UK Government effectively bans creationism in free schools

[QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

Did you know everything appeared out of nowhere, just because? That sounds almost the most ridiculous of all.

Ilovegames1992

Physics may be out of your reach, that's why you're saying "everything appeared out of nowhere" instead of researching on the expansion of the universe.

Thats rubbish what you just posted. There was no cause in the big bang. It all happened, just because. Don't need to know anything about physics to know that. The arrogance is unsurprising though, i expect even more so to be honest.

There have been a few good shows about this of late. Its not 'just because' at all but you have to be open to learning.

see if you can get the Wonders of the Universe by brian cox, this will help you a lot.

Now that I understand the specifics of this law, I have no problem with it. I thought it was preventing any school in the country from teaching the religous views of creationism. But it's not.

Though in the states, I dont beleive any public school can teach creationism in any setting.

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

[QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]

Physics may be out of your reach, that's why you're saying "everything appeared out of nowhere" instead of researching on the expansion of the universe.

tenaka2

Thats rubbish what you just posted. There was no cause in the big bang. It all happened, just because. Don't need to know anything about physics to know that. The arrogance is unsurprising though, i expect even more so to be honest.

There have been a few good shows about this of late. Its not 'just because' at all but you have to be open to learning.

see if you can get the Wonders of the Universe by brian cox, this will help you a lot.

Of course it happened just because. There is no meaning behind it, it came out of nothing. It happened just because. That. Is. Poo.

Hahaha way to answer my question. Yes atheists always ask "who created the creator" and so i'm asking how did that compressed mass come about? What existed before that? If you cant answer that then my point stands that it just came out of nowhere, ridiculous, or it was created. Why can't a creator and the Big Bang coexist again?

Ilovegames1992

THe big bang and a creator can co-exist, no one says they cannot, there is zero proof of a creator but if some came up science would investigate.

However it would be unusual for a creator to create the universe to intentionally make it appear as to be without a creator. Can you see any reason for this?

Hahaha way to answer my question. Yes atheists always ask "who created the creator" and so i'm asking how did that compressed mass come about? What existed before that? If you cant answer that then my point stands that it just came out of nowhere, ridiculous, or it was created. Why can't a creator and the Big Bang coexist again?

Ilovegames1992

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

Hahaha way to answer my question. Yes atheists always ask "who created the creator" and so i'm asking how did that compressed mass come about? What existed before that? If you cant answer that then my point stands that it just came out of nowhere, ridiculous, or it was created. Why can't a creator and the Big Bang coexist again?

tenaka2

THe big bang and a creator can co-exist, no one says they cannot, there is zero proof of a creator but if some came up science would investigate.

However it would be unusual for a creator to create the universe to intentionally make it appear as to be without a creator. Can you see any reason for this?

Why does there have to be a reason? Don't you believe in the Big Bang which was just a random event? Why is the idea that something created that so implausible. And how can there be any empirical evidence to show that there was something that created the Big Bang. Wouldn't it be impossible to even know what happened before the forming of this universe?

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

Hahaha way to answer my question. Yes atheists always ask "who created the creator" and so i'm asking how did that compressed mass come about? What existed before that? If you cant answer that then my point stands that it just came out of nowhere, ridiculous, or it was created. Why can't a creator and the Big Bang coexist again?

tenaka2

THe big bang and a creator can co-exist, no one says they cannot, there is zero proof of a creator but if some came up science would investigate.

However it would be unusual for a creator to create the universe to intentionally make it appear as to be without a creator. Can you see any reason for this?

Why does there have to be a reason? Don't you believe in the Big Bang which was just a random event? Why is the idea that something created that so implausible. And how can there be any empirical evidence to show that there was something that created the Big Bang. Wouldn't it be impossible to even know what happened before the forming of this universe?

Ilovegames1992

Scientists have been able to see almost to the the beginning of the universe with the use of powerful technology, that being telescopes. If the universe is around 14billion years old then it will have taken the light billions of years to reach us; thus seeing billions of years into the past. It gives us an image of what the universe was like that long ago. It got to a point where we couldn't see any further because the universe was too dense until it started expanding.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

A compressed mass that came from where? Did it exist in nothing and expand did it? Did anyone create that compressed mass?

Ilovegames1992

A creator that came from where? Did it exist in nothing and create everything from nothing? Did anyone create it?

Hahaha way to answer my question. Yes atheists always ask "who created the creator" and so i'm asking how did that compressed mass come about? What existed before that? If you cant answer that then my point stands that it just came out of nowhere, ridiculous, or it was created. Why can't a creator and the Big Bang coexist again?

Don't know. That's the great thing about science, when there's not an empirical answer scientists don't need to fabricate an answer, they just accept uncertainty until they can find the right answer. Just because an answer isn't immediately apparent doesn't mean an inviisble man in the sky must've done it.

Never said that the big bang and a creator couldn't coexist, but there isn't any empirical proof for a creator. Answering your question with a question wasn't detraction, it was brinigng up a perfectly valid point, that if you're going to criticize the Big Bang theory for not explaining where the mass originated from then the same charge could be leveled at the idea of a creator, only the Big Bang theory has empirical evidence and is arrived at by means of the scientific method.

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

Why does there have to be a reason? Don't you believe in the Big Bang which was just a random event? Why is the idea that something created that so implausible. And how can there be any empirical evidence to show that there was something that created the Big Bang. Wouldn't it be impossible to even know what happened before the forming of this universe?

CBR600-RR

Scientists have been able to see almost to the the beginning of the universe with the use of powerful technology, that being telescopes. If the universe is around 14billion years old then it will have taken the light billions of years to reach us; thus seeing billions of years into the past. It gives us an image of what the universe was like that long ago. It got to a point where we couldn't see any further because the universe was too dense until it started expanding.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

Thats rubbish what you just posted. There was no cause in the big bang. It all happened, just because. Don't need to know anything about physics to know that. The arrogance is unsurprising though, i expect even more so to be honest.

Ilovegames1992

There have been a few good shows about this of late. Its not 'just because' at all but you have to be open to learning.

see if you can get the Wonders of the Universe by brian cox, this will help you a lot.

Of course it happened just because. There is no meaning behind it, it came out of nothing. It happened just because. That. Is. Poo.

No it's not. When you can prove that there MUST be a meaning behind the formation of the universe then we can begin to debate that meaning, but until then the idea that there is no meaning is the most logical.

[QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

Why does there have to be a reason? Don't you believe in the Big Bang which was just a random event? Why is the idea that something created that so implausible. And how can there be any empirical evidence to show that there was something that created the Big Bang. Wouldn't it be impossible to even know what happened before the forming of this universe?

LJS9502_basic

Scientists have been able to see almost to the the beginning of the universe with the use of powerful technology, that being telescopes. If the universe is around 14billion years old then it will have taken the light billions of years to reach us; thus seeing billions of years into the past. It gives us an image of what the universe was like that long ago. It got to a point where we couldn't see any further because the universe was too dense until it started expanding.

That's why they called it the expansion of the universe or the so called Big Bang. We obviously don't know what was before the part we couldn't see past.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

Hahaha way to answer my question. Yes atheists always ask "who created the creator" and so i'm asking how did that compressed mass come about? What existed before that? If you cant answer that then my point stands that it just came out of nowhere, ridiculous, or it was created. Why can't a creator and the Big Bang coexist again?

Ilovegames1992

THe big bang and a creator can co-exist, no one says they cannot, there is zero proof of a creator but if some came up science would investigate.

However it would be unusual for a creator to create the universe to intentionally make it appear as to be without a creator. Can you see any reason for this?

Why does there have to be a reason? Don't you believe in the Big Bang which was just a random event? Why is the idea that something created that so implausible. And how can there be any empirical evidence to show that there was something that created the Big Bang. Wouldn't it be impossible to even know what happened before the forming of this universe?

There was no 'before' the big bang as the understanding it that time and space started with the big bang.

Like someone already said it doesn't belong in school except for history.

I have no problem with this as long as they teach evolution as a theory.

I have no problem with this as long as they teach evolution as a theory.

TheGreyLute

Evolution a theory?

http://news.yahoo.com/world-first-hybrid-shark-found-off-australia-070347608.html

I have no problem with this as long as they teach evolution as a theory.

TheGreyLute

Evolution is a fact, the 'Theory of Evolution' is the best theory we have to explain evolution.

Evolution a theory?

http://news.yahoo.com/world-first-hybrid-shark-found-off-australia-070347608.html

CBR600-RR

[QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]

Evolution a theory?

http://news.yahoo.com/world-first-hybrid-shark-found-off-australia-070347608.html

TheGreyLute

When life adapts to changing environment, it's evolving.

When life adapts to changing environment, it's evolving.CBR600-RR

1. If it is evolving due to the environment, why is it happening so rapidly? The "climate change" is recent.

2. They state in the article that they are hybrids, not a single shark breed changing independently. "The mating of the local Australian black-tip shark with its global counterpart, the common black-tip, was an unprecedented discovery with implications for the entire shark world." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hybrid

3. No one actually knows that no such hybrids have occurred before. The sea is teeming with life undiscovered still. "The hybrids were extraorindarily abundant" but we only now found them.

4. How do we know that they're evolving to the "changing enviroment"? Can you even prove that? Isn't more likely that two differnet sharks met up?

5. They clearly state in the article that they are not sure of anything. They make numerous claims of it being evolution and adaption, but then add disclaimers. Pay attention to those because they will need them when they find it does not support their cause.

schools are about learning facts, not fiction.

schools are about learning facts, not fiction.

PcGamingRig

English and Drama teachers everywhere are bricking it.

[QUOTE="PcGamingRig"]

schools are about learning facts, not fiction.

Ilovegames1992

English and Drama teachers everywhere are bricking it.

You still get worthwhile skills out of english and drama.

You could learn to read out of religion I suppose, I do like a good story. :P

[QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]When life adapts to changing environment, it's evolving.TheGreyLute

1. If it is evolving due to the environment, why is it happening so rapidly? The "climate change" is recent.

2. They state in the article that they are hybrids, not a single shark breed changing independently. "The mating of the local Australian black-tip shark with its global counterpart, the common black-tip, was an unprecedented discovery with implications for the entire shark world." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hybrid

3. No one actually knows that no such hybrids have occurred before. The sea is teeming with life undiscovered still. "The hybrids were extraorindarily abundant" but we only now found them.

4. How do we know that they're evolving to the "changing enviroment"? Can you even prove that? Isn't more likely that two differnet sharks met up?

5. They clearly state in the article that they are not sure of anything. They make numerous claims of it being evolution and adaption, but then add disclaimers. Pay attention to those because they will need them when they find it does not support their cause.

Maybe that's not a strong enough example. What about life in general? We breath oxygen but are unable to breath oxygen underwater without the use of technology. Carbon dioxide is not good for us but trees absorb it and produce oxygen instead. Surely everything that is surviving in their environments is proof of billions of years of evolution.

I have no problem with this as long as they teach evolution as a theory.

TheGreyLute

Maybe that's not a strong enough example. What about life in general? We breath oxygen but are unable to breath oxygen underwater without the use of technology. Carbon dioxide is not good for us but trees absorb it and produce oxygen instead. Surely everything that is surviving in their environments is proof of billions of years of evolution.

CBR600-RR

That sounded like a wild stab in the dark to make sense of evolution. How about we take a look at it from a scientific standpoint? Everyone thinks that evolution is about science, but it isn't. Whether evolution is true or not doesn't matter-it cannot be termed scientific because science absolutely *requires* observation. Observing the outcomes is not enough. We need to see the process taking its course, and thus far we haven't been monitoring it long enough for that.

Another thing is that those who claim evolution to be a theory or a fact based on science are forced to overlook or shy around a very important rule that no one would otherwise contest: the second Law of Thermodynamics. To state in very simple terms, "Everything goes from a state of order to disorder." While sometimes order does arise from disorder, it always has a cause. Regardless, order does not last long. For example, a human. We grow from embryos and seem to assemble and create order (while we are really using up other sources of order and causing disorder to become so), but after we reach a certain age, we start to decay. Creating order is temporary. Disorder always follows. Another way to phrase the second Law is this: Energy naturally becomes unusable. The amount of decay and disorder never decreases over time. In other words, the amount of randomness or disorder in a system always increases over time but can never decrease on its own.

I know where this will lead, though. Neither of us will be convinced of each others arguments and we'll be caught in a never ending circle. Thus, this will be my last post on the issue. You can post a rebuttal it you wish, but I will not drag this on.

It's one thing to do this in the U.K. You probably woukdn't see anything like this in the U. S. Being amercan, and human, I believe that everyone should have the option to believe in what/who thy want. In all honesty, it probably wouldn't hurt if they just let them have religious schools, but then I guess that would contradict what everyone is saying about how "school is for facts." Not taking religion's side, but trying to be fair: The Big Bang isn't true fact because there's no way we can be sure what actually happened. But I still feel science makes soo much more sense then religion lol.jesuschristmonk

People need to stop posting this crap, Supreme Court has already ruled it unconstitutional for public schools.

[QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]

Maybe that's not a strong enough example. What about life in general? We breath oxygen but are unable to breath oxygen underwater without the use of technology. Carbon dioxide is not good for us but trees absorb it and produce oxygen instead. Surely everything that is surviving in their environments is proof of billions of years of evolution.

TheGreyLute

That sounded like a wild stab in the dark to make sense of evolution. How about we take a look at it from a scientific standpoint? Everyone thinks that evolution is about science, but it isn't. Whether evolution is true or not doesn't matter-it cannot be termed scientific because science absolutely *requires* observation. Observing the outcomes is not enough. We need to see the process taking its course, and thus far we haven't been monitoring it long enough for that.

Another thing is that those who claim evolution to be a theory or a fact based on science are forced to overlook or shy around a very important rule that no one would otherwise contest: the second Law of Thermodynamics. To state in very simple terms, "Everything goes from a state of order to disorder." While sometimes order does arise from disorder, it always has a cause. Regardless, order does not last long. For example, a human. We grow from embryos and seem to assemble and create order (while we are really using up other sources of order and causing disorder to become so), but after we reach a certain age, we start to decay. Creating order is temporary. Disorder always follows. Another way to phrase the second Law is this: Energy naturally becomes unusable. The amount of decay and disorder never decreases over time. In other words, the amount of randomness or disorder in a system always increases over time but can never decrease on its own.

I know where this will lead, though. Neither of us will be convinced of each others arguments and we'll be caught in a never ending circle. Thus, this will be my last post on the issue. You can post a rebuttal it you wish, but I will not drag this on.

Mm, copypasta altered I see. It is never refutable nor right, it's something that makes sense in a way.

Religion has no place in public schools, so I applaud the decision. I am not athiest, just believe that a system designed to be tolerant of all cannot focus on one. Also, there are religion specific schools if you desire your children to learn about any specific religion.

[QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]

Maybe that's not a strong enough example. What about life in general? We breath oxygen but are unable to breath oxygen underwater without the use of technology. Carbon dioxide is not good for us but trees absorb it and produce oxygen instead. Surely everything that is surviving in their environments is proof of billions of years of evolution.

TheGreyLute

That sounded like a wild stab in the dark to make sense of evolution. How about we take a look at it from a scientific standpoint? Everyone thinks that evolution is about science, but it isn't. Whether evolution is true or not doesn't matter-it cannot be termed scientific because science absolutely *requires* observation. Observing the outcomes is not enough. We need to see the process taking its course, and thus far we haven't been monitoring it long enough for that.

Another thing is that those who claim evolution to be a theory or a fact based on science are forced to overlook or shy around a very important rule that no one would otherwise contest: the second Law of Thermodynamics. To state in very simple terms, "Everything goes from a state of order to disorder." While sometimes order does arise from disorder, it always has a cause. Regardless, order does not last long. For example, a human. We grow from embryos and seem to assemble and create order (while we are really using up other sources of order and causing disorder to become so), but after we reach a certain age, we start to decay. Creating order is temporary. Disorder always follows. Another way to phrase the second Law is this: Energy naturally becomes unusable. The amount of decay and disorder never decreases over time. In other words, the amount of randomness or disorder in a system always increases over time but can never decrease on its own.

I know where this will lead, though. Neither of us will be convinced of each others arguments and we'll be caught in a never ending circle. Thus, this will be my last post on the issue. You can post a rebuttal it you wish, but I will not drag this on.

Do you puke out your butt? because you sh*t out your mouth.

Evolution in action! Though this might not increase survival odds.

Creationism is a joke and has no place in an academic environment, unless we're teaching why it's ridiculous.

ColdExistence

[QUOTE="Spitfirer"]

teneka, rearrange the words "with", "tar", "brush" and "same".

Do you also accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being a troll?

tenaka2

Only the ones trolling.

Magic has no place in science cla s s, if people cannot understansd why then they have issues.

Religion belongs in religious cla s s.

I can see no logical reason why people would be against this.

Another dictatorial move by the UK government. I don't think Private schools are really private over there if the government can do this...doesn't really surprise me though, what else do you expect from a corrupt monarchy?Asull822

Not even private schools? That's ridiculous. So much for freedom of religion.Genetic_Code

Not even private schools? That's ridiculous. So much for freedom of religion.Genetic_Code

They are free to teach religion in religious cla s, this is only about science class.

Its obviously correct not to brainwash children with religious dogma. Especially when said teachings have no connection with reality. Its wrong to teach myths as science.