Should the UM be taught to kids?

Home Forums Education Should the UM be taught to kids?

This topic contains 3 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by Courtney Snell Courtney Snell 1 year, 10 months ago.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #31050

    Casey
    Participant

    I find the idea of the Universal Model being taught as curriculum to young kids to be quite disturbing. How can it possibly make sense to teach children an infant model that has not undergone (and apparently cannot withstand) any practical review? The UM uses the words “true” to explain their findings yet they fail to explain (or improperly explain) many principles that are fundamental to their model. Instead of using criticism as an opportunity to improve their methods, the UM is reduced to using improper and incomplete scientific explanations to lure the reader into siding with them.
    People are obviously free to believe the things they want to believe. Science, however, is not a belief system. Science is reaching conclusions from empirical evidence and observation. The conclusions that the UM have reached are based from biased observations and faulty experiments ignoring any evidence that leads to a more viable conclusion. Examples of this include: 1) blowtorch experiments that ignore many important natural conditions for mineral formation. 2) Their Cavendish experiment that somehow is an order of magnitude different from what many, many groups of scientists have reached. 3) Using examples of a few boreholes that have odd geothermal gradients while ignoring the many that show consistent gradients. 4) Ignoring experiments that show that quartz growth can occur in a melt. 5) Ignoring evidence that supports a dynamo including a wandering but stable magnetic poles. 6) Ignoring surficial geologic processes that can be easily measured.
    The UM has a moral obligation to attempt to resolve these limitations before they even consider allowing their model to be taught to youth. Until they do so, teaching kids the UM as curriculum is nothing more than teaching pseudoscience. This will not benefit the child’s critical reasoning skills.

    #31051
    Courtney Snell
    Courtney Snell
    Moderator

    Casey,

    Seeing as you haven’t read the Universal Model, it is hard to understand how you can come to any scientific conclusion regarding the book or the evidences it contains. If you are a proponent of the scientific ideology of research and experimentation, why have you not applied it here? As you stated in your post, “Science, however, is not a belief system. Science is reaching conclusions from empirical evidence and observation.” We whole heartedly agree with that statement, which is partly why the UM was started and launched. Modern Science has been asking us to simply believe in pseudotheories like magma and so many others as if they are fact, while failing to provide empirical evidence or observation of such.

    You can find our answer to questions similar to the ones you listed in another forum discussion by clicking here. Feel free to read more of the Universal Model for free by visiting the Free Sample page here. We again encourage you to read the entire Volume I Universal Model book and study the evidences it gives rather than blindly making assumptions regarding the discoveries.

    Also, with regard to your concern for children being taught something other than long standing theories, the UM has had significant experience teaching these new discoveries to children. They have easily learned the new ideas because they are simple and make sense when they can see for themselves how nature actually works. We look forward to releasing curriculums, videos and many other UM materials in the future to better aid in that progress.

    Lastly, we would ask that you keep in mind that, per the forum rules, if it becomes evident that the goal of your inquiries are intended to personally attack or marginalize the authors and/or UM discoveries without taking the time to read and understand them, then your comments will be deleted.

    Thank you

    #31053

    Casey
    Participant

    I apologize if my remarks were taken as personal attacks. That was not their intention. I was merely posing the question of whether the UM should be offered as curriculum and giving my opinion. I feel like this is very valid question. The UM takes an incredibly strong stance against modern science. If the UM is correct then that means huge unifying principles from Geology, Physics, Biology, Astronomy, and Anthropology are in fact wrong. My point is that before the UM is taught as “truth” or even “plausible” it needs to undergo a rigorous review process where the methods and results are carefully looked at and experiments are proven to be accurate and repeatable. This is something I feel parents need to be aware of.

    As far as the claim that I haven’t applied my own scientific ideology. I have seriously looked at all the material on your website, watched your presentation videos, and read various discussion forums which the UM has participated in. Each of these is an opportunity for the UM to defend their research, yet time and time again I find large errors in explaining the current scientific principles that the UM is attempting to refute. In addition to this, it appears as though the UM is unable to explain some major claims with regard to the mass of the earth.

    https://universalmodel.com/topic/earths-mass-and-universal-gravitation/

    This last issue is just one example of something that I feel the UM must resolve before it can be considered appropriate for curriculum.

    #31075
    Courtney Snell
    Courtney Snell
    Moderator

    Casey, your concern about the UM is noted and we understand it because it is the same concern that we and many others have had about modern science’s theories. Hundred year old theories continue to be taught to children that have never been proven, yet they continue to be taught as fact. To suggest that the UM has nothing of value to present for instruction is both dishonest, prejudiced and sloppy review. Any current student of academic science today in high school or college has the same dilemma of deciding what portions they can agree with and which they believe to be wrong. Why should their study of the UM be different. Professional scientists are welcome to review our discoveries, evidence and conclusions. We recognize that they will often come to a different conclusion on certain issues than the UM because their paradigm is so different and so well entrenched.

    We also recognize that a large portion of the general public do not agree with many of modern science’s general theories or resultant paradigm. The UM is written for this portion of the public because they continue to search for real explanations for how our world works and are uncomfortable with modern science’s rendition. They are the peer group that the UM is concerned with. Professional scientists will likely be the last group within human society that will recognize the discoveries of the UM and we accept that. The UM does not claim to be the final word, but rather will always be open to new possibilities and ideas if they are accompanied by verifiable evidence, not just theory. One should not “review” the UM without actually reading the evidences presented. One last thing, the complete evidence of the UM’s position on the earth’s mass and gravitation has not yet been completed or made available to the public. Therefore, your “review” of it is incomplete. That information will come in volume three. Stay tuned!

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.