Why are kids taught in public schools to believe in next to impossible chance, rather than God?, page 26

Pages: << 23 24 25 26 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 15 times

reply posted on 30-10-2011 @ 11:52 AM by Maslo

reply to post by addygrace

The Bible is clear about God. God created seperate animals.

But he created them by using evolution as a tool.

reply posted on 30-10-2011 @ 12:59 PM by Tony4211

reply to post by addygrace

The Bible is clear about God. God created seperate animals.

Okay.... What about the animals that have evolved since we have been studying them?

www.environmentalgraffiti.com...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

These are just a couple examples of adaptation, which is a key ingredient of evolution. Saying that god created the separate animals does not account for the different species they are becoming. So....he is always changing them? That sounds a lot like evolution to me.

edit on 30-10-2011 by Tony4211 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-10-2011 @ 05:36 PM by iterationzero

reply to post by addygrace

Science has no dog in the fight, in regards to God.

If that's the case, then God has no dog in the fight with regard to what's being taught in public school science classes.

I love science in the classroom. That's why in my original post I am talking about abiogenesis. Abiogenesis shouldn't be taught in our classroom's. Their's no proof of this. IMO, it's not enough to teach it then say it's all conjecture. We shouldn't teach conjecture in science classPERIOD

I disagree. I think as long as something is clearly presented as a hypothesis and is backed by scientific evidence, there's no reason not to present it. If anything, it presents a good opportunity for students to understand the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis.

reply posted on 2-11-2011 @ 01:09 AM by addygrace

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by addygrace

The Bible is clear about God. God created seperate animals.

Okay.... What about the animals that have evolved since we have been studying them?

www.environmentalgraffiti.com...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

These are just a couple examples of adaptation, which is a key ingredient of evolution. Saying that god created the separate animals does not account for the different species they are becoming. So....he is always changing them? That sounds a lot like evolution to me.

edit on 30-10-2011 by Tony4211 because: (no reason given)

Evolution and the Bible are compatible with adaptation. Adaptation alone, in my opinion, can't account for the diversity of life we see today. Evolution says no guiding voice. The bible says different. It just depends on your world-view.

reply posted on 2-11-2011 @ 07:30 AM by MrXYZ

reply to post by addygrace

No, it depends on whether or not your claims are backed up by objective evidence. When it comes to evolution, we KNOW humans evolved from an ancestor we have in common with monkeys because the fossil record, DNA, and migratory trends fully back it up...whereas when it comes to the Biblical creation myth, we can show that it's demonstrably wrong since humans didn't just pop up in their current form.

In short, no, it's not a matter of different viewpoints...creationism isn't an alternative "theory" because it's simply not backed up by objective evidence. At best, it's a hypothesis, and even then it's demonstrably wrong in several key claims.

reply posted on 2-11-2011 @ 12:57 PM by Firepac

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.

Simple. In science class we only teach scientific views of origin. God is not science. What part of that do you not understand? I know creationists have a hard time grasping the concept of science but just at least pretend you do alright?

reply posted on 2-11-2011 @ 12:59 PM by Firepac

Originally posted by Balkan
Yep, indoctrinate em early. I see your point. Why wait? Get em when their most mallable and impressionable and they trust you to tell them what's what.

You have just described creationism perfectly.

reply posted on 2-11-2011 @ 12:59 PM by Firepac

Originally posted by Frontkjemper

Originally posted by Nobama
Because it makes sense?

Lol, and how does "we were made from nothing" make any more sense?

"We were made from nothing" makes absolutely no sense at all. And that is exactly why creationism isn't taught in schools.

edit on 2-11-2011 by Firepac because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-11-2011 @ 01:19 PM by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Firepac

Originally posted by Frontkjemper

Originally posted by Nobama
Because it makes sense?

Lol, and how does "we were made from nothing" make any more sense?

"We were made from nothing" makes absolutely no sense at all. And that is exactly why creationism isn't taught in schools.
edit on 2-11-2011 by Firepac because: (no reason given)

"Nothing comes from nothing...except for god...makes perfect sense!"

Why are people wondering why creationism isn't taught in science class if there's such horrible gaps in logic??

reply posted on 4-11-2011 @ 11:16 AM by DaveNorris

i think both theories should be taught in schools, evolution in science and creationism in religous studies, i also think that religous studies should cover all religions. that way when children have all the different theories they can make an informed choice as to what they want to beleive
that would also mean that parents shouldnt push their kids into choosing a religion based on what the parent beleives

reply posted on 4-11-2011 @ 11:29 AM by MrXYZ

Originally posted by DaveNorris
i think both theories should be taught in schools, evolution in science and creationism in religous studies, i also think that religous studies should cover all religions. that way when children have all the different theories they can make an informed choice as to what they want to beleive
that would also mean that parents shouldnt push their kids into choosing a religion based on what the parent beleives

Creationism isn't a theory because it lacks objective evidence to back up claims. Having said that, it's obiously ok to teach what people BELIEVE in history or religious classes.

But saying children should have the choice to decide which is correct is utter nonsense given that one theory is fully backed up with evidence while the other has zero objective evidence as backup

reply posted on 4-11-2011 @ 11:34 AM by DaveNorris

reply to post by MrXYZ

when i said 'theory' i wasnt using in the dictionary definition of the word but as a word to cover these different ideas on how we became the way we are 'evolution'. 'creationism', 'alien genetic experiments' whatever (to be honest i couldnt think of another word that would have worked)

im not saying they can decide whats right, im saying they should have all the info so they can decide what they want to beleive. theres a difference.

reply posted on 4-11-2011 @ 11:35 AM by DaveNorris

personly i think the world would be a better place without religion, but thats out of our hands

reply posted on 4-11-2011 @ 11:53 AM by MrXYZ

Originally posted by DaveNorris
personly i think the world would be a better place without religion, but thats out of our hands

I really don't care what people believe if it makes them happy and they don't hurt anyone. However, I HATE people bringing religion into politics and science as both of those things should be based on rationality and logic...something that is at the complete opposite spectrum of religion

reply posted on 5-11-2011 @ 12:45 AM by addygrace

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by DaveNorris
personly i think the world would be a better place without religion, but thats out of our hands

I really don't care what people believe if it makes them happy and they don't hurt anyone. However, I HATE people bringing religion into politics and science as both of those things should be based on rationality and logic...something that is at the complete opposite spectrum of religion

I have to agree. That's why I have a problem with Abiogenesis being brought into the classroom. It obviously stands on conjecture and quicksand. In 100 years, people are going to look back and say, "Wow, life from non-life? The scientists back then were religious zealots."

I HATE people bringing religion into politics and science

Hate's a strong word to use. God loves you.

reply posted on 5-11-2011 @ 01:35 AM by MrXYZ

reply to post by addygrace

Mhhhhhh....we KNOW life can come from non-life, scientists have created base elements of life in the lab. And abiogenesis is taught as a hypothesis and not absolute truth (which creationists are crazy enough to claim), they even state in books that we don't really fully understand how it happened.

At least we know for sure we evolved from a common ancestor with today's monkeys, because that's a theory and not a hypothesis

reply posted on 6-11-2011 @ 03:01 PM by DaveNorris

reply to post by MrXYZ

thats the exact reason i said it

Pages: << 23 24 25 26 >> ^^TOP^^