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: 11
8
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: XanderGray

He abandoned the topic several days ago, unfortunately




posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 02:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: TzarChasm

1. You are entitled to believe that evolution is theism neutral, but you will not find even one creationist who agrees with you. This is about separation of church and state and protecting the civil liberties of all in public schools.

2. Creationist should not have to change their beliefs nor should their children be confused by opposing views that have no scientific method available for study.

3. Evolution is a changing science that many theologians don't agree with.

4. Why does it need to be in public schools? Do my civil liberties matter? Are creationist values less important than yours? Does my request to remove a very small part of science from public education harm anyone?

5. And I don't agree with religion taught in public schools. Not even Greek Mythology. Those classes are better suited for the collegiate mind studying philosophy or theology.


6. This is not about being right/wrong. This is about respecting religious views. Failure to acknowledge that God could have intervened is an opinion. Evolution can not disprove intervention from God.

Therefore to the creationist evolution is anti-theistic and should be removed based on the separation of church and state.



There are a great number of things in this post that are inaccurate. The addition of numbers to the quoted text are so that I can address each single one without confusion.

1. The rejection of creationists, who do not adhere the scientific method, does not make a valid argument for exclusion of a whole subject that most people agree is important for children to learn.

2. Nobody is asking you to change your views. You can be as ignorant as you wish or as enlightened as you wish. Your children will be necessarily confused by the application of "creationism" ideas to scientific thought because creationism is not science. The question for them is why you might be trying to inject dogma into rational thinking.

3. Theology is a study of God and religion. I would not expect people who are not scientists to agree with scientists. Studying god and studying the world around you are dissimilar. Science does not say that God does not exist, but your views seem to imply that science does not exist. Dogma.

4. This is a confusing question and reveals a deep flaw in your whole premise. Your values are not less important than any other. Values are subjective. Science is not. Science depends on information and data. From what I have been reading here you don't want a small part of science left out. You want anything that might challenge your dogma removed from teaching. Your civil liberties allow you to teach your daughter whatever you want. The also protect her should she wish to express opinions which are contrary to what her teachers might say. Civil liberty does not extend to deny others children of a legitimate education in the core subjects of modern thought.

5. Mythology is actually very important in subjects like history, sociology, political science, and even economics. Should we deny all education until kids reach college? If you believe that is the case then take the initiative and home school.

6. Opinions are your right. Science, including the idea of evolution, cannot disprove God. God cannot be disproved. You're complaining about some imagined slight to your dogma that doesn't exist.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 02:20 AM
link   
I agree, I think that the devil is at work here and this is how I like to deal with the devil:




posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

OK, then answer the question I've posed to you and the rest of the flock in everyone if these debate threads you've clearly lost...
WHY, do you continue posting these threads asking questions you have already come to a foregone conclusion too?
You don't like the answers, you run away instead of admitting you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and then start another thread a few days later with a slightly altered title but the same stupid content.
Who are you trying to convince you are right?
You're not going to change our minds.
You are literally preaching to the choir, and accomplishing nothing.
I seriously have no idea why you are even allowed to do this.
It makes zero sense.
Explain this to me, please.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorBloodworth
Crickets...
About what I expected.
All right then, let me suggest some new thread topics for you:
Creationism: why we're right and everyone else is wrong.
Dinosaurs: God was just screwing with you.
Education: Tool of Satan or athiest plot to pervert our children?

That should keep you going for awhile...I know they're not very creative, but neither are you guys...



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Wow just so very very wrong in so many ways. Not mentioning god is not anti-theistic because not saying you support something is not the same as being against it. But then this seems to be a sort of paranoid mindset I see in a lot of religious movements "If you are not with us, then you must be against us!" No not really, I just don't care about what you believe in.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorBloodworth

I think you bring up a valid point about the same question being presented different ways. Perhaps when we see this discussed again we should alert for a mod to close the thread and have it discussed in the existing one. There are some topics here that keep going through the revolving door and coming right back out in a new thread with no real change to the premise.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe
Maybe alerting a MOD is just another form of restriction of free speech...?



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: metamagic

The thing is, that is exactly what they think.
And even though I asked for an explanation of why they keep doing these threads, I know the answer...
They will say they aren't trying to force their beliefs on anyone but that is the biggest lie in a veritable host of disengenuity...evangelistic Christianity's main goal is to convert all non believers.
Their misrepresentation of scriptures calls for this.
They are no different than radical Islam, except they haven't started blowing things up to get their way...yet.
But I have zero doubt that given the chance, they would be burning heretics alive at stake.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

15h.) Spamming: You will not Post identical content, or snippets of identical content, to multiple threads in the discussion forums. You will also not create more than one thread for your topic, or create multiple "slightly different" threads for a single topic.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe


I think you bring up a valid point about the same question being presented different ways. Perhaps when we see this discussed again we should alert for a mod to close the thread and have it discussed in the existing one.

I've tried that several times over the years. It never works. The staff only take action when two threads on the same topic are posted more or less simultaneously.

If you think about it from a business point of view, you can see why the site owners wouldn't want to restrict thread creation like that. This web site isn't really for getting at the truth of anything, it's a business. No harm in that, but it's surprising how few of the members realize it.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Sure.
But there have been three of these threads in last week.
All the same topic, more or less, all the same arguments.
Creationism or its lack thereof in public schools.
How many times dies this need to be discussed?
It's stupid, and it sure doesn't add anything to this forum.
I even got slapped in the first one I commented on because I disagreed with using the place as an evangelical soapbox.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist


No, Ghost and I are citing proven facts. It is not a scientific theory that light has a certain speed, that red shift occurs, that carbon isotopes have a given half-life, or that seismic and tectonic events invert or mix up geological strata.

I repeat: these are FACTS.

The theories explain them, but the facts are there to start with. Sadly, they are in conflict with the claims made in a certain book. So much the worse for the book. Truth will out in the end.


All of your facts don't refute the OP. The universe doesn't exist in a vacuum. Red shift happens but how it can be used in measurements and Hubbles constant is debated by real PHD scientists, who are not creationist.

Without certainty of the available carbon it doesn't matter what the half life of carbon is. If carbon was 100 times more abundant a million years ago all dates are wrong. Dates prior to a known time are at least partially invalid.

Plate tectonics and other known variations to the geological columns still doesn't tell me how much carbon was in the atmosphere at any point within the columns. The Ice Core samples are our best guess but they currently only go back 800,000 years.

In the OP I said the foundation of dating and distance is flawed. Nothing anyone has presented shows that the science is not flawed.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

What does that have to do with me?

If you want to say something to the OP then please kindly post as such. I am simply stating that (in my opinion) there has been quite a bit of overly sensitive posters here on ATS which call for banning almost everything that seems to possibly, perhaps, potentially make someone upset.

If this persists, what will result (possibly already started) is a 'brain drain' due to overt censorship and resulting boredom of those who come here for fun. Yes ATS is a business and for that business to perpetuate, censorship should be moderate at best. If this place gets any more politically correct, there will be nothing more to ATS than a bunch of people patting each other on the back and giving S&F to each other for having the same opinions.


edit on 24-10-2015 by notmyrealname because: tense



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist


No, Ghost and I are citing proven facts. It is not a scientific theory that light has a certain speed, that red shift occurs, that carbon isotopes have a given half-life, or that seismic and tectonic events invert or mix up geological strata.

I repeat: these are FACTS.

The theories explain them, but the facts are there to start with. Sadly, they are in conflict with the claims made in a certain book. So much the worse for the book. Truth will out in the end.



All of your facts don't refute the OP. The universe doesn't exist in a vacuum. Red shift happens but how it can be used in measurements and Hubbles constant is debated by real PHD scientists, who are not creationist.

Without certainty of the available carbon it doesn't matter what the half life of carbon is. If carbon was 100 times more abundant a million years ago all dates are wrong. Dates prior to a known time are at least partially invalid.

Plate tectonics and other known variations to the geological columns still doesn't tell me how much carbon was in the atmosphere at any point within the columns. The Ice Core samples are our best guess but they currently only go back 800,000 years.

In the OP I said the foundation of dating and distance is flawed. Nothing anyone has presented shows that the science is not flawed.


Nobody said that science was not without flaws; the thing is that science seeks to find it's flaws and revise how it looks at things and creationism is stuck holding to it's opinions without attempt to justify them. Simple really.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   
If we were to teach creationism in schools we would have to include all religions and the myths behind them. I for one would prefer my children to learn the science that is taught and accepted around the world.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

The entire premise of this thread is simple.

Children's minds are best suited for applied sciences. Collegiate minds are best suited for theoretical sciences.

Although I might not have 100 scientific terms memorized nor do I always use them correctly, I understand the concepts.

Some of the things I argue against I admit I am likely wrong. But I am not just standing up for myself, I am standing up for everyone.

Many creationist read these threads and there is no reason for them to change their beliefs.

Scientific theory is flawed, and no one should be made to feel inferior because they have a different opinion on something that has foundational flaws. Nor should anyone feel superior because of what they believe.

The reality Evolution/Creationism and the age of anything is practically meaningless when it comes to humanity or anything that is important to the survival of our species.

These are the reasons I feel we don't need to teach theoretical science in grade school.

There is no reason for a child of a theist to be put through such a class. Unless the non theist wants us discussing God and Intelligent Design. No child should feel superior or inferior for what they believe when it comes to theoretical sciences.

Theists should be happy that some pursue the scientific explanation for everything. Because they are doing what they love.

Scientists should be happy that some pursue theism as an explanation for everything. Because they are doing what they Love.

Someday science might find the magic formula for everything, or create an experiment that proves single cell to multi cell. And if/when they do we should all rejoice.

Someday a theist might prove to the world that all the scriptures teach the same message of Love and Peace. And if/when they do we should all rejoice.


edit on 24-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73
Do theists question scripture and adjust their thinking to knew ideas or reject them when they don't fit what the scriptures say?
Ive never seen it.
The Catholics try to shoehorn new data to fit their doctrine, but that is just a recent development. Mostly because no one is interested in taking their # anymore, and its the only way to stay relevant.
Also because I believe they are more like the world's largest criminal organisation rather than a religion, but that's a whole other bag of dicks.
So that's the difference.
Science adapts and adjusts to new data as it becomes available and actively searches for new answers.
Religion does not.
Religion already think they have the answers.
That's arrogance plain and simple.
To say you are theist in search of the truth is disingenuous, at best.
Your scriptures give you the truth.
If your still looking, then your not doing your religion of choice with integrity.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
All of your facts don't refute the OP.


Yes, they do. It's just that you're not willing to accept that many (if not all) of your claims are based off of misunderstandings, false definitions, or your infinite rejection to the fact that Science doesn't claim to be absolute.


originally posted by: Isurrender73
The universe doesn't exist in a vacuum. Red shift happens but how it can be used in measurements and Hubbles constant is debated by real PHD scientists, who are not creationist.


Space is a vacuum.

Again, Science does not make unfalsifiable claims. At any time we can discover new evidence that forces us to alter our definition of a particular definition to a naturally occurring phenomena. The thing you're not really understanding is that if red-shift does have an effect on the speed of light, it's not going to change it so much as to reduce the possible age of the universe by a massive amount. It may change a little, maybe even a billion years (which would be quite a big change), but it wouldn't even remotely validate a 6000 year old universe (if that's where you're trying to go with this)


originally posted by: Isurrender73
Without certainty of the available carbon it doesn't matter what the half life of carbon is. If carbon was 100 times more abundant a million years ago all dates are wrong. Dates prior to a known time are at least partially invalid.


We actually do have a very stable track record on carbon deposits from various areas. One of our best ways of determining that is through Ice Core Data. In which we can see up to 800,000 years. So with that alone we have a pretty clear depiction with the Radiocarbon Dating method which goes to a limit of 50,000 years.

Not only that, but when a dating method like that is used, they don't say "this thing is 43,145 years old!". They say "this thing is between 42,500-43,500 years old." Which is still pretty darn accurate. (remember, accuracy deviates further the older the object being dated). Once again, there is no absolutes in science.


originally posted by: Isurrender73
Plate tectonics and other known variations to the geological columns still doesn't tell me how much carbon was in the atmosphere at any point within the columns. The Ice Core samples are our best guess but they currently only go back 800,000 years.


Oh, I guess you already knew the 800,00 years Ice cores. Nice work


But you are relating Plate tectonics with Carbon, which doesn't make any sense. Also, you seem to be relating 800,000 years and up with Carbon dating, which is really not correct (especially because I already told you it only goes to 50,000 years in previous posts)


originally posted by: Isurrender73
In the OP I said the foundation of dating and distance is flawed. Nothing anyone has presented shows that the science is not flawed.


That's because everyone here already knows that Science doesn't claim anything is absolute. Not sure how many times we need to say that.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 02:58 AM
link   
/a reply to: Deaf Alien
This is the point I was making that even the board and mods seem to ignore.
But only with these Creationist vs. Science threads.
Almost like there was an agenda, or so it would seem...dun-dun-duhhhh!
But, this is a conspiracy sight, so I guess that's the point, lol...




top topics



 
8
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join