Should evolution be taught in schools?

[BeardofPants]

No, sorry Leif and Rian, but we've been over this before.

atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

re·li·gion Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1. 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
   2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
   [I]The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
2. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
3. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Ideologies on the other hand...

i·de·ol·o·gy Pronunciation Key (d-l-j, d-)
n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies

1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Denotes a subscription to a set of ideas without necessarily imbuing it with a sense of devotion, which the term 'religion' can do.

I should have been more clear; I meant that atheism subscribes to the lack of belief in a higher authority. Ideologies are a set of belief systems... without the devotional aspect. At no point in my post did I want to specify that atheism was outside the realm of being a belief system. I hope I have made that more clear this time.

[Lief Erikson]

I suppose you're right, we would have to slightly broaden the definition to label it as a religion. But you'd probably also have to broaden the definition of an Ideology to squeeze it into that category as well.

Meanwhile, we're agreed that it falls under the same catagory as religion in at least some respects. I think the title 'religion,' is irrelevant as to whether it is the same or not in the respect we're looking at. The point is that it is the same as religion in that it is utterly impossible to touch upon the truth of by any means in the physical realm.

RÃ*an, I have one question: Are you leading this somewhere? I can't see what the point is of establishing Atheism as a religion. Thanks for pointing out the similarity, though, I hadn't noticed it before you mentioned it.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Evolution is a current scientific theory, with evidence to support it, and believing it is fine. Believing in the millions of years evolution is also fine, even though there is some evidence to the contrary, like the fact that there isn't more similarity among the species, and the fact that quite a few more recent books are discussing the likelihood of a faster evolution (I can't give you many of the names of these books, though, so don't ask)

Try reading "Invertebrate Fossils"; Moore, Lalicker, and Fisher. You will soon cast aside the silly notion that there isn't similarity among the species. Faster evolution doesn't explain the existence of Brachiopods over a period of 300 million years and the fact that they have been extinct for even longer. Unless they were tucked into the rocks under so many other rock deposits, they are very old, they show consistent evolution into modern mollusks, while lacking a small funtional feature mollusks have.

But the millions of years model still stands, for the time being...

Yes, any day know the earth is going to get much younger...

Chance and a supreme being . . . it is impossible to tell, from a scientific standpoint, which is. It's up to you to decide what you believe for yourself.

How long does it take a small chance to become an inevitability?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I am pointing out, however, that other religions also don't believe in God.

I haven't been specifically mentioning a belief in 'God.' Note I've been mentioning 'higher authority.'

re·li·gion Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.



1. 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
2. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
3. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


Religions have an inlaid belief in some sort of higher authority, or spiritual devotion. Atheism does not in any sense of the word, subscribe to this. That is why atheism can not be a religion... it is an ideology.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Try reading "Invertebrate Fossils"; Moore, Lalicker, and Fisher. You will soon cast aside the silly notion that there isn't similarity among the species.

Cirdan, I must ask you something, as politely as I can. You've misinterpreted me, RÃ*an, Methuselah, and just now, me again. Please read our posts more carefully next time. I'm very sorry if this seems rude, but you're interpreting us too narrowly.

Reread the selection of my post that you quoted, and you'll see that I didn't say there isn't similarity between species. On the contrary. I'm simply saying that if everything evolved over millions of years with many minor changes, we'd be seeing far more similarity between all the species than we do now. I suppose you might say that I'm wrong in this, but I really think everything would be much more mixed than it is now.

Faster evolution doesn't explain the existence of Brachiopods over a period of 300 million years and the fact that they have been extinct for even longer. Unless they were tucked into the rocks under so many other rock deposits, they are very old, they show consistent evolution into modern mollusks, while lacking a small funtional feature mollusks have.

I know that evolution still has a long way to go in developing its accuracy, its ability to test things, etc. We extrapolate too often, and that is a mistake. The millions of years could be incorrect dating, I've already discussed my opinions on that in previous posts.

Besides, I doubt that you've read any of the faster evolution books, so how can you say what they explain and what they don't?

Yes, any day know the earth is going to get much younger...

Yes, any day it might . Though I'm not arguing for a young Earth, we might suddenly find reason to believe that it is.

How long does it take a small chance to become an inevitability? [/B]

Please elaborate on your question; I'm missing your point.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I think the title 'religion,' is irrelevant as to whether it is the same or not in the respect we're looking at. The point is that it is the same as religion in that it is utterly impossible to touch upon the truth of by any means in the physical realm.

I'll say this again. Religion denotes a belief in a higher authority of some sort; ideologies themselves are the blanket term in which religion falls under. The difference between an ideology (of which religion can be attributed to) and a religion, is that an ideology is simply a belief system, whereas religion presupposes a belief in that previously mentioned higher authority. Atheism is a lack of belief in that authority. And it in no way subscribes to the belief system of a religious/spritual order.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I'm simply saying that if everything evolved over millions of years with many minor changes, we'd be seeing far more similarity between all the species than we do now. I suppose you might say that I'm wrong in this, but I really think everything would be much more mixed than it is now.

Far more similarity? Is it not enough that we share most of our DNA with a chimp?

LF:
I know that evolution still has a long way to go in developing its accuracy, its ability to test things, etc. We extrapolate too often, and that is a mistake. The millions of years could be incorrect dating, I've already discussed my opinions on that in previous posts.

All dating has a degree of error. The way that it is built up (ie, half lifes, decay etc) indicates that a young earth is an improbality. Even if dating had a +/- error of 30% (it only has a +/- degree of error of about 1-4% depending on the dating method) it would still point to a billion year old earth. Also, the stratification of the fossil record (the build up can actually be measured according to a specific rate of build up) indicates an older earth.

LF:
Besides, I doubt that you've read any of the faster evolution books, so how can you say what they explain and what they don't?

In my degree of ANTHROPOLOGY I covered quite a bit of this source material thank you very much.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Far more similarity? Is it not enough that we share most of our DNA with a chimp?

Isn't it 99% of our DNA is the same as chimps?

This website is funny.

Creation Tips: Could humans and apes evolve from a common ancestor?
Could people evolve from apes, or even from apelike creatures? No! Even though evolutionists believe people and apes have evolved from a common ancestor, there is no indisputable evidence that this happened. In fact there is overwhelming evidence against its ever happening.

Apes are programmed to give birth to apes — not to humans or anything else....

This guy's argument is also funny -

Human/chimp DNA similarity Evidence for evolutionary relationship?
Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (‘homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer!

I was trying to find the percentage of DNA that apes and humans have in common and I found those two sites.

[Philia]

Surprisinly all I here is BLAH BLAH BLAH CHIMPS BLAH BLAH BLAH DNA BLAH BLAH BLAH. Shows you how much I listen

[BeardofPants]

LOL!

JD - it is around 98.5%, so yeah, late 90s is a good estimation.

[Philia]

If you want I can translate what you just said BoP!

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Cirdan, I must ask you something, as politely as I can. You've misinterpreted me, RÃ*an, Methuselah, and just now, me again. Please read our posts more carefully next time. I'm very sorry if this seems rude, but you're interpreting us too narrowly.

I think I have a pretty good idea were you stand no matter how fast you "swift".

Reread the selection of my post that you quoted, and you'll see that I didn't say there isn't similarity between species. On the contrary. I'm simply saying that if everything evolved over millions of years with many minor changes, we'd be seeing far more similarity between all the species than we do now. I suppose you might say that I'm wrong in this, but I really think everything would be much more mixed than it is now.
[/b][/quote]
I actually did understand that is what you are saying. The misunderstanding is that what I am saying is that the earth is not a steady state environment, that there isn't one ideal species, that a more complex organism is not necessarily a more successful one, and organisms that have differentiated from others evolve new characteristics from others and don't share genetic code. I don't think what you've said is rude, just misplaced.

I know that evolution still has a long way to go in developing its accuracy, its ability to test things, etc. We extrapolate too often, and that is a mistake. The millions of years could be incorrect dating, I've already discussed my opinions on that in previous posts.

You are dead wrong about this, and since I have posted why I can only assume that you do not read my posts. It is not a matter of opinion. There is no way that the dating could be incorrect. You can argue ID about it but the time line is fixed by the stratigraphy of the earth. Well the earth is covered with ancient rock formation with fossils that are even older.
[quote]
Besides, I doubt that you've read any of the faster evolution books, so how can you say what they explain and what they don't?
[quote]
It may exist in some obscure bateria or something irrelevant form of life, with regards to evolution. It can not explain the millions of species that evolved over millions of years as shown in the fossil record. How do I know? The experience of walking up to an outcrop, looking for a fossil and discovering a trilobite, taking it back to find that the species was predicted to bbe found in that formation based on it's age and environment of deposition. And education is more than books and ideas; it's also about reality and functional information. It's not just because I have a degree in geology, it is because I have experienced the reality of what is out there in the fossil record.

Yes, any day it might . Though I'm not arguing for a young Earth, we might suddenly find reason to believe that it is.

The idea that the world will suddenly become topsy-turvy is very amusing. Maybe we will discover that we don't use oxygen from the air. Maybe the Roman Empire never existed. And maybe the sun really revolves around the earth. Golly, anything could happen.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
This website is funny.

This site has just set my blood boiling.

Ramapithecus turned out to be an orangutan, and the australopithecines like the famous “Lucy� fossil seem to have been more like chimpanzees that spent some of their time walking upright. Some authorities have said “Lucy� and the australopithecines were dead-ends, not links between apes and humans at all.

Ramapithecus actually predates the species Orangutan by a significant margin. Also, it is not an ape, it is a hominid.

"Lucy" also predates chimpanzees. She has a divergent big toe that chimps simply don't have. Her chest, while barrel shaped like that of a chimp, has a tendency towards the funneling that hominids have. I could go on, but eh, can't be bothered.

A lot of australopithecines were dead ends. The idea that human evolution was linear has long been shot in the foot. It is now postulated that there were several austrolopithecines co-existing with each other, and divided up by geographic barriers. Homo erectus actually co-existed for some time with them.

[Rían]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I think that evolution is a true description of what really happened. All the evidence points to evolution as a real process. Evolution and the theory of evolution are two different things. I don't believe that the theory of evolution can ever be proven scientifically.

It looks like we're in agreement, then, except I wouldn't say ALL the evidence. But I won't bother about that.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan

I actually did understand that is what you are saying. The misunderstanding is that what I am saying is that the earth is not a steady state environment, that there isn't one ideal species, that a more complex organism is not necessarily a more successful one, and organisms that have differentiated from others evolve new characteristics from others and don't share genetic code.

Yeah - all you have to do is look at the horseshoe crab - whihc we have a ton of here. They've been around for about 250 million years and haven't changed. They're considered a living fossil. Obviously the horsecrab - for whatever reason - is a very successful creature.

HORSESHOE CRABS: THE ANCIENT MARINERS

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
This site has just set my blood boiling.

Well I meant funny as in ridiculous.

[BeardofPants]

Yeah, I know you meant that. I just make it a point to avoid creationist sites if I can; I tend to get really really annoyed when reading them.

What is your new avatar btw?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
What is your new avatar btw?

It's an F15 - I got it off of http://civfanatics.com . They have over 400 avatars for their messageboard.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well I meant funny as in ridiculous.

It was both. What is irritating is that people believe that ^%#$. genomes are like words... only different.

It gets tiresome when scientists do tons of research filling volumes of books, shelves of libraries, and some joker using a misplaced analogy goes. "see, it could be wrong".

JD, I love the horseshoe crab! I grew up by the beach. I guess hunting for seashells is protopaleontology.

Is that an F-17?

[Rían]

BoP - your defs:

atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

I am referring to the #1 def.

re·li·gion
1. 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
2. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
3. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

I am referring to the #3 def., and the zeal part is especially appropriate. And devotion does not necessarily mean worship, it also means loyalty to something.

I haven't been over this before, but maybe you guys have - I'm pretty new still. But it doesn't matter at all to me if you want to use the term "ideologies" - what matters to me is whether or not people are willing to scientifically evaluate the testable details of a theory! - be it named the "theory of evolution" or the "theory of creation by intelligent design". I saw lots of "of course you can't!!" for the latter theory earlier on this thread. Are you people of the same opinion now?