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: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73




I love science.


Biggest lie I've seen.

Your comments show the opposite by a distance.




posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

If you love science you would know that theoreticians have played HUGE roles in it.



It is no different then pushing religious theory.


100% false.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73






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.


Everything changes - how would you select "provable" from "unprovable"?

Theory is the foundation of science. Whether the theory is correct or not is dependent on people who are able to apply critical thinking to a problem. By the time your child reaches college, he/she wouldn't understand the difference between fact and theory because you've subtracted out any theory you deemed to be incorrect.

One of the first things a scientist learns in the lab is that it's just as important to know what works as it is to know what doesn't work. You only learn this by exposure to both.




edit on 17-10-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
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????


I fully understand everything I have posted. And saying that these theories have flaws and pointing put the flaws should have been enough evidence for anyone else who understands the theories.

This is why I intentionally tried to stay away from creationist websites.
edit on 17-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Yippee! more science bashing. I love these posts.

I'm loving the copy and paste science lesson. Do you understand what you are posting? I don't know much but I can tell you that carbon is one of the most stable elements in existence, hence why it is used to date objects. Red shift is not the only way to calculate distance, there is trigonometry.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: Isurrender73

Yippee! more science bashing. I love these posts.

I'm loving the copy and paste science lesson. Do you understand what you are posting? I don't know much but I can tell you that carbon is one of the most stable elements in existence, hence why it is used to date objects. Red shift is not the only way to calculate distance, there is trigonometry.





Do you understand this?

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”

To use trigonometry to determine distances you must assume the speed of light is a constant. Many theories suggest the opposite. There is no conclusions only assumptions.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Simply ignore my posts about viruses because it doesn't fit your rhetoric.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   


teaching anything that can't be proven as fact is a form of mind control


You mean like religion, that you apparently want pushed on everyone?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: danielsil18

I do love science.

I have spent much time researching string theory, mutiverse theory, big bang theory and even holographic theory and quantum physics.

This is why it is so easy for me to conclude that we don't have enough facts to say anyone theory is worth teaching to our young children.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

I think you're missing a key difference between science and religion when you claim that teaching the two are comparable.

Science is a subject that teaches children HOW to think. Religious study teaches children WHAT to think. Big difference between allowing autonomous exploration of the world and dictating the truth. I'd prefer children have the ability to think and interact with a changing world than be mired in any kind of rigid ideology.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Where have you done this research?



I have spent much time researching string theory, mutiverse theory, big bang theory and even holographic theory and quantum physics.

How much of this is proven science btw?
You are over the place with your stance.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



teaching anything that can't be proven as fact is a form of mind control


You mean like religion, that you apparently want pushed on everyone?


I want the ability to shape my childs mind.

Because I love science and theology science can never cause me to loose faith. I believe that all religious scriptures can be allegorical and metaphorical so my theology is always adaptable to science.

If I want my child to imagine God created her that is my parental right.

If you want your child to believe they are evolved from the animal kingdom that is your right.

Since both are only theories neither should be taught in public education. Because they infringe on the separation of church and state.

This is a logical argument, not an emotional one for me.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73




Do you understand this?

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”


you forgot to add this:



The recalibrated clock won’t force archaeologists to abandon old measurements wholesale, says Bronk Ramsey, but it could help to narrow the window of key events in human history. “If you’re trying to look at archaeological sites at the order of 30,000 or 40,000 years ago, the ages may shift by only a few hundred years but that may be significant in putting them before or after changes in climate,” he says.

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



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Isurrender73

Where have you done this research?



I have spent much time researching string theory, mutiverse theory, big bang theory and even holographic theory and quantum physics.

How much of this is proven science btw?
You are over the place with your stance.


There is much proven in chemistry, biology, botany and basic physics.

Saying nothing is proven in science is more ignorant than assuming scientific theories are facts.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Actually this already happens a bit but I agree that there is plenty more bs that could be left out of schools or at the very least much should come with a disclaimer to the student that clearly states that they are mainly just theories.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73




Saying nothing is proven in science is more ignorant than assuming scientific theories are facts.


What has science proven?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick



at the very least much should come with a disclaimer to the student that clearly states that they are mainly just theories.


Like what theories?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: danielsil18

That was the only evidence I posted for not believing in the validity of global geological columns. That was simply scientists moving the bar.

I am old age creationist, that can accept the ages in the OT as allegorical. But before I choose the scientific bandwagon over faith I would like something more concrete.

Since science theory must be taken with at least some faith.

There is nothing ignorant about this stance.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73




Since both are only theories


How can someone say he loves science and then right after show that he doesnt even know what a scientific theory is?

Its like someone saying that he loves calculus and then doesnt even know what the chain rule is



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Proven Science

Diseases are caused by viruses and bacteria not Satan. The lungs transfer oxygen to the blood stream. Plants survive using photosynthesis. The mixing of bleach and ammonia creates a toxic gas.

The earth is round.

Many things have been proven by science.

Not all science is theoretical.


edit on 17-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join