Modbert
Daydream Believer
- Sep 2, 2008
- 33,178
- 3,055
- 48
This part of your post makes no sense.
how would you feel if a creationist taught your kids science?
- Thread starter blu
- Start date
This part of your post makes no sense.
Modbert
Daydream Believer
- Sep 2, 2008
- 33,178
- 3,055
- 48
I wonder how the people in this thread who feel schools should teach Creationism as a science would like it if their son or daughter was taught another religion's creation story as if it was science. For some odd reason (I believe it's logic), I doubt they would like it very much.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,885
- 1,830
But creationism is another matter. Creationism violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Modbert
Daydream Believer
- Sep 2, 2008
- 33,178
- 3,055
- 48
It's gotten to the point for me that I am no longer surprised about it. Though I have to say it would be amusing if people like Allie had their kids come home and were told today in science class that frozen people were brought to earth 75 million years ago by Xenu.
Electron Theory
Electricity is the movement of electrons through a conductor. Electrons are attracted to protons. Since we have excess electrons on the other end of the conductor, we have many electrons being attracted to the protons. This attraction sort of pushes the electrons toward the protons. This push is normally called electrical pressure. The amount of electrical pressure is determined by the number of electrons that are attracted to protons.
The electrical pressure or electromotive force (EMF) attempts to push an electron out of its orbit and toward the excess protons. If an electron is freed from its orbit, the atom acquires a positive charge because it now has one more proton than it has electrons. The unbalanced atom or ion attempts to return to its balanced state so it will attract electrons from the orbit of other balanced atoms. This starts a chain reaction as one atom captures an electron and another releases an electron. As this action continues to occur, electrons will flow through the conductor. A stream of free electrons forms and an electrical current is started.
This does not mean a single electron travels the length of the insulator, it means the overall effect is electrons moving in one direction. All this happens at the speed of light. The strength of the electron flow is dependant on the potential difference or voltage.
The three elements of electricity are voltage, current, and resistance. How these three elements interrelate governs the behavior of electricity. Once the you comprehend the laws that govern electricity, understanding the function and operation of the various automotive electrical systems is an easier task.
http://www.autolabscopediagnostics.com/electron.htm_
_______________________________________________
A new theory of Magnetic Fields
When man first discovered that a piece of loadstone hanging on a thread would always point in the same direction; when Oersted discovered that an electric current in wire affected a compass needle; when Faraday discovered that electricity can be generated by moving a magnet inside a wire coil; they perceived only the tip of the iceberg. The phenomena which we observe and have used to construct wonderful technologies are just the by products of the true nature of magnetism.
What I will show is that magnetism is as fundamental to the structure of matter as the electric force which binds the negative electrons to their positive nuclei. As we delve into the inner mechanisms of nature, magnetism becomes ever more significant. It is the regulator of processes. The phenomena we observe in the macro world are bye products of the inner workings of matter.
Without this insight, Oersted, Ampere, Faraday, Gauss, Biot, Savart and Michelson were working in the dark. The laws they developed are not fundamental laws of nature, but mathematical models designed to mimic the observed phenomena. As a result, they are not wholly self consistent and do not make complete sense. I remember sitting in a lecture trying to follow the mathematics. I am dyslexic and so was unable to take meaningful notes. The other students were writing everything down without understanding. I was more concerned with the way a term of seemed to come and go from equations. This was before the days of S.I. Units and there were four or five systems of units in operation. I plucked up courage and interrupted the lecture. It was easy with only 20 students in the cosy little physics department of Royal Holloway College.
Magnetic Fields a new theory
__________________________________________________________
Magnetism and magnetic fields
An phenomenon apparently unrelated to electricity is magnetism. We are familiar with magnetism through the interaction of compasses with the earth's magnetic field, or through fridge magnets or magnets on children's toys. Magnetic forces are explained in terms very similar to those used for electric forces:
There are two types of magnetic poles, conventionally called North and South
Like poles repel, and opposite poles attract
However, magnetism differs from electricity in one important aspect:
Unlike electric charges, magnetic poles always occur in North-South pairs; there are no magnetic monopoles.
Later on we will see at the atomic level why this is so.
As in the case of electric charges, it is convenient to introduce the concept of a magnetic field in describing the action of magnetic forces.
Magnetism and magnetic fields
____________________________________________________________
Today we see electron flow as from Negative to Positive, that was not always the case.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Agreed. Yet we don't condemn them, we pick up from where they left off. It is part of the growth. The same holds true in Religion.
_________________________________________________________
False premise that Magnetism has no relation to Electricity. Do we accept that as a misstep, correct it and move on, or do we burn the Author at the stake???
Hypothesis
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.
Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.
Law
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.
As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.
Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.
Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.
Law
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.
As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.
Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions
Well I explained it in some detail. If you can't understand the explanation, there isn't much I can do for you I'm afraid.
Any teacher who has a mind so closed as to deny creationism or intelligent design as possibilities has a mind too closed to teach much of anything, much less science.
Point of order: Not personally believing something that has never been proved or disproved and thinking one has enough evidence to deny its existence to somebody else = fundamentalist closed mind.
Jesus was very big on common sense too. And on the principle that just because we haven't experienced something or seen something or proved something or don't want to believe it, that is insufficient reason to deny that it exists.
I have always thought this was a great quotation:
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,830
- 1,790
Rather than read through all the posts, I'll just respond to op. As long as the teacher taught science, i.e., evolution and big bang theories, I could care less about their personal beliefs.
OTOH if my kids were in public school and being taught Adam & Eve or a version of it as fact? I'd go ballistic.
OTOH if my kids were in public school and being taught Adam & Eve or a version of it as fact? I'd go ballistic.
If you teach creationism, which is based on belief and not science, then you have to teach anti gravity as an alternative to gravity theory, witchcraft and blood letting as medicine, astrology as psychology, demonic possession as a mental illness, flat earth theory as geology, tea leaves as an economic predictor, communism as a viable political doctrine, voodoo can be many things, prayer for healing in place of antibiotics, devil worship as an alternative belief system, alcoholism or drug addiction as alternate lifestyles etc etc. Teach creationism, but be fair to all beliefs equally, after all two and two should really equal five, in fairness if someone chooses to believe in that math. Then we can stop all testing, as given a world in which belief is all there is, one belief is as good as any other. Right.
"You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it is going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt." Robert M. Pirsig
"You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it is going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt." Robert M. Pirsig
Last edited:
Modbert
Daydream Believer
- Sep 2, 2008
- 33,178
- 3,055
- 48
Oh but it's okay if Atheist Parents have their kids come home and be told that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago by God?
Hypocrite.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Poor Poll Numbers Don't Yet Reflect the Full Picture- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 0
-
Trump Throws Base Under the Bus with Real ID China-Style, National Face Recognition Database- Started by munkle
- Replies: 6
-
-
