Separation of Church and State. Why Anti-Theistic Theories don't belong in Public Education.

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.

One more time..
In fact, if we could just make it a form post, it would save a lot of time.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
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.

No. Science is science, there is nothing more than that. You want specific theories and studies to be out of schools because you perceive them as a threat to your particular beliefs, and your beliefs alone. As We have stated before, Virtually everything in Education is intrusive to your beliefs, so you might as well just home-school your kid

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: notmyrealname
Although I might not have 100 scientific terms memorized nor do I always use them correctly, I understand the concepts.

You have shown us time and time again that you know nothing of the concepts you're arguing about.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: notmyrealname
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.

You're standing up for everyone using misunderstandings as the basis to your argument? Isn't that a bit counterproductive. Not to mention standing up for something that doesn't exist in the first place?

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: notmyrealname
Many creationist read these threads and there is no reason for them to change their beliefs.

Actually, The reason many creationists DO change their beliefs after reading threads like these is because individuals like yourself come into an argument knowing little to nothing about the topic their arguing against, and your continued rejection of what really is obviously the accurate (even down to definitions) actually turns them away from your side. If you want proof of that you should watch this Debate.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: notmyrealname
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.

No, Scientific theory is not flawed, it just doesn't claim to be infallible. We keep telling you that to be scientific requires the hypothesis to be falsifiable. That certainly doesn't automatically negate flawed, or false, it just means that you can't claim something that is not possible to disprove, because something that is unable to be proved wrong is a dishonest claim to begin with.

No one here feels superior because we may know more about science than you, however, it does show inferiority when you make claims like "everyone on ATS is Arrogant, But I'm A Genius." (your literal words), and "I am the most open minded person to post in this thread" (Also your literal words), and then completely reject even the most basic and obvious corrections to your simplistic and common and overly-debunked claims.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: notmyrealname
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.

Science isn't about the survival of our species, it is about learning about our universe and things around it and within it that exist naturally. Which is the sole purpose of furthering our accuracy in the conclusions we've came to whilst describing the functionality of naturally occurring phenomena. It certainly isn't meaningless, as virtually any discovery could have a major impact on the progression of the Human Race anyway.

What is corrupting that progression, however, is the very loud individuals who want to suppress Science in the name of their beliefs, and their only argument stemming from ignorance and fear from the subject.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: notmyrealname
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.

It's a public school, they have criteria they need to meet. No one in public schools is belittled for their belief because the public schools take no sides with anyone. If you want your child to be taught in a catholic setting, put it in catholic school. if you want your child to be taught whatever the heck you think reality is, home-school it. It is illegal for a public school to belittle someone because of their beliefs. However, Catholic schools have a tendency of doing that all the time.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: notmyrealname
Scientists should be happy that some pursue theism as an explanation for everything. Because they are doing what they Love.

If a 'scientist' is pursuing Theism as an explanation for everything, then they are not a scientist. Science doesn't deal with supernatural explanations for things because supernatural explanations are unfalsifiable.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: notmyrealname
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.

We already have it, and I don't see you rejoicing. You just simply reject the new information, regardless of it's simplicity.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: notmyrealname
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.

They can't, because theism relies on faith to function, and faith is belief without any evidence.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
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.

Is that your professional opinion or your concept at work; I feel that children are much more adept at conceptualizing theory as the do not have the burden of 'knowledge' to hold them back.

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

Agreed.

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.

Nope, logic and reason are optional!

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.

Scientific theory never states that it is correct. The whole point of science is to challenge the commonly accepted theories/laws as knowledge is gained. Belief is never challenged and is the opposite of any logic fact or reason.

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.

All science is theoretical in nature.

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.

Sure so keep the children who have no choice in belief systems that they have no choice in because of your belief; that thought patter fails on such an epic proportion, I have lost my words....

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.

a reply to: Isurrender73

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

You're right.

When you make up your mind that faith should be valued higher than evidence then you should never ever pay mind to anything factual presented in threads that are contrary to your beliefs.

In fact, the most efficient solution for the believer is to not read any threads at all. Time better spent reading the Good Book, surely.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
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.

I'm not going to get into the misunderstanding with the word theory in science, it has been addressed sufficiently by others.

Science has found plenty of formulas that explain quite a bit, no magic needed.

Scientists HAVE created an experiment that shows single celled organisms can become multi cellular. It started with single cells, and eventually they began working together as one and even had multi-cellular offspring. Don't blame us because you are behind the times. Knowledge is power, it's not there to attack your religion or worldview. It's there because we learn things from it.

a reply to: Isurrender73

All of your facts don't refute the OP.

Yes they do.

The universe doesn't exist in a vacuum.

The universe is everything that exists. If you think otherwise you've been reading too many pop-sci articles on the internet. Or listening to preachers who've read too meany.

Red shift happens but how it can be used in measurements

The way it is used now. That is, the correct way.

Hubbles constant is debated by real PHD scientists, who are not creationist.

I should hope that every scientific concept is debated by 'real PHD scientists', as you call them. That is what science is all about.

You just don't get it, mate. Science is not like religion. Science doesn't believe in anything and doesn't ask you to believe in anything either. You can take it or leave it.

Scientific statements are always up for debate. Science is predicated on the understanding that no statement about reality can ever be regarded as 100 percent true.

Religion, unlike science, claims that some statements can be regarded as absolutely true. The justification for this is that the statements concerned were made by God, or some authorized representative of God such as a prophet or an 'only begotten son'. However unlikely, even absurd, the statement may be, it must nonetheless be accepted because it originates from the fount of all truth — as defined by that particular religion.

When you come in here and criticize science because it does not deal in the certainty that is offered by religion, you are in the same position as a savage railing at a flush toilet because he can't catch fish in the bowl.

a reply to: Isurrender73
**OTHERS PLEASE READ & REPLY**

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

Members of ATS, take the trouble to parse this statement correctly.

What this member is saying is that children's minds cannot (for reasons he does not explain) cope (in what way he does not say) with the laws and principles that explain the technology (applied science) they use every day.

Instead, he wants them to accept these laws and principles on faith, and use applied science as a 'black box'.

Imagine this in practice. Kids will learn by rote that F = ma, and that if they plug in the figure for this much force they can determine how fast something that heavy will accelerate, but they will not know why. They will know that you can use salt water to generate electricity if you connect some rods and wires together and stick them in the water, but they will not know why.

They will merely believe, and Lo! Their beliefs will be shown to be true. Wondrous indeed!

Meanwhile, they will be learning (in science class) that the world was created in seven days, that women are made from men's leftover ribs, and suchlike. Above all they will be learning how nothing happens without God (and that anything can happen with God, since with Him 'all things are possible'). They will be learning that science is bunk, because God can do anything He wants to.

Now:

Can any of you explain to me how children educated in this way will differ from mediaeval peasants in their worldview?

Can any of you explain why children educated in this way will ever need (or desire) to learn theoretical science at all?

Of course, the OP is welcome to attempt these questions as well.

*

The OP knows full well that the question kids ask most often is 'why?' Since Adam and Eve (as he would have it), every parent of every normal child knows what it is like to be driven mad by this question. The OP knows that if he can eradicate 'theoretical science' from school curricula, the hunger to know why the sky is blue, why things fall down instead of up, why rainbows exist, where babies come from, etc., will have only one answer: 'God made them like that. Isn't God wonderful?'

The OP may be an ignoramus when it comes to science, but when it comes to brainwashing and propaganda, he's a genius.

a reply to: VictorBloodworth

But only with these Creationist vs. Science threads. Almost like there was an agenda

More like the site owners don't police this subforum very diligently because they know it's a mudpit.

Just like Democrats vs. Republicans, it's the same circular arguments going round and round, being pushed along by the usual suspects on both sides. I suppose I'm one of them.

I've suggested many times that this forum be closed.

a reply to: Ghost147

No one here feels superior because we may know more about science than you

Speak for yourself, mate.

a reply to: Astyanax
That would seem like a reasonable assumption.
I'd like to see this forum closed as well.
It has never had much to do with conspiracy as it is a place to proselytise.
Unless you consider such nonsense statements that science is trying to destroy faith thru fake facts...but that is demonstrably false with a telescope..
Unless of course, telescopes are satanically forged instruments that are designed to perpetuate the lie, and to that I say,
"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....(breathe)...HA!

a reply to: Isurrender73

I said that was my immigration, but there is math on the link provided that suggests the expanding universe is answered simply by placing the earth in the center.

In an expanding universe EVERY POINT is the 'center'. That means that the expansion of the universe looks exactly the same from every point.

You can think of it with our Sun (Sol) in the center of the universe and the math comes out correctly for the expansion of the universe.

You can think of it with Betelgeuse in the center of the universe and the math comes out correctly for the expansion of the universe.

You can think of it with Sirius in the center of the universe and the math comes out correctly for the expansion of the universe.

You can think of it with ANY POINT WHATEVER in the center of the universe and the math comes out correctly for the expansion of the universe.

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: Ksihkehe
Maybe alerting a MOD is just another form of restriction of free speech...?

Sorry, the notification for responses doesn't work very well and I sometimes miss them.

Somebody may have already said it but there is no freedom of speech here. It's a private site with private rules.

That being said... I don't want to suppress the right to say whatever you want. I just am tired, probably like others, of seeing the same thing coming up for discussion with a new argument. If somebody were to come up with a legitimate way of arguing why evolution should not be part of school curriculum I would be all for it being a completely new thread. I'm not going to hold my breath. Civil liberty, freedom of religion, and science denial, have all been played out.

Everybody is free to believe what they want. My beliefs can easily incorporate any science... even if my belief just offers up a 'maybe' as a response. The idea that we should not teach science is just tired and already done. If anything, and I would fully support it, we should be pushing for science class to include the disclaimer that 'this is what we believe now based on the information we have' and it should always be an underlying theme.

There are many things, and I can agree with creationists on this, that I was taught as fact without any disclaimer. It was only through my own pursuit of scientific knowledge that I learned that it's ALL just based on our current understanding. If you realize that everything is based on the best information we have -right now- then you can maintain your belief in whatever you want. The problem is creationists have rejected science to the point of not accepting that their belief can coexist with it. Until time travel is possible and we can walk through the ages and witness it then creationists still have that deniability. You can keep your belief. You can still say 'we don't know for sure'. Some great scientific minds believed in God.

I can in some ways see how anyone, religious or not, would be annoyed that sometimes science is presented as fact. Absolute fact that can't be challenged. Man-made global warming comes to mind. It seems like nobody wants to even hear about any alternative hypothesis. To me that is far more dangerous than evolution since evolutionists are more than willing to tell you that it is the best explanation that we have 'right now'. Global warming, man-made global warming, anthropogenic climate-change, or whatever else it might be called, is a true cult within science right now. It is to the point of excluding any research to the contrary and THAT, above all else in science, is dangerous.