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: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73




There is nothing ignorant about this stance.


It is a very ignorant stance, I understand that you wont see it because you have huge cognitive biases.




posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: danielsil18
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


I understand that many things are called scientific theory, that should be called hypothesis. The science community is guilty of destroying the meaning of the word theory not me.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

If you say the earth is 4 billion years old, the galaxy is 13 billion light years across, that Abiogenesis occurred by natural causes, that man evolved from single cell life and our most recent ancestors were apes this telling children WHAT to think.

Brainwashed based on unproven science into the cult of pseudo-science.
edit on 17-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: Isurrender73




There is nothing ignorant about this stance.


It is a very ignorant stance, I understand that you wont see it because you have huge cognitive biases.


The only ignorance comes from the man who claims that a theory is a fact and ridicules anyone who doesn't agree.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73



Diseases are caused by viruses and bacteria not Satan.


Wrong. Germ Theory of Disease doesnt prove anything. My biggest curiosity is why in the world you would add "and not Satan".



The lungs reansfer air to the blood stream.


Wrong. You are confusing science with observation in here. You could have said that science proved we have a heart, but that's wrong because science didn't prove that. We know that from observation, same as oxygen going to our blood.

Plants using photosynthesis is also an observation. Chemical reactions are also observations, not proven by science. Earth being round is the same.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: danielsil18
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


I understand that many things are called scientific theory, that should be called hypothesis. The science community is guilty of destroying the meaning of the word theory not me.


What's the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: Isurrender73




There is nothing ignorant about this stance.


It is a very ignorant stance, I understand that you wont see it because you have huge cognitive biases.


The only ignorance comes from the man who claims that a theory is a fact and ridicules anyone who doesn't agree.


Who said a theory is a fact?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Am I the only who IQ dropped by 50 points reading the dribble in the OP?....



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: Isurrender73



Diseases are caused by viruses and bacteria not Satan.


Wrong. Germ Theory of Disease doesnt prove anything. My biggest curiosity is why in the world you would add "and not Satan".



The lungs reansfer air to the blood stream.


Wrong. You are confusing science with observation in here. You could have said that science proved we have a heart, but that's wrong because science didn't prove that. We know that from observation, same as oxygen going to our blood.

Plants using photosynthesis is also an observation. Chemical reactions are also observations, not proven by science. Earth being round is the same.




My debate with you is over since you don't even understand this.

The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by MAKING OBSERVATIONS and doing experiments.
edit on 17-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
Am I the only who IQ dropped by 50 points reading the dribble in the OP?....


Is that because you don't understand what you are reading?

What did I do but show where science theory breaks down and can't be assumed to be accurate?

Are you smarter for believing in things that can't be proven? I can tell you all about God.
edit on 17-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

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.




posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73


I love science..


And Science wants to get a restraining order on you.....



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

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.


Something being a theory does not make it associated with a church.



originally posted by: Isurrender73
I understand that many things are called scientific theory, that should be called hypothesis. The science community is guilty of destroying the meaning of the word theory not me.


You need to look up the definition of theory and hypothesis. The fact that you do not know the meaning does not mean science ruined it.



originally posted by: Isurrender73
If you say the earth is 4 billion years old, the galaxy is 13 billion light years across, that Abiogenesis occurred by natural causes, that man evolved from single cell life and our most recent ancestors were apes this telling children WHAT to think.

Brainwashed based on unproven science into the cult of pseudo-science.


Those are theories, not facts. A theory is something based on a hypothesis which is tested with available tools. Science is using tools to test a hypothesis which can then lead to a theory. Theory is NOT fact and nobody is saying it is except for you. Religion dictates facts while science tests ideas. So it's really just the opposite of what you are saying.



originally posted by: Isurrender73
The only ignorance comes from the man who claims that a theory is a fact and ridicules anyone who doesn't agree.


I really hope you realize that you are the ONLY one here saying theory is fact and you seem to be ridiculing those that don't agree... like calling people brainwashed. No scientist will tell you that theory is fact. So, are you the only ignorant one here or are you going to maybe rethink that statement?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: crazyewok
Am I the only who IQ dropped by 50 points reading the dribble in the OP?....


Is that because you don't understand what you are reading?

What did I do but show where science theory breaks down and can't be assumed to be accurate?

Are you smarter for believing in things that can't be proven? I can tell you all about God.


I am a actual scientist and your fundamental knowledge is so full of errors I cant even begun to address them.
You would need a trained teacher for that.

And I am christian to for that matter. But I dont subscribe to the 6000 year old universe bull#.
edit on 17-10-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

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

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



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Kinda funny that the bible actually doesn't subscribe to said 6k year old earth either...

The whole theory was thought up based on the genealogies in the bible... which are likely not so accurate anyways




posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: Isurrender73



Diseases are caused by viruses and bacteria not Satan.


Wrong. Germ Theory of Disease doesnt prove anything. My biggest curiosity is why in the world you would add "and not Satan".



The lungs reansfer air to the blood stream.


Wrong. You are confusing science with observation in here. You could have said that science proved we have a heart, but that's wrong because science didn't prove that. We know that from observation, same as oxygen going to our blood.

Plants using photosynthesis is also an observation. Chemical reactions are also observations, not proven by science. Earth being round is the same.




My debate with you is over since you don't even understand this.

The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by MAKING OBSERVATIONS and doing experiments.


What an ignorant person you are. It's not surprising that you didn't get what I posted.

Ill put just one example.

We know about photosynthesis in plants by observation, but it's not proven by anything. It's not proven because for all we know something else could be causing photosynthesis. Maybe there is another source of energy, maybe other types of reactions cause photosynthesis. But science doesn't prove anything with 100% certainty.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
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.



Viruses and bacteria are not the only things that cause disease. And not all viruses and bacteria cause disease. Your child would never learn how to tell the difference because you would tell him/her that "viruses and bacteria cause disease". That leaves out the opportunity to investigate whether a) it is true and b) whether there are other viruses and bacteria or other factors which cause the same disease.

The Earth is not round. It is an oblate spheroid. Now if we were in the time when everyone thought the Earth was flat, your child would never question that fact.

Lungs transfer oxygen to the bloodstream - but what is the mechanism? In order you discover that it is the alveoli and capillaries that transfer oxygen into the bloodstream, your child would a) understand that lungs to bloodstream was a THEORY; and b) would have the intellectual curiosity to investigate that THEORY. It was only after further research into the THEORY that it was discovered that it was the alveoli and capillaries. But your child accepts everything as PROVEN FACT, because that's what you told him/her.

There are different types of bleaches - sodium hypochlorite and calcium hypochlorite being the most prevalent. But there are also peroxide bleaches. Which one forms chloramine, the toxic gas? Your child would never know because basic chemistry also involves some THEORIES. So let's skip chemistry!

You just don't get it.


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



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

If your tool requires the speed of light to be a constant, which has been disproven by observable science - You might as well give a carpenter a rubber hose to to use as a hammer.

I have shown the root problem of what science calls theories. We don't know enough about the speed of light to make any model that suggests it has been constant since the beginning. Or do you think it's wise to use the speed of light as a constant for drawing conclusions?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Was talking about about your research on multiverse and quantum physics.

Nothing is proven without a doubt, we have had paradigm shifts. Science doesn't aim to prove, it aims to explain and those explanations change.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok




new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join