post-school exploration of science is why I accept evolution and reject Creationism.

It doesn't take much thought to realize that Noah's Ark is complete hogwash when taken literally. There are an estimated 16 million species on the planet, many of these are plant species that live in very specific climates. The Flood would have killed plants, meaning Noah needed not just all the animals to fit on the Ark (impossible) but seeds for every plant from around the world. Sure someone can make excuses that the animals came to Noah as if by instinct but the plants would not only have to be gathered BUT Noah would have had to globe-trot around the world to replant the ENTIRE WORLD POPULATION of vegetation and get there in time to support the population of plant eating animals he just released. Of course you could just say, "well it was a miracle" but then that's not science...

Science works under methodological naturalism, meaning it deals directly with the natural world. The only way science could ever say anything about God is if there was some observable detectable or testable effect/manifestation of God in reality. For example, a study which proved that prayers to Yahweh/Jesus could regrow the limbs of amputees would go a long way to showing something supernatural might be afoot. But of course prayer fails, Christianity fails, its myths are not accurate when taken literally and have no scientific value.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

This is completely illogical strawman argument comming from someone who claims to understand science.

We wouldn't be able to cure diseases if we couldn't prove they were caused by viruses, and what virus caused the disease. We would still believe sickness was from Satan if we couldn't prove otherwise.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

There is no such thing as "verifiable scientific law". They are not set in stone. Did you know that classical Newtonian mechanics, which is used in engineering and other sciences, is actually calculations which are approximate? The calculations are certainly good enough for use on this planet, but in fact, they are all approximations.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73


Why Anti-Theistic Theories don't belong in Public Education.

All of those "theories" aren't anti-theistic. They are scientific theories, with no intention of nullifying anyone's religious views. The observations are what they are.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Titen-Sxull

My point is I have the right to direct my child's mind in the areas of unproven science.

And because what one believes about science theory has absolutely no bering on one's quality of life we don't need to indoctrinate our children in unproven theory.

Many scientific theories have changed since I was a child. This is what science theory does. So why push science theory on young minds. It is no different then pushing religious theory. Except religious theory is kess likely to change.

I love science. I want our children to grow up imaging how things came to be. But teaching anything that can't be proven as fact is a form of mind control. Something the collegiate mind is much more prepared for.
edit on 17-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join