Why are kids taught in public schools to believe in next to impossible chance, rather than God?

so they dont learn love and think they are some freak accident instead of a work of art, everyone is..
get painted

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
You obviously did not understand my point, and it seems to be eluding you further.

YOU obviously do not understand ANYTHING about this topic, or about statistics. You just did more hand-waving and threw out the same red herring "look at the die rolls! I rolled dice! EVOLUTION!!" Reputable scientists who have studied the matter have all come to the same conclusion: "we don't currently see how this is possible." Every single simulation shows that relying on random mutations to "create life" simply destroys the old info, rather than building on it. A layman's opinion doesn't cut it. If you didn't do the math, you didn't do anything but spout hot air.

Seriously. Learn something then get back to me.

reply to post by addygrace


Falsified? that experiment produced all amino acids, basic building blocks of life, just from simple reducing atmosphere (similar to that of ancient Earth) and electricity (lightning). If anything it is a very good indication that theory of abiogenesis is indeed feasible.

Abiogenesis is far from disproven:
en.wikipedia.org...

Sixteen pages in, and nobody wants to argue the side of abiogenesis? Really? This is exactly why we should not allow this into our schools. No facts, to back this preposterous idea up. Just a bunch of failed experiments. The only ideas people are arguing for are; Evolution being a fact, The Miller- Urey experiments, 6 sided die, The fallacy argument absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and God should be excluded.

Nobody can give me any reason why we should allow abiogenesis to be taught in biology class?

reply to post by addygrace

By only allowing one view on origins, we are basically killing any chance for our kids to discover critical thinking skills, rather than just following the imagination of another human being.

By not teaching alternative phloginston theory of fire or alchemy, we are killing any chance of critical thinking in our children.

By not teaching alternative flat Earth models, we are killing any chance of critical thinking in our children.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e4092d8675e5.jpg[/atsimg]

See? We cannot teach controversial and according to science false and outdated theories alongside proven theories. Unless you want to teach that Earth might be flat. We must teach scientific consensus in science class.

There is nothing wrong with theaching alternative creation hypotheses alongside abiogenesis hypothesis. But not alongside evolution.

evolution =/= origin of life. Only its development.

reply to post by addygrace


We should teach abiogenesis alongside other hypotheses like panspermia and supernatural creation as the possible origin of life - of course with the added clause that creation hypothesis is not scientific, since it assumes existence of the supernatural, which is against Occams Razor, in the absence of any other evidence for the supernatural.

Science must follow methodological naturalism, otherwise its not science:
rationalwiki.org...

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by addygrace

 

Falsified? that experiment produced all amino acids, basic building blocks of life, just from simple reducing atmosphere (similar to that of ancient Earth) and electricity (lightning). If anything it is a very good indication that theory of abiogenesis is indeed feasible.

Abiogenesis is far from disproven:
en.wikipedia.org...

Nope. The Amino Acids were racemized, which is absolutely useless for the creation of life, because right hand amino acids will kill a chain of left handed amino acids. Seriously, you should read into it. It's very interesting.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by addygrace

 

There is nothing wrong with theaching alternative creation hypotheses alongside abiogenesis hypothesis. But not alongside evolution.

See, Thank you. Somebody who actually admits it. We need to do something to get this out of our science books.

The mainstream science now believes that Darvin's evolution theory is the key to find our origin. I dont say its good or bad. But thats the main flow.

I think its ok to teach kids that this is what we believe how the human kind evolved. Lets say we are 90% percent sure. But we shouldnt hide the remaining 10% from them.

If there is a 100 pages long book let the last 10 pages to teach them about alternative sources. Like god creation myth or even "the aliens modified our dna theory."

Maybe this remaining 10% will catch their mind and makes them to do their own research and read books instead of playing xbox all day.

reply to post by addygrace

See, Thank you. Somebody who actually admits it. We need to do something to get this out of our science books.

What do you want to get out of science books? I dont understand. Both abiogenesis and creation hypothesis (along with panspermia and such) is already there.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by addygrace

 

We should teach abiogenesis alongside other hypotheses like panspermia and supernatural creation as the possible origin of life - of course with the added clause that creation hypothesis is not scientific, since it assumes existence of the supernatural, which is against Occams Razor, in the absence of any other evidence for the supernatural.

Science must follow methodological naturalism, otherwise its not science:
rationalwiki.org...

edit on 16/7/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Abiogenesis assumes to explain creation through brute force. The problem is there is no instance where this has been observed. Panspermia is possible but at some point life has to be created. So, in my opinion, Occam's Razor is for a creator.

I graduated college with a minor in Theology. Religions have always fascinated me. I do NOT feel that religion should be taught to school aged children, however. To truly teach a religious class then the students should learn about all religions and not just Christianity. Kids have enough things to confuse them and in my opinion . . . it would not be prudent to teach a Muslim child about Christianity any more than it would be okay to teach a Christian child about Scientology. Religion is a decision that every family and ultimately every individual has to discover and accept/reject on their own.

I feel like the schooling required by government to be given a diploma should cover all the basics and let the college aged ADULT decide what he/she elects to study from that point on.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by addygrace

 

See, Thank you. Somebody who actually admits it. We need to do something to get this out of our science books.

What do you want to get out of science books? I dont understand. Both abiogenesis and creation hypothesis (along with panspermia and such) is already there.

I'm curious. What creation hypothesis is in high school science class?

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by addygrace

 

Falsified? that experiment produced all amino acids, basic building blocks of life, just from simple reducing atmosphere (similar to that of ancient Earth) and electricity (lightning). If anything it is a very good indication that theory of abiogenesis is indeed feasible.

Abiogenesis is far from disproven:
en.wikipedia.org...

Nope. The Amino Acids were racemized, which is absolutely useless for the creation of life, because right hand amino acids will kill a chain of left handed amino acids. Seriously, you should read into it. It's very interesting.

Yes its very interesting, I know, I had biochemistry at university.
Racemic mixture of amino acids is certainly not useless, its a very good starting point - and there are many processes and reactions which can produce chiral imbalance and amplify it. Once small imbalance is established, its selected for can grow through autocatalysis.

Models to explain homochirality

Some process in chemical evolution must account for the origin of homochirality, i.e. all building blocks in living organisms having the same "handedness" (amino acids being left-handed, nucleic acid sugars (ribose and deoxyribose) being right-handed, and chiral phosphoglycerides). Chiral molecules can be synthesized, but in the absence of a chiral source or a chiral catalyst, they are formed in a 50/50 mixture of both enantiomers. This is called a racemic mixture. Clark has suggested that homochirality may have started in space, as the studies of the amino acids on the Murchison meteorite showed L-alanine to be more than twice as frequent as its D form, and L-glutamic acid was more than 3 times prevalent than its D counterpart. It is suggested that polarised light has the power to destroy one enantiomer within the proto-planetary disk. Noyes[68] showed that beta decay caused the breakdown of D-leucine, in a racemic mixture, and that the presence of 14C, present in larger amounts in organic chemicals in the early Earth environment, could have been the cause. Robert M. Hazen reports upon experiments conducted in which various chiral crystal surfaces act as sites for possible concentration and assembly of chiral monomer units into macromolecules.[69] Once established, chirality would be selected for.[70] Work with organic compounds found on meteorites tends to suggest that chirality is a characteristic of abiogenic synthesis, as amino acids show a left-handed bias, whereas sugars show a predominantly right-handed bias.[71]

chiral amplification

reply to post by addygrace


Both creation of life through nature and through supernatural has never been observed, so both are of equal footing from this point of view. But which hypothesis makes fewer assumptions?:

Natural cause: requires physical and chemical laws (proven to exist)
Supernatural hypothesis: requires physical and chemical laws + supernatural entity (unproven to exist)

So Occams Razor favors naturalistic hypothesis, in the absence of evidence for the supernatural.

Occams Razor formulations:

Bertrand Russell offered what he called "a form of Occam's Razor" which was "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities."[5]

"entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"

So creator is a new entity, and since its not proven that theories with fewer entities cant explain the origin of life, there is no necessity for a creator, or any other addition. Occams Razor favors naturalistic theories.

reply to post by addygrace

I'm curious. What creation hypothesis is in high school science class?

I have learned about it as a popular unscientific hypothesis of the origin of life, that says it was created by some supernatural entity/force. Thats all what was there, and all that should be there. Isnt it in the US?

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by ledzeppelin489

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by megabytz
reply to post by addygrace

 

Please show one science textbook that teaches any of the hypothesis of abiogenesis as fact.

Why is abiogenesis even mentioned in school? Abiogenesis actually talks about life coming from non-life. The only thing we've observed is life coming from life, or biogenesis. My OP is basically stating; If we allow an imaginative idea about the origins of life to be taught in a science classroom, then what's the problem with teaching about other imaginitive ideas about the origins of life being taught in a science classroom.

Have you ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiment? Well, it can definitely answer how abiogenesis occurs; you should look into it.

edit on 16-7-2011 by ledzeppelin489 because: (no reason given)

Are you serious? This is an experiment that falsified abiogenesis.

What? No, it lends merit to it.

God is not an alternative to any hypothesis, because God is not a hypothesis, it's a cop out. No amount of linguistic convolution is ever going to change that so trying to bend science to incorporate non-science with the aim of refuting science is stupid at best and intellectually dishonest at worst..

If you're gonna teach one religion then you gotta teach them all. There wouldn't be time left for sums or spelling That's why you can choose religious studies in secondary school.

I found this very interesting.

A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory
Purchase
$ 39.95


References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.


Hubert P. Yockey

Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005, U.S.A.

Received 10 November 1975; revised 16 August 1976. Available online 24 March 2006.

Abstract
The Darwin-Oparin-Haldane “warm little pond” scenario for biogenesis is examined by using information theory to calculate the probability that an informational biomolecule of reasonable biochemical specificity, long enough to provide a genome for the “protobiont”, could have appeared in 109 years in the primitive soup. Certain old untenable ideas have served only to confuse the solution of the problem. Negentropy is not a concept because entropy cannot be negative. The role that negentropy has played in previous discussions is replaced by “complexity” as defined in information theory. A satisfactory scenario for spontaneous biogenesis requires the generation of “complexity” not “order”. Previous calculations based on simple combinatorial analysis over estimate the number of sequences by a factor of 105. The number of cytochrome c sequences is about 3·8 × 1061. The probability of selecting one such sequence at random is about 2·1 ×10−65. The primitive milieu will contain a racemic mixture of the biological amino acids and also many analogues and non-biological amino acids. Taking into account only the effect of the racemic mixture the longest genome which could be expected with 95 % confidence in 109 years corresponds to only 49 amino acid residues. This is much too short to code a living system so evolution to higher forms could not get started. Geological evidence for the “warm little pond” is missing. It is concluded that belief in currently accepted scenarios of spontaneous biogenesis is based on faith, contrary to conventional wisdom.