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: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80




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.


This is what I've been trying to explain all this time but this guy just doesnt get it.

I feel sorry for his daughter.




posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

My conclusion to this thread.

Scientists are one of the most indoctrinated and cultish of all groups in society.

I claim your theories are not facts, which must be stated in this way because the theories are presented as facts in childrens texts.

After agreeing with me that you can't prove anything you refuse to accept my position of non indoctrination into the unknown.

You would all make great pastors in the religion of pseudo-science. Your absolute understanding of what you claim you can't prove is remarkable.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Isurrender73

My conclusion to this thread.




In other words I am cutting and running



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Wait... scientists are indoctrinated?

And people that base their "facts" on a book written 2000 years ago are not?

Say what?




posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

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.
My point is, that we know these theories are not complete. They are not taught as the end all be all facts that you are making this out to be. Every day we figure out something new. That doesn't always necessarily negate what we thought yesterday though. It simply adds more understanding.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73



After agreeing with me that you can't prove anything


So he was a troll all this time.

He was advocating that science proves things and at the end it's us who agree with him that nothing is proven.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: Isurrender73



After agreeing with me that you can't prove anything


So he was a troll all this time.

He was advocating that science proves things and at the end it's us who agree with him that nothing is proven.


I am only replying because I misspoke. I think science has proven many things.

You are the ones claiming science hasn't proven anything.

I am done with this thread because no one refuted what I posted. Instead all of you felt the need to question my intelligence and assumed that I am ignorant. And you based your comments on your incorrect assumption of intellectual superiority.


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



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: Isurrender73



After agreeing with me that you can't prove anything


So he was a troll all this time.

He was advocating that science proves things and at the end it's us who agree with him that nothing is proven.


I am only replying because I misspoke. I think science has proven many things.

You are the ones claiming science hasn't proven anything.


You say that science has proven that "plants survive with photosynthesis". Science obviously helped us know about the process of photosynthesis. But how do you know it doesn't happen in another way?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

My first post refuted one of things you said, you ignored it.
Carbon dating isn't used to measure the age of the earth.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: Isurrender73



After agreeing with me that you can't prove anything


So he was a troll all this time.

He was advocating that science proves things and at the end it's us who agree with him that nothing is proven.


I am only replying because I misspoke. I think science has proven many things.

You are the ones claiming science hasn't proven anything.

I am done with this thread because no one refuted what I posted. Instead all of you felt the need to question my intelligence and assumed that I am ignorant. And you based your comments on your incorrect assumption of intellectual superiority.

good. Then i fully expect to never see you make a science bashing thread ever again. Thank you.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Why do you think that children should be presented the idea that the world was created from the corpse of Ymir, as a "plausible theory"?

Do you not understand the difference between science and religion, at all?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
I would say any thread that references "the Institute for creation science"... "Answers in Genesis"... Or anything from Ken Ham and his group of jokers gets an automatic Fail...

That pretty much answers this thread and any other like it




posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
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?



You came up with a poorly reasoned HYPOTHESIS, which you then collected inappropriate EVIDENCE for, and tried to manipulate the DATA into an unobserved and disprovable CONCLUSION.

Then you DEFLECT so that you don't have to RESPOND.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Face palm,here we go again..Hey OP when is your next science bashing thread going to be next month,or two?.Like a broken effing record...



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: danielsil18
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".


Thanks for posting this. This is absolutely true; and an extremely common misconception within individuals whom are both somewhat scientifically knowledgeable, and totally scientifically illiterate.

Science NEVER states that a specific conclusion is the truth, 100% accurate, or totally proven without any form of doubt. In fact, the entire Scientific method relies on their conclusions being falsifiable. If something cannot be proven incorrect, it is not science.

Science is simply our best attempt at explaining naturally occurring phenomena around us. It NEVER states that "this is the way this thing is, and there is no possibility that we can be wrong".

OP... please educate yourself...



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
I want the ability to shape my childs mind.


You have that.



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


Absolutely true and no one 's stopping you.



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


Oh, dear... You can always home-school your child. I learned all about science in school and my parents taught me about creation... And until I was about 30 years old, I believed creation. So, just because the school is teaching something doesn't mean that your your child will believe it. They will usually believe their parents over their teachers.

Until, of course, they get old enough to realize how bizarre some of the stuff parents say is...



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Isurrender73

My conclusion to this thread.

Scientists are one of the most indoctrinated and cultish of all groups in society.

I claim your theories are not facts, which must be stated in this way because the theories are presented as facts in childrens texts.

After agreeing with me that you can't prove anything you refuse to accept my position of non indoctrination into the unknown.

You would all make great pastors in the religion of pseudo-science. Your absolute understanding of what you claim you can't prove is remarkable.


Really? I think you're the only one here who's supporting a cult - the cult of ignorance.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

I realize this thread became a troll thread but that wasn't my original intention.

I was merely pointing out hypocrisy.

No one can prove origins, evolution from cell to man, age of the universe and many other pieces of science that conflict with creationism.

Everyone must realize that for the theologian God has been proven, even though I can't make someone believe. To many scientists natural origins are the only logical explanation, but you can't make someone else believe.

It doesn't matter what label you give something, if you try to force someone to believe something before it is proven, this is mind control.

With this being such a heavily debated subject it seems to the only way to satisfy the separation of church and state and to keep our children from pointless debates is to remove these sciences from public school.

99% of science has nothing to do with origins or creation and therefore can't be considered a conflict between church and state. Moving this 1% of science to advanced education won't harm anyone, but will eliminate any superiority complex in our public school system based in one's belief in what is unproven.

The non religious dont want the religious condemning them to hell based on a belief. The religious don't want to be considered ignorant because they see the flaws in science theory as being only filled by God.

If a scientists fully understands the religious perspective and a theologian fully understands the scientific perspective, yet both disagree, niether is ignorant for disagreeing.

The non religious should not be condemned at school nor should the religious be called ignorant.

This is a call to end hypocrisy on both sides, and free our childrens minds so they can focus on more important things, like how to make friends, how to get a job and work ethic.

Those with a love for science will pursue the more complex theories in college, and those who don't obviously have no desire to become a scientist.

Sorry for not making this point more clear in the OP, and for allowing myself to get sucked into a pointless debate.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

The issue here is that teaching impressionable minds that "God did it" is the solution to everything so we should stop looking is not actually educating anyone.

Science really has little to do with religion, and does not preclude the existence of God in any way...

creation in Genesis has nothing to do with science either... its a story written by men who didn't understand what we do now because of science




posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
It doesn't matter what label you give something, if you try to force someone to believe something before it is proven, this is mind control.


So, since creation isn't proven, you plan on using mind control on your child.

Kudos to you for admitting it at least.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join