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: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

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.

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.

Realize that I was taught as a child Darwinian evolution from ape to man as the only possibility but current science disagrees.The genome project has ruled that leap out and now are looking for a common ancestor. I was lied to and made to believe inaccurate science as fact when I was a child.

If I didn't research myself I would still believe it is a fact. And if I didn't study the latest results from the genome project I wouldn't know that they have ruled out modern ape to man.

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

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?

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.

I think applied sciences are good for public education while theoretical science is more appropriate for the collegiate mind.

Just like the religious can send their children to a private school to learn creationism, if it that important to teach your children evolution send them to a private school.

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.


edit on 18-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

There you go!
Good post.
You hear about kids being chastised for not praying, but have yet to hear any instance of ANTI-THEISM being taught, as in kids being removed from class for disagreeing with consensus scientific opinion.
Getting an F?
Sure.
As you should.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

There is some classic creationist circular logic for you...
We don't believe what you are teaching therefore it is anti theist and as anti theist it doesn't belong in a school because of separation of church and state.
Desperation much?
You lost the argument to get creationism taught beside science, because its not science its religion...
Now your trying to say science is a theism, so it shouldn't be allowed either..
Moronic.
Look, your rights aren't being violated.
You can teach your spawn any made up retarded bull# you want at home and in church...fly at it.
But you don't get to push your crap p.o.v. on everyone else in a public school.
You never will.
And I thank the almighty flying spaghetti for that.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorBloodworth

In fact, you can even go on YouTube, and post all kinds of hilarious videos on how bananas were created by God because they fit in your hand perfectly..hell, you can even perform a simulated sexual act with said banana...ta-da proof!
I mean why let Kirk Cameron and those other fruitcakes have all the fun...



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorBloodworth

Circular Logic

A single cell has never been witnessed to become a multi cellular organism. Why do I have to believe it did? Because Evolution says it happened.

No organism has ever been witnessed to undergo a change that would classify a new genus. Why do I have to believe it did? Because Evolution says it happened.

No organism is witnessed to have non functioning organs that appear transitional. Why do I have to believe the transition occurred? Because Evolution says it did.

I believe DNA similarity suggests One creator. Why do I have to believe that DNA similarities prove Evolution? Because Evolution says it does.

Circular logic is very Evolutionary

I don't want creationism taught in schools I actually respect your civil liberties. And that wasn't my OP.


edit on 18-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Evolution doesn't say that.
The fact you never actually studied the theory of the process is doing you no favours.
And don't tell me they taught you in high school, because they give a rudimentary explanation at best.
Just because you've never observed it doesn't mean it's not happening.
What do you call an egg?
It splits from a single cell into a multi celluar organism all of the time, or did you think storks brought babies?
They discover species that have varied from others in isolation all of the time.
You will never observe because its not instaneous, it takes place over time.
You want transitionary organs?
Try the human appendix.
It used to be a stomach, but our evolution took us in a different direction.
But I'll put that all to the side and ask you this:
When was the last time you seen god create...well, anything?



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

No, you want science not to be taught in schools.
Which is in fact worse.
I could care less if they taught creationism, as long as it wasn't til high school, was an elective class, and was taught as beliefs, not fact, and it is paid for by the students parents, not my already abused taxes.

And DNA similarity does not prove a single creator.
It proves a single ancestor.
If and when we find life elsewhere, and all their DNA is similar to ours, I might then begin to believe in intelligent design.
Not a god mind you, but a designer, maybe.
edit on 18-10-2015 by VictorBloodworth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: VictorBloodworth
a reply to: Isurrender73

And DNA similarity does not prove a single creator.
It proves a single ancestor.


This is Circular Logic, this is a fact only because you say it is.

I think applied sciences belong in public schools. I believe theoretical science belongs in college.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorBloodworth

You guys would get a lot farther in this debate if you used actual facts in your arguments.
Darwinism has never said we evolved from apes.
It has always said from a common ancestor as the apes.
DNA proved that.
It has never said we were created from nothing.
It never even tried to explain where we came from.
origin of the species
Says right in the title...not origin if life.
It explains in theory how different species have come about do to environmental factors.
Nothing more nothing less.
Darwin was a Christian after all, and believed in God.
Your tired arguments are tired.
They were incorrect at Scopes monkey trial in 1925, and they are even dumber now, with all the new information available.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   
I can agree that ever-changing ideas and theories should not be taught in school as fact and truth, I don't however find them anti-theistic. I personally believe God to be a master of Science, and that science could explain how the universe came about.

I don't think it's a teachers right to teach kids unproven parts of science, though. If what they teach can be observed, replicated, and provide the same results over and over, it's fact, it's true. Beyond that, I don't think kids should be taught anything that can end in a question mark.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73
No, it is not.
I don't say it is.
100 years or so of study says it is indicative of a single beginning ancestor, not a creator.
There isn't enough data, i.e., off earth examples to compare it to, to say otherwise, but until such examples are found, its the best mist logical chain of events acquired from said years of investigation.
Simple as that.
You cherry picking quotes and using them out of context to prove your non existent point doesn't change that.
Just makes you look stupid/er.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

That would be true if teachers actually taught unproven theory's as fact, but they don't.
That is the definition of theory.
An unproven hypothesis based on observed findings and educated guesses.
Once it is proven, it is no longer a theory, but fact.
Facts don't ever change.
Theories do, as new facts are found.

Your idea to not teach anything with a question mark would end history as well, would it not?
How about art?
As an artist, the whole thing is based on emotion and questioning.
The difference in question maks in science is that they are ongoing questions with an active attempt at being answered.
That's how it's taught.
Unless the teacher is incompetent, which now a days can't be ruled out.
edit on 18-10-2015 by VictorBloodworth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   
If you can show one instance where a scientific idea was held up as fact, then it changed, I'd like to hear it.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

You are entitled to believe that evolution is theism neutral, but you will not find even one creationist who agrees with you.

Why isolate evolution? This conflict between scripture and modern knowledge is much more expansive.

Surely, for instance, we should also throw out plant science. Kids don’t need to learn about that when it conflicts with scripture that describes plant life thriving in sub-freezing temperatures with zero sunshine. We should toss out the basic comsmology they learn in school. Conflicts with Genesis which states all stars are made after Earth. Not “theism neutral”.

There wouldn't be much left to teach kids outside of reading and writing if everything contrary to the Bible was omitted from the curriculum.


Creationist should not have to change their beliefs

Attending school doesn’t prevent them from attending church, does it?..


Evolution can not disprove intervention from God.

The aim of science isn't to disprove religion, it's to best explain the natural World. It’s unfortunate for you that your scripture makes claims about the natural World that doesn’t match up with scienfitic findings.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

No organism has ever been witnessed to undergo a change that would classify a new genus. Why do I have to believe it did? Because Evolution says it happened.

You never witnessed God, Jesus, Creation, Biblical events... Why do you believe it? Because The Bible says it happened.

Double standard, much.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73


Do you teach them anything? Do you ever punish them for anything? Or is it complete anarchy and social disorder without rules?

Teaching is not indoctrination. And what does this discussion have to do with punishment?


Second I'm not trying to teach anyone else's children anything. I am trying to get scientific hypothesis that contradicts God as creator out of public schools.

You do not want to teach, you want to prevent them from learning. That is much worse.


Send your child to a private school if you don't like it. There is no reason to teach what cannot be observed using scientific method to children in a public school.

You have already been corrected regarding your ignorant assumptions about science. My concern is not with children of my own but with the baleful influence of Ignorance and superstition, which you so want to propagate that you want to condition your children (and other people's) like lab rats.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73


1. Is the speed of Light Constant?

In vacuo? Yes.


2. If it is not Constant is it reliable for measuring?

Measuring what? Cosmic distances? Yes.


3. Is Hubbles assumed Red Shift considered fact by all scientific models?

Models of what? Cosmology? Yes.


4. Can you guarantee the amount of available Carbon was a constant for carbon dating accuracy?

Within the timeframe for which radiocarbon dating is used, it is sufficient, and this is often verifiable by other dating methods.


5. Can you explain why geological columns don't match up globally?

Tectonics.


6. Can you provide me an experiment that shows single cell to multi cell evolution that all evolutionary science agrees is proof of evolution(which is not the case in the yeast experiment)?

No.


7. Can you provide me with an experiment that definitively proves evolution occurrs which crosses genus?

No.

These threadbare objections to evolutionary theory impress only those who do not understand the theory.


edit on 19/10/15 by Astyanax because: of economy.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 04:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Isurrender73

If anyone wants to actually debate the science in the OP and stop attacking my intelligence.

1. Is the speed of Light Constant?
2. If it is not Constant is it reliable for measuring?
3. Is Hubbles assumed Red Shift considered fact by all scientific models?
4. Can you guarantee the amount of available Carbon was a constant for carbon dating accuracy?
5. Can you explain why geological columns don't match up globally?
6. Can you provide me an experiment that shows single cell to multi cell evolution that all evolutionary science agrees is proof of evolution(which is not the case in the yeast experiment)?
7. Can you provide me with an experiment that definitively proves evolution occurrs which crosses genus?



1. Is the speed of Light Constant?
No. Light moves slower when passing through objects (e.g. Glass or water). The speed of light in a vacuum, however, is constant.

2. If it is not Constant is it reliable for measuring?
Yes, Not only can we tell how fast light moves in a vacuum, but we can also tell how fast light moves through other objects. Therefore it's still a usable form of measurement; both for distance, and time.

3. Is Hubbles assumed Red Shift considered fact by all scientific models?
No. Nothing in science is considered Fact. There are only most plausible explanations, subject to change upon further information.

4. Can you guarantee the amount of available Carbon was a constant for carbon dating accuracy?
No. Carbon is distributed throughout the atmosphere, the biosphere, and the oceans; these are referred to collectively as the carbon exchange reservoir. Each Carbon Exchange Reservoir retains a different amount of carbon; Oceans holding the most. Oceanic organisms will have more carbon than land based organisms for this reason.

5. Can you explain why geological columns don't match up globally?
Folds account for out-of-order strata with sequences such as A-B-C-B-A. Faults create sequences such as B-C-A-B-C. The evidence is so overwhelming that these conclusions should be obvious. In many cases, the folds and faults can easily be seen in cross-sections of the strata. In other cases, further geological mapping verifies the presence of the fold or fault. Features such as ripple marks and mud cracks show that the strata were originally horizontal.

The geologic column is never out of order in areas that have not been greatly disturbed.

6. Can you provide me an experiment that shows single cell to multi cell evolution that all evolutionary science agrees is proof of evolution(which is not the case in the yeast experiment)?
There is no difference between the evolutionary process of the divergence between single celled organisms to multi celled organisms, or the divergence between species to species. There is only a larger timescale.

7. Can you provide me with an experiment that definitively proves evolution occurs which crosses genus?
There is no difference between the evolutionary process of the divergence between genus to genus, or the divergence between species to species. There is only a larger timescale.

Now, to further prevent massive wall of texts, how about you focus on one single issue at a time? Each one of these I could write a book about answer your questions and/or correcting your misunderstandings. Let's make it simpler on all of us and stick with one issue at a time.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: VictorBloodworth
a reply to: Isurrender73

And DNA similarity does not prove a single creator.
It proves a single ancestor.


This is Circular Logic, this is a fact only because you say it is.

I think applied sciences belong in public schools. I believe theoretical science belongs in college.



Right. We should stop teaching about gravity, and we should stop teaching that our planet orbits the sun, and we should stop teaching that galaxies are moving farther away from each other, and we should stop teaching about atoms and molecules, and we should stop teaching about plate tectonics, and we should stop teaching about oxygen combustion, and we should shutdown poker and football because Game Theory is involved.

You know, because all of those things are scientific theories....



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   

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


No, however if you believed it...




top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join