Should religion have a place in Schools

[Land of the with held]

I think you mean ADAPTATION. The animals, people, vegitation adapt to their surroundings.

What exactly is the difference between adaptation and evolution?

evolution is the complete changing of a DNA structure. Adapting is the slight change in the DNA to be able to survive in different enviornments. Like the Tanning of your skin in the sun.

[Samuraikoku]

What exactly is the difference between adaptation and evolution?

evolution is the complete changing of a DNA structure. Adapting is the slight change in the DNA to be able to survive in different enviornments. Like the Tanning of your skin in the sun.

Still evolution. Carl Sagan explains it.

[Unchecked Expansion]

What exactly is the difference between adaptation and evolution?

evolution is the complete changing of a DNA structure. Adapting is the slight change in the DNA to be able to survive in different enviornments. Like the Tanning of your skin in the sun.

Wrong. And wrong. Evolution is the accumulation of beneficial mutations between generations. Genes cannot chose to adapt, they are simply prone to copy errors.

[Enadail]

What exactly is the difference between adaptation and evolution?

evolution is the complete changing of a DNA structure. Adapting is the slight change in the DNA to be able to survive in different enviornments. Like the Tanning of your skin in the sun.

Uh... tanning is not a change in DNA...

Anyway, this is kinda like saying I can never build a house if you only give me one brick at a time! Look, tomorrow I'll only have 2 bricks... then later, 3... but I need 1000 bricks! That'll never happen!

Evolution is not "the complete changing of a DNA structure", as first, DNA structure does not change, evolution is change over time. It can be as simple as a bird changing the shape of its beak, or as complex as a species branching into two entirely different species. Its just a matter of time.

[Land of the with held]

I'm not a stupid person. I study things before I talk about them... I didn't study this extensivley. But I did study it. I could be wrong in my thoughts. And there is nothing wrong with that. I am being attacked because I think different than the rest of you. its hillarious.

[Unchecked Expansion]

I'm not a stupid person. I study things before I talk about them... I didn't study this extensivley. But I did study it. I could be wrong in my thoughts. And there is nothing wrong with that. I am being attacked because I think different than the rest of you. its hillarious.

No, you're being corrected because your idea of evolution is quite simply wrong

[Enadail]

evolution is the complete changing of a DNA structure. Adapting is the slight change in the DNA to be able to survive in different enviornments. Like the Tanning of your skin in the sun.

Wrong. And wrong. Evolution is the accumulation of beneficial mutations between generations. Genes cannot chose to adapt, they are simply prone to copy errors.

Lets be clear: mutations do not need to be beneficial. Its just that beneficial changes tend to be the ones that survive.

[Samuraikoku]

I'm not a stupid person. I study things before I talk about them... I didn't study this extensivley. But I did study it. I could be wrong in my thoughts. And there is nothing wrong with that. I am being attacked because I think different than the rest of you. its hillarious.

How EXACTLY are you being attacked?

[Ceannairceach]

I'm not a stupid person. I study things before I talk about them... I didn't study this extensivley. But I did study it. I could be wrong in my thoughts. And there is nothing wrong with that. I am being attacked because I think different than the rest of you. its hillarious.

You aren't being attacked; You're being debated with, and called out for your lack of information.

[Enadail]

I'm not a stupid person. I study things before I talk about them... I didn't study this extensivley. But I did study it. I could be wrong in my thoughts. And there is nothing wrong with that. I am being attacked because I think different than the rest of you. its hillarious.

You're being attacked because you're talking about a subject you apparently have little to no knowledge of. Little to nothing you've said so far about evolution has been correct, starting from when you called it "evolutionism".

[Land of the with held]

evolution is the complete changing of a DNA structure. Adapting is the slight change in the DNA to be able to survive in different enviornments. Like the Tanning of your skin in the sun.

Uh... tanning is not a change in DNA...

Anyway, this is kinda like saying I can never build a house if you only give me one brick at a time! Look, tomorrow I'll only have 2 bricks... then later, 3... but I need 1000 bricks! That'll never happen!

Evolution is not "the complete changing of a DNA structure", as first, DNA structure does not change, evolution is change over time. It can be as simple as a bird changing the shape of its beak, or as complex as a species branching into two entirely different species. Its just a matter of time.

I know tanning is not a change in DNA but your DNA has predetermined that you will tan... Unless you are already darker skinnned. Than your DNA has Predetermined that because of where your heritage is you"ll be dark entirly.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Wrong. And wrong. Evolution is the accumulation of beneficial mutations between generations. Genes cannot chose to adapt, they are simply prone to copy errors.

Lets be clear: mutations do not need to be beneficial. Its just that beneficial changes tend to be the ones that survive.

I was a bit brief. It is why I specified beneficial ( although even then, it's a bit misleading)
Mutations that are successfully passed on survive. Mutations that increase the chances of successful breeding propagate. The accumulation of these mutation create an organism which is more successful. This is evolution

[Unhealthy2]

The evolution side has some good points. I admit that. But there is one thing that they are missing(acording to me): proof. I'm not talking about evidence that suggests evolution. I'm talking about I-was-there-I-have-video-tapes-take-a-look proof, that is undeniable. Neither side has absolute proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lo ... experiment

Even that's not "undeniable," as you could always claim that this world is just a dream you're having. Absolute proof is for mathematics. Asking for it in the realm of science shows a profound misunderstanding of basic epistemology.

What we DO have, however, is unbelievably overwhelming empirical evidence.

And they have nothing about how life began.

That's not true.

I do not see how cells could have suddenly appeared without divine influence.

No model of abiogenesis has cells just magically popping up out of nowhere.

There is a gaping hole in the Big Bang theory.

The big bang is about the expansion of the universe. It's not about where the universe came from.

That the entire universe was compressed into a singularity of infinite mass and density.

That's not quite accurate. First of all, it has been known for a long time that singularities are allowed by general relativity but not by quantum theory. Also, the singularity is only part of inflationary cosmology, not non-inflationary models. Even if we take on an inflationary model, there are at least two ways to remove the singularity from the start of the universe and make a completely consistent model.

Well, where did all that matter come from?

From available modes of energy like electromagnetic radiation.

The laws of physics rule out it just appearing.

No, they don't. The layman's version of physics rules them out, but the actual, sophisticated and correct formulation of the laws of physics is perfectly fine with such an occurrence.

[Logothea]

And if it does how should it be taught;
Extra curricular subject,
Voluntary subject,
Creationism, should it be allowed,
not at all,
blanket teach multiple religions alongside each other,
just the "main" ones,

Thoughts...?

In my opinion why not? I got to choose my religion myself, no one made me do anything and in my country you have to study either your own religion or general knowledge/World View/Social Ed. - Many names for that - which teaches about all the major religions.

In here, if there are at least 3 members as pupils and having the same religion it must be thought in the school and that's that.

What I think mainly is that religion shouldn't be made too.. complex. Like many are saying that their children can't learn evolution theory or sex ed. because of their religion. Religion (be it any religion) can't be proven, science can. Religion and Science should support each other, not be at war with one another.

It's like if I break my leg should I pray or go to the doctor and have it healed? Why can't they support each other? I pray that the procedure goes well, go to doctor, it goes well and then thank what ever god I prayed.

I do not understand why religion is made to be such a big thing, when most people out here actually do no BELIEVE they are afraid to be alone in the whole big universe.

I hope hat my point got across.

[Land of the with held]

Lets be clear: mutations do not need to be beneficial. Its just that beneficial changes tend to be the ones that survive.

I was a bit brief. It is why I specified beneficial ( although even then, it's a bit misleading)
Mutations that are successfully passed on survive. Mutations that increase the chances of successful breeding propagate. The accumulation of these mutation create an organism which is more successful. This is evolution

Natural selection in a sense

[Unhealthy2]

Empiricism does not and cannot give answer to this sort of objection.

But rational philosophy can. Empiricism doesn't come out of a vacuum. It takes reason into account as well.

[The Shadow Paladin]

This is in response to Unhealthy2: First, could you define polymers, hypercycle, and protobiont? Also, if I understand you correctly, you say that matter comes from energy, due to energy matter conversion. But I have to ask, where does the energy come from, if there's no matter for a nuclear reaction?

Edit: Oh, and is Wikipedia your only source for that experiment?

[Salandriagado]

Right, the levels of ignorance, unfounded assumptions and blatant refusal to acknowledge facts in this thread has got too high for me to have time to respond to every one individually. As such, you're getting a lecture instead. Now sit down quietly, actually read all of the post then start apologising for everything you've said so far in this thread.

Firstly, a number of you have made the argument that atheism makes life pointless. This is entirely correct. The universe is vast beyond your imagination, and the remainder of existence (using "universe" to mean our current universe at this point" is vast far beyond that. Our galaxy is an impossibly, invisibly small spot in the ever increasing vastness of space. Our solar system is an impossibly, invisibly small spot in that galaxy. Our sun is in no way notable. The earth is a tiny, irrelevant spot on the canvas of that average, boring solar system. You are a tiny, irrelevant spot on the face of the earth. You are irrelevant. This is not an argument, it is a statement of fact. There is no purpose to life, no point nor grand design. The universe exists because it came into being from the laws of quantum mechanics. (Although we do not yet know the exact mechanism, there are six leading theories at present. None of these involve the phrase "nothing exploded" or even an explosion, or nothing, at all. The concept of "nothing" is not one that has ever been found to exist.) The vast majority of the universe is instantly fatal to us. The vast majority of the remainder is so far away that it is practically impossible to reach them. The vast majority of the remainder will still kill you, but a bit slower. What exactly makes you think you are relevant at all? To say otherwise is the height of arrogance.
And yet christianity, without a single jot of evidence, claims that they and they alone can explain the origin of this vastness, and that it was designed for them. The universe does not care if you die. It does not care if the entire human race is destroyed. It does not care if the earth is destroyed. It does not care if the solar system is destroyed. It does not care if the galaxy is destroyed. It does not care about anything, certainly not something so small and irrelevant as you and your ridiculous assertion that your stolen war god both exists and both created and manages this vastness, and further that you and you alone can accurately say anything of the existence and nature of such an entity. (Also completely ignoring the vast disagreement even within your particular branch of Judaism about the smallest of issues.)
You then proclaim that your utterly unfounded assertions are a theory and in any way equal to the vastly and deeply researched theories that explain how life changes, how it came into existence and the origins, both of our galaxy and solar system, and of the universe as a whole, despite the vast bodies of evidence that support them. If you want to argue against abiogenesis, that's fine. Go out, get a doctorate in a relevant field of biology, spend a lifetime researching the issue, then publish your results, methodology and resources, and we'll talk, assuming it stands up to peer review. Want to argue against cosmology and the big bang? Again, absolutely fine. You'll be needing PhDs in both astronomy and cosmology to pull that one off, along with the aforementioned lifetime of research. Once you've done that, you can present your findings in a peer-reviewed journal, and if your theories (which they will be by that point) stand up to it, we can talk. Until then, get the hell out of a field that you simply do not understand.
And despite a total lack of knowledge in any of the fields related to this, you try to have your stolen opinions taught as a valid alternative to the theories that currently hold scientific consensus. That and that alone is sufficient to condemn your views as ridiculous.

EDIT: This one is so ridiculous it deserves its own reply:

But the solar system is around now... They have found an easier way then- in a sense- going back in time. And the heliocentric model could possibly be wrong to. until we can fully investigate thats the best we have.

1) The heliocentric model does not model the universe any longer, the universe has no "centre" as such, at least not in any way that can be observed in our dimensional reference frame.
2) The heliocentric model of the solar system is absolutely, provably correct with a few simple observations and a little maths. I don't imagine you'll read this anyway, so I wont go into the details, but it is trivial (besides engineering concerns) to establish that the earth is not stationary by simple experimentation, and for the earth to be the centre of the universe, vast tracts of the universe would have to be travelling at speeds considerably greater than c.

[Samuraikoku]

*snip*

Amen.

[The Shadow Paladin]

Salandriagado, where are your degrees, peer reviewed journals, and lifetime of research? Or do you have equal qualifications as the rest of us? I am simply trying to point out flaws with your logic. And what it sounds to my and my "ignorance, unfounded assumptions and blatant refusal to acknowledge facts" is that you're saying,
"You all too stupid to be talking about. I am smarter than you all just because I am."
At least explain why you're more credible that every one else here.

[Salandriagado]

This is in response to Unhealthy2: First, could you define polymers, hypercycle, and protobiont? Also, if I understand you correctly, you say that matter comes from energy, due to energy matter conversion. But I have to ask, where does the energy come from, if there's no matter for a nuclear reaction?

Edit: Oh, and is Wikipedia your only source for that experiment?

Hint: Unhealthy2 does this stuff every day. He knows what he's talking about. Look at the links on wikipedia for other sources. The source of the energy is still partially up for debate, but I personally think a collision between a pair of branes is most likely, although that is purely a personal view.

[The Shadow Paladin]

This is in response to Unhealthy2: First, could you define polymers, hypercycle, and protobiont? Also, if I understand you correctly, you say that matter comes from energy, due to energy matter conversion. But I have to ask, where does the energy come from, if there's no matter for a nuclear reaction?

Edit: Oh, and is Wikipedia your only source for that experiment?

Hint: Unhealthy2 does this stuff every day. He knows what he's talking about. Look at the links on wikipedia for other sources. The source of the energy is still partially up for debate, but I personally think a collision between a pair of branes is most likely, although that is purely a personal view.

What do you mean he does this stuff everyday? What is his occupation? How does he know?

[Unhealthy2]

This is in response to Unhealthy2: First, could you define polymers, hypercycle, and protobiont?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercycle_%28chemistry%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protobiont

Also, if I understand you correctly, you say that matter comes from energy, due to energy matter conversion. But I have to ask, where does the energy come from, if there's no matter for a nuclear reaction?

I don't like the phrase "energy-matter conversion," because energy is a physical quantity, and matter is a physical substance. Matter doesn't turn into energy, or vice-versa. What happens is that an object loses mass and as a result, gains energy. Or, energy is expended to produce matter and ends up stored in the mass of an object.

Pedantic ramblings aside, the energy comes from the gravitational field. Gravity is an infinite well of negative potential energy. It is always possible to slip lower and lower in order to extract more positive energy from it, using certain methods. One of these is the expansion of space-time.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

But rational philosophy can. Empiricism doesn't come out of a vacuum. It takes reason into account as well.

What do you mean? Empiricism is a type of rational philosophy (specifically, one that places an emphasis on empirical observation as the principle means of attaining knowledge).

Definitional quibbles aside, I am curious as to how you propose a thoroughgoing skepticism can be answered.

[Salandriagado]

Hint: Unhealthy2 does this stuff every day. He knows what he's talking about. Look at the links on wikipedia for other sources. The source of the energy is still partially up for debate, but I personally think a collision between a pair of branes is most likely, although that is purely a personal view.

What do you mean he does this stuff everyday? What is his occupation? How does he know?

I believe he is studying mathematics.