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

Why must we preach to kids in schools?

Faith should be a private thing, not a public spectacle!


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by everybodysaymiles
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.

Thats 100% CORRECT!!

If they start teaching the religious stories in classrooms, they [color=gold]BETTER include MY religion too!!!!!!!! In all honesty, they should ONLY include MY religion and NO other as MINE is the TRUTH!!! Amen!!

I believe that the Tooth Fairy is the [color=gold]Most High and is our Savior and Messiah for ALL men and women on the planet.

My Tooth Fairy Holy Texts CLEARLY state that all other 'gods' and religions are FAKE and if you do not believe in the Tooth Fairy and its Holy Scripture, then you are cursed to HELL for all eternity.

I feel bad for all folks who refuse the [color=gold]One and Only true God, Messiah, and Savior -- the Tooth Fairy!!

All praise and Glory to the Most High Tooth Fairy. Praise him!!

CAN I GET AN AMEN!!!!!!!

GLORY GLORY!!!!!!!

reply to post by addygrace

So choosing a single paper that questions the "primordial soup" hypothesis, ignoring every other paper on the topic and other hypothesis and completely ignoring the 90 papers that cite the paper in question to lend credence to a supreme being and hence creationism? Quote mining and cherry picking at its finest. Interesting to note that a lot of creationism sites jump on this paper, I would wager that they and Addy himself have only skimmed the abstract and seen the words "faith" and "warm little pond" and twisted it to their own agenda.

Addy, have you read the paper in question? If so, care to give a breakdown? I'm interested to hear the conclusions you have draw from it.

reply to post by addygrace

They shouldnt be teaching theroey or reliegion in school it should be facts what is known as an absolute. Pretty much takes care of this problem.

reply to post by addygrace


Well because it's only next to impossible chance when you think with a closed mind. There could be millions of planets out there where everything was almost perfect for life and it didn't happen. There could be millions of planets where everything was perfect and life came into existence just as we did.

And I'm not even an Atheist and I can understand.

Originally posted by addygrace
Why are kids being taught in school, to believe life on earth was absolute fortuitous eventuation that on the face of it leaves God out of the equation? Wouldn't this actually be a form of religious imagination intruding on the minds of our kids? If we are going to teach origins in school, then all origins should have equal footing.


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.

I'm being wheedled in perpetuum to home school my children, by what used to be regular old lassitude from those who hold the keys to the education system. Now I see this nefariousness is a calculated total disregard for the rights of the children, and for the total abrogation of God. If it's just the observable that's being taught in the Science classes, then why even entertain any imaginative idea of origins? It's actually oxymoronic, in that it masquerades as a viable scientific idea, yet it's the exact opposite.

How does anything you say disregard rights of children? Why is it that we have Churches, Bible Study, Bible Camps, Youth Groups, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, etc. etc.

What I see is a lazy parent who doesn't want to even try and teach their child anything. If you want your children to learn about God, than please, by all means, teach them yourself. It isn't the schools place to teach kids about faith, and it shouldn't be.

Furthermore, the theories regarding evolution and the big bang are actually pretty well thought out scenarios in which would take a great imagination to find. You claim that the theories are "slim chance", but it leads me to ask, how do you know god exists? Do you have proof? Sounds like one or the other to me, good sir. I'

Last but not least, you say the origins are limiting the critical thinking skills of kids. How in the hell does a "higher being" constitute critical thinking? The only thing I feel they could be limiting is children growing up to be "bible advocates" who think they're better than thou, persecuting gay people because of their preferences in life, or something insane like that.

reply to post by addygrace


Because science offers a better explanation than god ever did. Also science is going to be a greater economic factor in America's future economic regeneration. I am a pagan and have absolutely now problem with science as evidenced by a first degree in Biology!

I went to a school in poland till i was about 10 years old. Now let me tell you this: we were taught that god DID exist, that there is no doubt that god does not exist, all other possibilites were thrown out the window. If you were to question this, you would get in a lot a ****.

I later moved to the UK at the age of 10, and the be honest, schooling is much better here. Here i learned about nearly every single religion - From islam to christian. We also learned about 'next to impossible' chance of the world coming to be.
This was much better.

But one thing i dont understand, you want your kids to be schooled about god, an entity that has no proof of existance? School should be about facts, children should go to a school to learn about things which are proven to be right. So in my oppinion, neither should be taught; God or 'Next to impossible' chance.

reply to post by addygrace


Do you just want your God to be taught about in school, what about all the other Gods that other people believe in - should they be afforded the same right?

And I find it strange that you question the current scientific explanations yet blindly accept the notion that an omniescent, omnipotent entity, God, just appeared out of nothing then decided to create the universe.
At least the former is based on reasoned analysis of the facts that we understand today, the latter is based purely on blind faith and man made religious dogma.

Originally posted by Tarzan the apeman.
reply to post by addygrace

 

They shouldnt be teaching theroey or reliegion in school it should be facts what is known as an absolute. Pretty much takes care of this problem.

Definition of THEORY
1
: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

all rational thinking people would prefer theory be taught in schools rather than conjecture based only on superstition and fear due to the lack of any knowledge.

Theology depends on faith, faith is the belief in things unknown or unknowable. why would any rational being want to be instructed in belief systems that are determined by ignorance.

ignorance n.
The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

uninformed - not informed; lacking in knowledge or information; "the uninformed public"

reply to post by addygrace


Creationism isn't an alternative theory...it has ZERO objective evidence behind it. So teaching it in religious classes is fine, but doing so in scientific classes is beyond ridiculous. We also don't talk about unicorns in biology classes...and I hear no one complain about "cutting kids' imagination" by not doing so.

reply to post by addygrace


There is absolutely no proof for the existence of GOD and there is absolutely no proof for the existence of evolution. They should present both ideas and present also that they have no proof for either. And while some may believe there is proof for evolution, I challenge you: Show me something before and after it supposedly evolved, then show me some proof of the evolution itself. You have primates, you have man, where is the fossil of the primate evolving into man? I read once where the scientists tried to claim that shattered monkey bones found in a cave with primitive tools was proof they were evolving and had apparently killed each other in the process. What they failed to mention were the human remains found also in the cave- indicating the primates were food. Science does not always have man's best interest at heart. Religious fanatics and overzealous intellectuals are alot alike. Me, I don't rely on school to educate my friends and family. We prefer to take charge of our own education and just tell the schools what they want to hear.

reply to post by addygrace


You and your asinine thinking is exactly what is wrong with the world. Please, lock the door on your mobile home and never come out. You are an idiot.

Originally posted by PhyberDragon
reply to post by addygrace

 

There is absolutely no proof for the existence of GOD and there is absolutely no proof for the existence of evolution. They should present both ideas and present also that they have no proof for either.

There is tons and tons of evidence for evolution. The fact that a gentleman hasn't ridden up on a horse and read it to you from a scroll is your problem. You're in the 21st century now, you have at your fingertips access to a wealth of academic research that you could bother to read.

And while some may believe there is proof for evolution, I challenge you: Show me something before and after it supposedly evolved, then show me some proof of the evolution itself. You have primates, you have man, where is the fossil of the primate evolving into man?

Straw man. What you're expecting is some sort of half-man, half-fish fossil so you can say "Look, no transitional species!". I suggest you actually educate yourself before making such challenges.

I read once where the scientists tried to claim that shattered monkey bones found in a cave with primitive tools was proof they were evolving and had apparently killed each other in the process. What they failed to mention were the human remains found also in the cave- indicating the primates were food.

Care to cite the paper in question along with your peer-reviewed rebuttal? Or are you making unsubstantiated assertions again?

Science does not always have man's best interest at heart. Religious fanatics and overzealous intellectuals are alot alike. Me, I don't rely on school to educate my friends and family. We prefer to take charge of our own education and just tell the schools what they want to hear.

No, no they're not. Religious zealots belief unquestionably unsubstantiated religious dogma that has absolutely ZERO supporting evidence. And what the hell is an "overzealous intellectual"? Someone who approaches intelligent thinking with great zeal? The fact you think this is a bad thing says a lot.

reply to post by Observer99

Every single simulation shows that relying on random mutations to "create life" simply destroys the old info, rather than building on it.

Really?

Which specific simulations are you talking about?

Would you be so kind as to back up your claims with proof, or at least a link?

Thank you for your cooperation.

Every single simulation shows that relying on random mutations to "create life" simply destroys the old info, rather than building on it.

The fact that genetic and evolutionary algorithms are used in real design and engineering applications with great success is the best proof against this claim:

Genetic algorithms

en.wikipedia.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

Sato et al. 2002 used genetic algorithms to design a concert hall with optimal acoustic properties, maximizing the sound quality for the audience, for the conductor, and for the musicians on stage. This task involves the simultaneous optimization of multiple variables. Beginning with a shoebox-shaped hall, the authors' GA produced two non-dominated solutions, both of which were described as "leaf-shaped" (p.526). The authors state that these solutions have proportions similar to Vienna's Grosser Musikvereinsaal, which is widely agreed to be one of the best - if not the best - concert hall in the world in terms of acoustic properties.


A field-programmable gate array, or FPGA for short, is a special type of circuit board with an array of logic cells, each of which can act as any type of logic gate, connected by flexible interlinks which can connect cells. Both of these functions are controlled by software, so merely by loading a special program into the board, it can be altered on the fly to perform the functions of any one of a vast variety of hardware devices.

Dr. Adrian Thompson has exploited this device, in conjunction with the principles of evolution, to produce a prototype voice-recognition circuit that can distinguish between and respond to spoken commands using only 37 logic gates - a task that would have been considered impossible for any human engineer. He generated random bit strings of 0s and 1s and used them as configurations for the FPGA, selecting the fittest individuals from each generation, reproducing and randomly mutating them, swapping sections of their code and passing them on to another round of selection. His goal was to evolve a device that could at first discriminate between tones of different frequencies (1 and 10 kilohertz), then distinguish between the spoken words "go" and "stop".

This aim was achieved within 3000 generations, but the success was even greater than had been anticipated. The evolved system uses far fewer cells than anything a human engineer could have designed, and it does not even need the most critical component of human-built systems - a clock. How does it work? Thompson has no idea, though he has traced the input signal through a complex arrangement of feedback loops within the evolved circuit. In fact, out of the 37 logic gates the final product uses, five of them are not even connected to the rest of the circuit in any way - yet if their power supply is removed, the circuit stops working. It seems that evolution has exploited some subtle electromagnetic effect of these cells to come up with its solution, yet the exact workings of the complex and intricate evolved structure remain a mystery (Davidson 1997).


Keane and Brown 1996 used a GA to evolve a new design for a load-bearing truss or boom that could be assembled in orbit and used for satellites, space stations and other aerospace construction projects. The result, a twisted, organic-looking structure that has been compared to a human leg bone, uses no more material than the standard truss design but is lightweight, strong and far superior at damping out damaging vibrations, as was confirmed by real-world tests of the final product. And yet "No intelligence made the designs. They just evolved" (Petit 1998). The authors of the paper further note that their GA only ran for 10 generations due to the computationally intensive nature of the simulation, and the population had not become stagnant. Continuing the run for more generations would undoubtedly have produced further improvements in performance.

Kids should not be forced to believe in god because there is no way to prove his existence

Originally posted by Maslo
(a bunch of fallacy and red herrings)

Comparing evolution (an incomplete theory, at best) with any of the topics you listed is just more unbridled arrogance. Your arrogance is why you fail, and yet you just keep ramping it up.

If you admitted the flaws in evolution, there would be no problem. Instead you teach evolution as dogma, mock dissenters and use facetious arguments to try to state your case, making you no better than the catholic church 500 years ago.

There's no reason they can't teach both, or all, of the theories on creation. They don't have to call out one particular religion, they can word things in many different ways to say that "There are those who believe an all powerful being created everything." the same way they can say "There are those that believe certain circumstances led to the creation of everything." How then does that upset anyone? Some science is theory based on theory, while some are based on indisputable evidence/facts, last I heard it was called "the theory of evolution", meaning it's not a proven fact. Why can they not use some manner of generic terminology to offer multiple theories to the students, be it "poof here it is" of "boom here it is" and let them decide on which one they deem best fits their own perception of reality? I see no reason why any theory of creation should be withheld from the minds of those who are there to learn. Put 'em all out there and let them choose the one they believe makes the puzzle complete in their own mind.

I think they should just have a religion class and teach (at least) the 10 major religions and what they believe. There, problem solved; and now, no one will be ignorant and xenophobic of other people's religions. Great!