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

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Daughter2
it does seem they are teaching children to exclude all religious/spiritual explanations for life.


YES!!! Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!

We are a secular nation. Public schools should never bring God of any kind into their teachings.

EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Really, so they can never teach a comparative religion class? Children should be taught about religions and cultures. They should also be taught how mainstream science views data and how people based on their own personal experiences and beliefs view data. (BTW - the view there is God is also a spiritual belief system).

I'm not saying they should teach what religion or belief is correct, they should just teach about these beliefs.
Even more so with all this new stuff coming out in physics which almost merges with spiritual teachings.




posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daughter2

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Daughter2
it does seem they are teaching children to exclude all religious/spiritual explanations for life.


YES!!! Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!

We are a secular nation. Public schools should never bring God of any kind into their teachings.

EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Really, so they can never teach a comparative religion class?


Absolutely NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comparative religion could be an elective class maybe at high school level.

But NEVER a standard class every student must take.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur

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


Impossible chance, really? Do you understand how incredibly massive the universe is? In our galaxy alone, there are over 100 billion stars. In the observable universe, there are estimated to be hundreds of billions and even trillions of galaxies. Evidence has recently surfaced indicating that parallel universes might even exist. So if there are an incomprehensible amount of stars in the universe, do you really think it's impossible?

Over billions of years, the right chemicals are bound to form given the ideal planetary conditions. The planet has to be the right distance from the sun so that the oceans won't boil or freeze, it has to have an iron core and magnetic field that will deflect charged particles from the sun, and an atmosphere. Over millions, even billions of years, with thousands of asteroids and comets slamming into the planet, the right chemicals eventually will form by sheer chance, setting the stage for single-celled organisms to evolve into the life-forms we are today.

It's not impossible, because it happened.
edit on 14-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post

Calm down. I said "next to impossible". You did leave out a massive amount of events that have to be just right, for life to come together. Not to mention we know of no instance where life has come together, except this one.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Whilst Christian parents have seen Christ relegated to the most popular name used when Cussing, Islamists and Jewish parents see their God promoted and their childs right to pray pathologically enforced.

Is this coincidence?

Only to the blind.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 




Calm down. I said "next to impossible". You did leave out a massive amount of events that have to be just right, for life to come together.
Hey man, believe me I'm calm. Regardless of everything I left out, the universe is so massive that over a period of billions of years, it's bound to happen somewhere.


Not to mention we know of no instance where life has come together, except this one.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." --Carl Sagan.

We haven't discovered life yet, you're right, but tell me, what percentage of the observable universe has man explored? What percentage of our own galaxy has man explored? What percentage of our own solar system has man explored?

There is even evidence that life may have formed on Mars, and could actually still exist there today. Plus many scientists believe that the outer planetary moons Titan and Europa could also potentially harbor life, so the idea that there are three possible candidates for life in our solar system alone, which is just one little speck in our galaxy, and our galaxy is an insignificant pixel on the universal scale, opens up so many possibilities that it's ignorant to think that we're the only life in the universe.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   

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.


Because that derails into a non-scientific discussion. It starts to become philosophical. Kids aren't even taught it as fact, its just a well supported scientific theory. The second you mention anything from the Bible or any other creation story to suggest the origins of earth, what is the point? How does this lead to a more scientific discussion? All you are saying is "what if"? There is no connecting line of thought that leads Its plausibility under what is taught in microbiology and chemistry.

The science taught in school is at least under accurate premises, as soon as you mention God, you give up that accuracy and start hoping you are correct. Not to mention confirmation bias to all new information
edit on 14-7-2011 by juveous because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solasis

Originally posted by addygrace
I am not talking about evolution. I'm talking about origins. Seriously this thread is getting into a subject, that I never even mentioned. What's with all the assumptions.


troooooooooooll. You were very clearly indicating evolution, and the only explanation as to why you would deny that is that you are a troll. Trolly troll troll troll. Troll thread is made of a troll.

And you know, one last thing... The origin of life itself was not taught at least in my schools. I learned about things like Abiogenesis through my own studies, not from my ~eeeeevil teachers~. The reasons/ It's still quite hypothetical. We have thus far been unable to prove how life began, though we have some good guesses. It's not backed up by lots of evidence...

Unlike Evolution which, ultimately, this thread was clearly about. Troll.

*removes this thread from his follow list; stops feeding the troll*
edit on 14-7-2011 by Solasis because: (no reason given)
Abiogenesis was most likely taught at your high school. Maybe, you thought they were talking about evolution and missed the whole point.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 



What's so wrong with giving children, even young children, information?



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
i can only speak for the area i live, and i do not understand the o.p., my kids learn R.E.(religous education) where they learn about the theories or claims in the bible. also they have science which teaches them the theories and claims of science, seeing as though religion is not science both are taught seperately and have their own seperate lessons. so i have no idea what the o.p. is talking about.

even when i was at school it was the same, i had R.E. and science. science seems to be based more around evidence and observations that can be confirmed, thats why religion is not a part of science, it would not fit the criteria of what science is meant to be and was designed to do.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Why does life have to be a result of impossible chances? Well, it’s not impossible and it’s not an aberration. Why does no one for one moment think of life as a gear in the vast machine? Life, whether micro to macro is natural and most likely, abundant.

Does that mean a creator has to be excluded? No, but it also means a creator does not have to be included, and whether you think so or not, your inclusion or exclusion of a creator should be kept personal as it’s a personal, albeit, universal journey.

My opinion, do not force but give children all the info out there, and let them come to their own conclusion, which we all do anyway as adults.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by addygrace
Not to mention we know of no instance where life has come together, except this one.

People also used to think the sun revolved around the Earth, that said Earth was flat and that the Moon was a dragon that would occasionally appear and try to devour the sun, but if they ritualistically sacrificed a virgin quick enough the smell of the blood would appease the dragon.

We don't know anything until we know it, there could be a form of life on just one planet in every solar system, life would be the NORM and not the exception and we'd never know it. The scale of the universe prevents us, without millions of years of civilization from ever fully understanding it. To even entertain the idea that we are alone is patently ludicrous.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daughter2
reply to post by Annee
 



What's so wrong with giving children, even young children, information?



You want to teach children about some imaginary personage - - then do it at home.

We are a secular government. Public schools are government.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifeform11
i can only speak for the area i live, and i do not understand the o.p., my kids learn R.E.(religous education) where they learn about the theories or claims in the bible. also they have science which teaches them the theories and claims of science, seeing as though religion is not science both are taught seperately and have their own seperate lessons. so i have no idea what the o.p. is talking about.



If that was a public school where I lived.

I'd be picketing it.

God (of any kind) does not belong in any "government" school. It is a violation of church and state.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by addygrace
 




Calm down. I said "next to impossible". You did leave out a massive amount of events that have to be just right, for life to come together.
Hey man, believe me I'm calm. Regardless of everything I left out, the universe is so massive that over a period of billions of years, it's bound to happen somewhere.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." --Carl Sagan.
It also isn't evidence of something. Your using the same argument as "God of the gaps". Because it's so huge and old there must be a way for life to come from non-life. That's not logical.


We haven't discovered life yet, you're right, but tell me, what percentage of the observable universe has man explored? What percentage of our own galaxy has man explored? What percentage of our own solar system has man explored?

There is even evidence that life may have formed on Mars, and could actually still exist there today. Plus many scientists believe that the outer planetary moons Titan and Europa could also potentially harbor life, so the idea that there are three possible candidates for life in our solar system alone, which is just one little speck in our galaxy, and our galaxy is an insignificant pixel on the universal scale, opens up so many possibilities that it's ignorant to think that we're the only life in the universe.
Not to really get into this, but let's pretend we do find other life on other planets. This fact alone doesn't make abiogenesis true or likely.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifeform11
i can only speak for the area i live, and i do not understand the o.p., my kids learn R.E.(religous education) where they learn about the theories or claims in the bible. also they have science which teaches them the theories and claims of science, seeing as though religion is not science both are taught seperately and have their own seperate lessons. so i have no idea what the o.p. is talking about.

even when i was at school it was the same, i had R.E. and science. science seems to be based more around evidence and observations that can be confirmed, thats why religion is not a part of science, it would not fit the criteria of what science is meant to be and was designed to do.
So, abiogenesis wasn't taught, in science class, at your school, either? Did they teach it in religious studies, because that would be a first.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by juveous
[. The second you mention anything from the Bible or any other creation story to suggest the origins of earth, what is the point? How does this lead to a more scientific discussion? All you are saying is "what if"? There is no connecting line of thought that leads Its plausibility under what is taught in microbiology and chemistry.

The science taught in school is at least under accurate premises, as soon as you mention God, you give up that accuracy and start hoping you are correct. Not to mention confirmation bias to all new information


Maybe spiritual beliefs don't fit in with microbiology and chemistry but they do fit in with some physic theories.

Why not teach children to think "what if"? And I'm not talking just about religion. Just look at the theories about who built the pyramids. In my opinion, the mainstream science come about with silly theories just to exclude the possibility of "advanced help".



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


well they teach all religions in that lesson, not just one view. the pupose is to understand different cultures and beliefs, given the u.k. has many of them i do not think it will do any harm. infact they will be less ignorant and more understanding of different beliefs because of it.

i just wish some religious people were more understanding and less ignorant where peoples beliefs of not believing was concerned.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra

Originally posted by addygrace
Not to mention we know of no instance where life has come together, except this one.

People also used to think the sun revolved around the Earth, that said Earth was flat and that the Moon was a dragon that would occasionally appear and try to devour the sun, but if they ritualistically sacrificed a virgin quick enough the smell of the blood would appease the dragon.

We don't know anything until we know it, there could be a form of life on just one planet in every solar system, life would be the NORM and not the exception and we'd never know it. The scale of the universe prevents us, without millions of years of civilization from ever fully understanding it. To even entertain the idea that we are alone is patently ludicrous.
Nobody's claiming we're alone. Matter-of-fact, this idea does nothing to help the idea of abiogenesis, or hurt it. Basically the only thing that's ever been observed in nature, is life coming from life. I've personally seen it a few times. Never have I seen life come from non-life. Maggots don't come from raw meat, they come from flies.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by addygrace
Basically the only thing that's ever been observed in nature, is life coming from life. I've personally seen it a few times. Never have I seen life come from non-life. Maggots don't come from raw meat, they come from flies.


You do realize life’s important building blocks are non-life right? An embryo does not come from nothing and nowhere, ever try to get between a pregnant woman and ice-cream with pickles? Yeah, there’s non-life building blocks in there.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by addygrace
Nobody's claiming we're alone. Matter-of-fact, this idea does nothing to help the idea of abiogenesis, or hurt it. Basically the only thing that's ever been observed in nature, is life coming from life. I've personally seen it a few times. Never have I seen life come from non-life. Maggots don't come from raw meat, they come from flies.


The problem is with people claiming that life spawned as a result of a miracle long-shot odds because we haven't observed it.

If we haven't observed it then it doesn't exist? Then what of God?





top topics
 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join