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

reply to post by john_bmth

Notice the distinct lack of woo hoo. No consciousness mentioned there at all. I'm not trying to jump down you throat but this stuff gets propagated so much on these boards yet it's patently false.

It's called "moving the goal post". In ancient times, they claimed plagues are god's wrath, or meteorites a sign of him/her/it. They also believed the earth to be only 6,000 years (some fools still believe that).

Time and again science proved them wrong.

So the only thing they can do is move the goal post. That's why they are now interpreting stuff in yet another way to "make it fit".

reply to post by SG-17


Your retort is made up of the typical mundane atheist, afraid to have someone to answer to , crap.

Here's some facts to sponser your ignorance.
You see it's the Bible that trumps science, like I just tried to explain to you. That's ok tho, I don't mind leading as long as you follow. The Bible trumps science by thousands of years, therefore the burden is on science and you to disprove the Bible, God and me. It isn't the other way around just because you say it is.

That's right my God is the one of the Bible proven for me ( sorry about your luck ) and yours, is a nonexistant fart that in every practicality is ridiculous because of the outcome. There is noway out of your dilema, unless you grow up and realise, there is always someone to answer to, for everything you do. One day, I promise you will bow to the one true KING. I'm really very sad for you folks. I know it's hopeless to try and convince you but Christ is the best feeling I've ever known. He is amazing. I've given all the reason I can why creation should be taught and you and I both should respect this persons thread and agree to disagree.

I have a lot left to say, I choose to refrain.

reply to post by randyvs


You might wanna post the link to a credible source, this one's pure comedy rather than full of science

The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel.

Actually, I hope you realize that people built boats waaaaaaaaaaay before the bible was written. Also, perfect dimensions? We're still working on the "perfect dimensions", and they depend on the type of water and weather. A tanker has the "perfect dimensions" to transport large cargo for far distances. It's useless do do whitewater rafting with it. On the other hand, a canoe is kinda silly if you're goal is to transport large cargo.

In short, thanks for the entertainment...I hope you posted that link as a joke

EDIT (because that site is hilarious):

Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves.

So here they just write "sanitation industry birthed", simply because a book tells people not to # where they sleep. Which makes perfect sense, but it's not as if people who lived before the bible was written somehow shat where they slept and then left it there.

And the funny thing is, all that is supposed to prove that the bible is "scientific"

Another good one:

Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest.

How on earth is this at odds with Darwin's theory?? Last I checked, it's something that often happens in nature. Dogs do it...birds protect their young or mate...dolphins have saved humans before. So it's not as if we're that special in that respect

Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.

Well...except that it can explain it perfectly

Birds evolved from dinosaurs...reptiles. Reptiles lay eggs, and slowly some of them evolved into bird like creatures, and then on to today's birds. During all that time, those millions of years, they continued to lay eggs because there was no reason to change, and no random mutation causing it to change. In short, once gain, that site shows an incredible lack of education.

It also has some super weird stuff...like, it claims the bible explains how rainbows work. If you look up the quote, you find this:

"I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth.

How on earth is this explaining how rainbows work???

God (no pun intended), this site is hilarious

I know it's hopeless to try and convince you but Christ is the best feeling I've ever known. He is amazing.

If your faith gives you strength and makes you feel good, then more power to you. You have the right to believe whatever you want. But unless you back up your claims with evidence (and the site you posted is NOT evidence), I'm afraid I can't be silent. Believe whatever you want, but I won't let you sell something that isn't based on solid evidence as FACT or "only truth". At least not in the origins section that involves science.

reply to post by MrXYZ


X you really don't even rate a response anymore and this thread is no place for me to consider that. I'll put a thread up soon because I can see you won't. You might say something there that's worth a reply.

Take your parting shots. I'm done here.

reply to post by randyvs


You say that god exists then you must prove it. I do not say either way so the burden is not on me. I have no "god", science is not a religion. Science is a method for explaining the natural world with quantifiable evidence. Religion isn't even close.

Creationists, and people who believe in religion in general are backwards, superstitious drek who don't belong in modern society. What you "feel" is just a delusion.

Originally posted by addygrace
Just to add, the posts that I'm reading on here, prove a different point about people who believe in evoloution(at least the one's who replied), believe evolution to be an all consuming theory that covers origins. They do this with a dogmatic fervency, usually only attributed to the bible thumpers. Hypocrisy.

./bites bait
I disagree,

There is plenty of evidence supporting the general biological process by which life speciates. When it comes to creationism, there is no evidence outside of the canon (whether a book or overall religious teachings) that forms the basis of a persons religious ideology.

The reason for the comments is simple. A person posts a thread such as this, without any true study on a subject. Responds that their respective diety is not included in the discussions; therefore the discussion is automatically invalidated. Now from time to time there is a thread which actually asks legitimate questions that most of the time do have a complex answer; however, the answer would not be expected from someone with a standard education and require a much more complex and in depth analysis. These threads can be thoruoghly enjoyable though rare in appearance.

On the other hand, most of the threads are to bait one side or the other into an argument that is little more than a "my dad can beat up your dad argument." When there is little attempt to give any evidence or fail to make a point and then support it, people will just blow it off outta hand. It gets quite frustrating when the information is right there, has been posted countless times, but once again the thread starts out "I don't care what you say, my beliefs are correct because they are my beliefs and you can't tell me otherwise."

Sorry, the education system is not and should not be forced into a position to indulge a population that is not interested in the quest for true knowledge. So in the end, why go through explaining a complex system that is far more complex than simple some simple SAT question -- with over 100 years of heavy research -- when it will be rejected with a simple "God wills it". That really doesn't take the discussion anywhere and frankly i put too much time even into this post to reply to a troll post.

Who is this other Darwin I hear about that supposedly espoused "survival of the fittest", because Charles Darwin certainly didn't. A bit tautological anyway wouldn't you say?

Humans sacrifice themselves for what they think is a "greater cause" because humans have a brain, and there is no inherent property of evolution that has conscious goals. Those that do sacrifice themselves have done so well into their reproductive ages (16+), so one would expect there to be little to no selection pressure against such behavior, and if its a sacrifice for one's kin then there very well may be selection pressure for such behavior.

reply to post by randyvs


I would also just like to point out my amusment at the "fact" thread and the common practice to quote scripture outta context.

we'll start with piece number #2.

2.
Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

That section in Hebrews references many various stories throughout the bible. The whole of the section is a bit too long, but i will quote and expand on this from the same link the site sources

Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Hbr 11:2 For by it the elders obtained a [good] testimony.
Hbr 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
Hbr 11:4 By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.
Hbr 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, "and was not found, because God had taken him"; [fn] for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

The entire section is about having faith in what cannot be seen, it has nothing to do with invisible atoms making up visible molecular structure.

Also would like to point out that the site also uses sources that are completely and blatantly false.

reply to post by john_bmth

Notice the distinct lack of woo hoo. No mentioned there at all. I'm not trying to jump down you throat but this stuff gets propagated so much on these boards yet it's patently false.

thank you for you reply...and your not jumping down my throat. I dont get how you think no\consciousness is mentioned there. Isnt an act of measuring an act of consciousness. I cant see how you can seperate the two.

I kinda thought the world exists because we observe it. I can look on my desk and see a flower the is blue. But the flower is only blue because i am looking at it and turning wavelengths into an image in my mind. If a bee was to look at the flower the bee would see patterns in the flower i cant. So the colour we think belongs to the flower is only a construct in our mind. When I look away the flower ceases to have any colour.
I can reach out and feel the flower again this is only sensation so my mind, the feel, the smell and all the other attributes i consider a flower only exist when I observe them. Not only do they come into existence but they are created attributes they could appear different,
I can prove the object exists because i can experience it, and since my mind gives the odject its attributes i can only reason it exists within my mind...
I know i exist, i can sense it with my being. Is there any scientific evidence to suggest that I the observer exist. I have never seen any. It is one of the very few things in life I know to be true, yet it cannot be scientifically proven.
If I want to discover what is at the edge of the universe, I need to see what is at the edge of my mind...

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by addygrace

 

Actually, given the expansion of the universe, it will eventually reach absolute zero...so you claiming it's not attainable is hogwash. Furthermore, you keep on repeating that "nothing" nonsense, as if scientists claimed everything came from nothing. That's simply not the case. They say they don't know how it all started, or what was before the singularity. Not knowing isn't "nothing"

Wow, you didn't watch the video. How can you say scientists aren't claiming "nothing", when that's exactly what he says in the video. The scientist in the video, is clearly saying the universe from "nothing" means, no need for a deity. Yet, he goes on to say this "nothing" is actually a quantum fluctuation. I actually already explained this, but you couln't stand the fact that I repeated what the scientist said. As if this "nothing" is something I made up.
As for absolut zero; Here you go.
The third law of thermodynamics showed that absolute zero is unattainable. Actually what it says is, by no finite series of processes is the absolute zero attainable. It would take infinity to reach absolute zero. You can't break laws of physics just to prove to yourself, God doesn't exists.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by addygrace

 

Ever heard about the multiverse theory? There could be an infinite number of universes that we simply can't perceive...just like someone living "flat land" couldn't see 3 dimensional objects.

Let's have Hawking and Mlodinow explain how this all works:
"It is not obvious, but it turns out that with regard to [Heisenberg's uncertainty principle], the value of a field and its rate of change play the same role as the position and velocity of a particle. That is, the more accurately one is determined, the less accurately the other can be. An important consequence of that is that there is no such thing as empty space meaning that both the value of a field and its rate of change are exactly zero.... Since the uncertainty principle does not allow for values of both the field and the rate of change to be exact, space is never empty, called the vacuum, but the state is subject to what are call quantum jitters, or vacuum fluctuations-particles and fields quivering in and out of existence."

Out of these quantum jitters, the authors say, the universe emerged. Because the uncertainty principle holds that we can never have exact knowledge of either a particle's location or energy state, we can never "know" an energy state is zero, nothing. Therefore, instead of nothing, there is a chance there is something there. Somehow, through a device the advocates of this viewpoint do not elaborate upon, this something turned into a universe.
Article Source: EzineArticles.com...

He goes on to say...

Making matters much worse, however, modern scientists are now using these quantum fluctuations to create an infinity of new universes. This is the main theme of Hawking's and Mlodinow's The Grand Design. The authors apply Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to the creation of the universe and conclude that there was not one quantum fluctuation in the beginning of it all, but an endless number in a sea of quantum bubbles. They write, "Quantum fluctuations lead to the creation of tiny universes out of nothing. A few of these reach a critical size, then expand in an inflationary manner, forming galaxies, stars, and in at least one case, beings like us."

Hawking and Mlodinow have thus taken a theoretical uncertainty in the mind of a physicist and then used this uncertainty to conclude that because empty space cannot really be empty as a matter of theory (left circle) there must in fact be an infinity of real universes out there in the objective world (the right circle).

This actually got me thinking about quantum physics and how "observation collapses the wave function". If the universe we live in, is one of an infinite number of universes that were created by quantum fluctuations, then the act of a conscious deity observing our universe would collapse the wave function of these universes.


Article Source: EzineArticles.com...

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by addygrace

 

Again with the "nothingness"??

I can see how this is upsetting to you. I thought the same thing. Why would scientists even call it "nothing", when they clearly mean something imperceivable.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by addygrace

 

It comes down to simply admiting we don't have the answer yet. We don't know what was before the big bang...which is, like I mentioned above, not nothingness.

You claiming "god did it" is a prime example of god of the gaps, where you fill a gap in knowledge with magic. Just like people 2,000 years ago claimed meteorites are a sign of god because they couldn't explain it

edit on 20-7-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

It's not me claiming God did it. It's the scientists saying, "There is no need for a deity....". Actually what he should have said is, There is no need for a deity if we achieve infinity.

reply to post by addygrace

I can see how this is upsetting to you. I thought the same thing. Why would scientists even call it "nothing", when they clearly mean something imperceivable.

It's a linguistic problem. If something is void of the characteristics to make us claim it's "something", the only alternative is "nothing"...in terms of language. But given that we don't know what was before our universe came into existence, and the fact that we at least know it wasn't the universe we know today (aka "something"), the only word we have for it is "nothing". How else do you name the absensce of matter?

But it could be something else that isn't based on matter/energy. The large majority of the universe is made up from something that doesn't react with the rest of the universe (dark matter/energy). Technically, since we can't measure it, it's "nothing"...but given that it exists, it's not really nothing. It's something we can't describe given our current language.

It's not me claiming God did it. It's the scientists saying, "There is no need for a deity....". Actually what he should have said is, There is no need for a deity if we achieve infinity.

Even if it isn't infinite, that still doesn't automatically mean a deity was involved...especially given the complete lack of evidence hinting at his/her/its existence.

As for absolute zero...if the universe continues to expand as it does, it will suffer from heat death as entropy increases. Google it

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by addygrace

 

Even if it isn't infinite, that still doesn't automatically mean a deity was involved...especially given the complete lack of evidence hinting at his/her/its existence.

As for absolute zero...if the universe continues to expand as it does, it will suffer from heat death as entropy increases. Google it

No, if the universe expands to the infinite degree, It is supposed to have a "cold death" at absolute zero. Because infinity is unattainable, then absolute zero is unattainable. The 'heat-death' of the universe is when the universe has reached a state of maximum entropy.

reply to post by john_bmth


Sahelanthropus tchadensis – This creature, dated between 6 and 7 million years ago (mya), had a cranial capacity (brain size) of 350 cc and was found in Chad in central Africa. With similarities to both chimps and humans, it was unlikely to have been bipedal (walked on two feet)
"Some claim this genus is a common ancestor of both chimpanzees and humans, while some critics dismiss the skull as having simply belonged to that of a female gorilla." www.angelfire.com...

Ardipithecus ramidus – This forest dweller had the brain-size of a chimp (400 cc), small canines, and was bipedal! It changed some ideas about the evolution of man! It was found in Ethiopia, not far from Chad in central Africa.
"Evolutionists have been unstinting in their praise of the discovery of Australopithecus ramidus However, there is reason, to challenge their claims and to suggest that the fossils actually represent a form of pygmy chimpanzee." www.christiananswers.net...

Australopithecus anamensis – This creature also had an unknown cranial capacity. It lived about 4 mya, and it had thick enamel on its teeth, one of the marks of human lineage. It was found in Kenya, just south of Ethiopia.
"Hence, if the postcranial remains do belong to anamensis, then at most you have an ape-like creature with a similar locomotion pattern to the ape-like afarensis." creation.com...

Australopithecus afarensis – Many fossils of this link—no longer missing—in the evolution of man have been found. It lived from 3.9 to 2.9 mya. Its cranial capacity was up to 500 cc. It's teeth are more human-like than the previous creatures, and its jaw is beginning to have the human parabolic shape. Its fossils, as well as footprints—fully establishing its bipedality—have been found in Ethiopia, Cameroon, and Tanzania.
"..the fossils show evidence of one million years without any evolution. Then, in the last 2.5 million years, he says, Australopithecines evolved into modern humans. Where is the logic in that?" www.scienceagainstevolution.org...
"So what exactly do we have in afarensis? The answer is a creature with the brain the size of an ape, a skull that was ape-like with a body similar in shape and size to an ape, and a creature that was specialized for climbing in trees and knuckle walking, similar to apes. In other words, you have an ape. However, if afarensis also had some limited ability for non-human bipedal locomotion, which was perhaps more efficient than that of extant bonobos, is this evidence that the creature was an apeman, or does it just reflect the diversity of the ape/australopithecine body structure that God created?" creation.com...

Australopithecus africanus – Similar to afarensis in brain size, its jaw has a fully human shape. It was found in South Africa and dates from 2 to 3 mya. This line almost certainly died out.
"Some have suggested that both Australopithecus africanus and robustus were simply an evolutionary dead end - not ancestral to man." www.detectingdesign.com...

Homo habilis – Homo habilis lived from 2.4 to 1.5 mya and had a primitive-looking, flat face with a sloping brow and no chin, like the australopithecines, but its teeth are smaller and more human-like. Its brain was shaped like a human brain and averaged 650 cc in size. It, like robustus and boisei has been found in Kenya and Tanzania.
"Creationists disagree on whether 1470 is an ape or a human. The other habilis fossils are rarely analyzed, but the few creationists who do mention them are in agreement that they are all apes." www.talkorigins.org...

Homo georgicus – These hominids, intermediate between habilis and erectus, were discovered in Dminisi, Georgia, making them the first hominids out of Africa ... possibly.
"For the present, the only sure conclusion is that H. georgicus represents a new and interesting twig on the hominid bush." www.macroevolution.net...

Homo floresiensis – Dubbed "hobbits" because of their dimunitive size, these fossils were found on the island of Flores in Indonesia. Studies of brain size make it seem these are descendants of habilis, georgicus, or an unknown species, and they possibly emigrated from Africa. That would be stunning with their chimpanzee-sized brains. They've probably been in Indonesia for at least 1 million years and only went extinct 17,000 years ago.
"Anyhow, the truth is the mystery of the origin of H. floresiensis continues and we cannot even imagine the surprises this question may bring." www.unav.es...

Homo erectus – This is the species that first left Africa. It lived from 1.8 mya to 300,000 years ago. In early fossils, its brain size averages 900 cc. A million years later, the skulls have an average cranial capacity of 1100 cc. It had a small forehead and still no chin, but it probably walked better than we do. We have larger pelvises to accomodate the birth of large-brained babies.
"Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together." www.christiananswers.net...

Homo ergaster and heidelbergensis – These are likely just the African and European races of Homo erectus. They vary like human races vary, only in height and robustness, though later fossils of heidelbergensis are difficult to distinguish from early Homo sapiens.
"As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow9], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man...." www.answersingenesis.org...

Denisovans – Denisovans are known only from DNA extracted from a finger bone and a molar found in Denisova cave in Siberia. Thus, all there are no morphological data on the Denisovans. Humans carry DNA from denisova, thus indicating that they will not be classified as a separate species, but simply a population of archaic humans. Their DNA is primarily found in Melanesians, indicating a possible ancestral mix in southeast Asia. Their role in the evolution of man is much debated. Work is still being done in the Denisova cave, and progress in news of this find has been rapid.
"The researchers studiously avoid calling the Denisovans a new species or subspecies. In fact, it remains highly contentious as to whether the Neanderthals were another species altogether or were a subspecies of our species. A species is a group different enough from other groups as to be considered separate, and whose members can and do interbreed — although research has recently shown that Neanderthals (and now Denisovans) shared genes with us, so it remains an open question as to how different they were. Neanderthals and Denisovans are both called humans, however, just as all members of the genus Homo are — the controversy is over whether they should be lumped together with us anatomically modern humans or not." www.livescience.com...

Homo neandethalensis – Neanderthals (now usually Neandertals) have been found only in Europe and the Middle East. They are a side branch in the evolution of man and died out about 30,000 years ago. They were shorter than Homo sapiens with bigger brains (1450 cc) and much stronger bodies. Scientists say their adaptations are typical for cold weather. Recent DNA studies have established that Neanderthals intermingled with humans.
"Evolutionists desperately need proof that Neanderthal man is a separate species to get him out of the line of human evolution because he just doesn't fit properly into the theory of evolution. He's too late and too human to be an ancestor." www.google.com... 20him%20out%20of%20the%20line%20of%20human%20evolution%20because%20he%20just%20doesn%27t%20fit%20properly%20into%20the%20theory%20of%20evolution.%20he %27s%20too%20late%20and%20too%20human%20to%20be%20an%20ancestor.&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ridgenet.net%2F~do_while%2Fsage%2F v1i12f.htm&ei=1bqoTplNh4ixAouWicUP&usg=AFQjCNGtcI-GezBQhkbcw65a5zDzaNSxcw&cad=rja

There's enough controversy to say proof is not definitive for evolution. As for the smashed apes found with human remains indicating they were food, I saw it on t.v. and don't recall the show or network or year it aired. And, basically, insulting me makes you no smarter. I take it as a compliment since a wise man knows that he knows nothing.

reply to post by TheOneElectric


It makes perfect sense to teach our children a theory based on absolute lies , I have no problem with separation of church and state but I do have a problem with the numerous lies taught to children under this guise evolution. When teaching these children that we evolved from a primordial ooze of super heated chemicals they should also give them the mathematical odds of this happening , which are something like ten to the five hundredth power.

Originally posted by Noey777
reply to post by TheOneElectric

 

It makes perfect sense to teach our children a theory based on absolute lies , I have no problem with separation of church and state but I do have a problem with the numerous lies taught to children under this guise evolution. When teaching these children that we evolved from a primordial ooze of super heated chemicals they should also give them the mathematical odds of this happening , which are something like ten to the five hundredth power.

Real science backs up theory of evolution.

Nothing backs up god.

reply to post by Annee


On the contrary real science mathematics proves it utterly impossible , don't believe me google it. The fact we are hear the so called scientists argue proves that chance worked out and then your unproven theory with more ifs in it that people take as fact. The fact of the matter is if the theory of evolution was true then we would see all sorts of species in various stages of evolution. We do not see this and the fact they gather old bones from monkeys and carious other types of apes only proves one thing, they. Have old monkey and ape bones. There is absolutely zero proof that they in any way shape or form are related to us.

Originally posted by Noey777
reply to post by Annee

 

On the contrary real science mathematics proves it utterly impossible , don't believe me google it.

Scientists often disagree. Does not mean Theory of Evolution is wrong.

There are several very good threads on ATS that are specific on the Theory of Evolution. Those threads will answer any doubts/questions you have.

Originally posted by Noey777
reply to post by Annee

 

On the contrary real science mathematics proves it utterly impossible , don't believe me google it. The fact we are hear the so called scientists argue proves that chance worked out and then your unproven theory with more ifs in it that people take as fact. The fact of the matter is if the theory of evolution was true then we would see all sorts of species in various stages of evolution. We do not see this and the fact they gather old bones from monkeys and carious other types of apes only proves one thing, they. Have old monkey and ape bones. There is absolutely zero proof that they in any way shape or form are related to us.

first: hi anne!!
2nd: Ok, I am a hardcore evolutionist and I am catholic. *omg gasp*

You do not need fossils or bones to prove evolution is real, as we have alread observed it. In this reply, I will give two examples. One is thrown around ATS like a redheaded stepchild, while I am the only one who I have ever heard say the other one.

1: Viruses and Bacteria:
If evolution was incorrect, than

a. We would have a vaccine for the common cold
b. We would not have to santize everything, because by now our bodies would be immune to ALL bacteria.
c. Doctors would not get paid as much, as their jobs would already be 85% done by the human body alone.

2: Grizzly and Polar bears.
In the north pole, glaciers are melting. This is causing polar bears to move into grizzly bear territory, and being that they can biologicly have offspring, they do. If the enviroment stays the same and this keeps happening, over time, there will be more Golar bears than Polar and Grizzly bears. This is an example of evolution.
Another good example is cats and dogs. There was orginally only a handful of diffrent types, but because of domestic breeding, there are now hundreds of breeds of cats and dogs.

You want natural selection? You got it.

A baby is born with black skin to a white family living in africa. This is a genetic mutation, and would be benifical to the babies health.

A snake is born with a genetic mutation that it has exceptionaly tough muscles in its tail. This is a benifical trait.

A cat is born without hair in the desert. This is a benifical trait.

Now, all three of the above creatures have an upper hand on their peers.
They are more likely to reproduce, spreading the mutation.
Soon, the mutation grows to a small group, than a large, than a area, and soon the entire species (Or more likely, the new mutation changes the species into another species.)

Evolution follows the simple laws of logic, somthing you seem to not understand.

Originally posted by uva3021
Those that do sacrifice themselves have done so well into their reproductive ages (16+)

More like 14+ in most people.

Originally posted by TheOneElectric

This is a troll thread right? Please tell me this is a troll thread?

No, the poster has a good point. Why shouldn't alternative theories of life be taught in our educational system?

The American government is not allowed to force any type of religion or spirituality upon Students.

See, this is a request to censor where none should be. Intelligent Design (and I'm not talking about the Christian belief system only) is just as valid as a theory as Spontaneous Generation. See in a simplistic view, Abiogenesis is just a repackaged and renamed version of Spontaneous Generation.

"When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation." - George Wald

Ironically, it's Intelligent Design that we have empirical evidence on, as Humans attempt to re-create life, or synthesize life. With each successful attempt we undertake in creating the 'soup of life', getting RNA to replicate to creating building blocks of life, we are proving Intelligent Design as a valid theory. We're doing it ourselves already using carefully controlled and manipulated environments.

www.wired.com...
www.wired.com...
www.rsc.org...
www.wired.com...
www.time.com...

Second, how would be explaining alternative theories regarding the origin of life be forcing religion onto children? If anything, Evolution is a religion, and is forced upon students in nearly every text book from kindergarten to first grade with no other alternative suggestion available or even considered.

Evolution cannot explain how life is designed as a closed feedback system, something engineers know that this cannot happen by random chance and must be designed. The evidence for a "Tree of Life", is progressively becoming null, micro-evolution experiments have run into limits of variation, etc. This is just a couple of the 'basic' tip of the Iceburg of questions our 5th graders should be asking. For adults, highly technical peer reviewed papers come up with more problems than solutions regarding the theory.

It's quite clear that Macro-Evolution is mentioned, pushed upon, or forced, in almost every facet of science and overtly invading every topic or discussion; especially Environmental Sciences. Any dissenting opinions in which reasonable scientific method is applied against Macro-Evolution is are squashed in mainstream academia.

"“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over" - Joseph Goebbel

Third, pushing a secular humanist view of dead spirituality, is just as violent as those you oppose. What right does the government have in forcing a person into a dead spiritual state?

See, I think this also ties into Goebbel's statements as such "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Goebbel went on in this same quote, that it was for the purpose of the State to control the 'truth' and thus limit dissent.

I'm sorry, but I see this with Macro-Evolution. What better way to enforce a State with it's entire population beholden to it, because they do not believe in a "higher power"?

Furthermore, accepted scientific theories are worked into the learning process, as they help students understand the basics of biology and chemistry, giving them further insight to the cycle of life and creation around them.

Then you should have no problem with a form of Intelligent Design, as Humanity has many instances of "proof of concept" empirically. The smattering of URL's above, are just one of hundreds of instances where Intelligent Design as a concept has been proved inadvertently.

It'd be asinine to hear "God did it" in a science class. Seriously, go find a bridge to crawl under.

Newton would have disagreed with you. He wrote a 300,000 pages of commentary on the book of Revelation alone. In fact, Newtons religions writings constitute more than half of his entire written work. Geoff Brumfiel, “Newton’s religious screeds get online airing,” Nature 430, 819 (19 August 2004)

Just because one believes in a Creator-God, does not make them any less scientific than someone that doesn't. If you believe that, you've bought into exactly what modern humanism wants wants you to believe. It appears you have with your above quote.

Just remember, one must wonder when seeing other quotes like this:

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." - Sir Arthur Keith.