AntiGod education should not be compulsary (even for non wealthy)

I have to agree with gipper here. If you read it objectively, you will see that it is not always a straight step by step 'listing'.Evolution is mainly a model to explain certain facts that has been observed. These facts does not refute God, quite the countrary. It would be a confirmation that he has made the world into a truly effective place.Evolution does not counter spirituality. There is a reason why you have biology AND religion classes in school. It is so that the children (I have been one, you know) can take part of all information and form their own opinion. Following a religion blindly is just as bad as following a scientific model blindly; it is a basis for thought, and you should evaluate it in contrast to your personal experiences and reasonings.You can't argue against a model just because you do not like the facts given. That would make you indeed dangerous to your children, because it would make you try to force them into an ignorant and unfaceted view on their own lives.

quote:

---

Good, maybe you can join the majority of americans here, who in a recent poll agreed with gipper on a literal flood. Most Americans take Bible stories literally - Washington Times

---

I will do no such thing because I do not believe the bible is historically litteral, but instead contains moral allegories to make you reflect on certain important issues in your life. I can't take the bible litterally because it does not work with empirical observations, nor would it give you a sound open-minded point of view.

quote:

---

Also true evolution is merely a 'model to explain certain facts that has been observed' Creation also is a model to explain the same facts, by and large.

---

I'd argue that creationism is not a scientific model, but a spiritual one. Most of the arguments for it are based on the text in the bible, not direct observations. I do, however, acknowledge it as a way to encompass issues that science does not touch. And as I said before, a litteral creationism interpretation is directly refuted by evidence, unless you add in some strange beginning requirements.

quote:

---

As far as danger to your kids, perhaps socialist states who like to steal people's children at the drop of a hat are a real danger.

---

I hope you aren't insuinating that Sweden is some sort of corrupt and evil state. I do not think you know what socialist means, if you use it in that context.

quote:

---

People trying to force their belief of a lying God, and errant bible, and making fairy tales of facts, and turning facts into fables, like evolutionists also are dangerous. Pick your poison, God - or the supposedly scientific, sly, serpentine substitute sacriledge spread in schools.

---

Teaching the scientifical model in school does not refute the idea of God. In fact, ALL tax-sponsored Swedish schools, and I assume American too, teach these as sepparate, and compatible, things. We do not force you into any conclution; that is your own job. You are encouraged and taught to think for yourself, and to not take any lessons blindly. Indeed, one of the first things they bring up when you start science classes is that you are working with models, which are not 100% accurate, and they also give examples on the progress that has occured through history.

But why include any Creator in science? It does not even touch the subject, and that's how it should be.Why not bring up the Creator in religion classes instead?If God has no effect on newtonian mechanics, for example, why would you even mention him? Are you saying that non-Christians are unable to comprehend science?And could you please tell me what your view on Creationism is? Old? New? Through evolution? Appearing old?Sidenote: Rather wierd to put me in a minority when I'm not even in the test group.

Exactly, hence science should be taught in science class, and religion should be taught in religion class, and they can both work together when it comes to forming a view on how the world *really* works.You seem to have some issues with the revealed facts of our origin, and to that I can only respond that I do not think reality, or God for that matter, care about what you want the world to be like. Evolution is not alternative; it's the best model we have at the moment, given the facts we have observed.

quote:

---

What I want doesn't matter much, what you want doesn't matter much. God has a written record, so I don't need my or your opinion of what He thinks happened, it's as plain as the nose on your face. You don't have a monopoly on science, or knowledge, or God. Theres lots of facts out there, and some choose to interpret them as self creating accidents. The very idea of such philosophy, people of faith the world over find stinky. Even more odorous however, is the 'I am as God' attitude that the adherants of this neutered nitwit nonsense nurture.

---

So you believe that for some undetailed reason rock dating, strata examination and other observations are not natural and the events they describe has never occured, yet they have taken the forms they have?Evolution does not say God didn't create life. In fact, there are many faithful people who argue for God as the designer of the laws and effects in our universe just to get it suitable for our life. The existance or non-existance of God is not part of the model of Evolution.

Rock dating is unrelated to evolutionary theories, though. It is mainly done by examining the amount of specific radioactive materials, and comparing that to the measured decay rates.Could you further detail what you think is wrong with the measurements done by most scientists (who comes up with dates easily exceeding millions of years, which incidentally is also backed up by cosmonology and other fields)? Could you give details on your own methods (since you said you had done it on your own) and point out why you believe your results are more correct?