Creationism vs. Evolution

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Einstein said time is a constant throughout the universe, so we'll leave that alone. But, has the constant always been constant? quote>

Except that time is not a constant throughout the universe. Does this equation ring a bell?

That's time dilation, a direct part of general relativity.

We've been able to manipulate the speed of light, even to bring it to a dead stop. Is it possible that an event or force, either within our universe or outside of the known universe, could have changed the temporal constant of the universe?quote>

Well, it's certainly possible (especially if you accept string theory), but what reason do we have to believe that hapenned?

We know that gravity can be diluted by volume, could it be that as the universe expands, time is diluted (and thus, slows down), as well? quote>

You're making a faulty extrapolation here. Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of nature. Time is a dimension of, well, space-time. Two entirely different concepts.

Quantum theory has shown unexpected changes in how matter acts relative to time on a very small scale, what ramifications could that have when viewed in an inverse perspective, i.e. the extremely large? quote>

Very little to none. Looking at things on a large scale has a normalizing effect. Each individual data point may have a value anywhere, but as you collect more and more data points, the mean value will converge, not diverge.

For instance, while an electron at some point in time may be any distance from an atom's nucleus, over larger spans of time, it will have an effective mean distance which it might as well always be at. Okay, so you can't actually measure an electron's location precisely (thank you Heisenberg), but it does have one correct value at any point in time.

[Sam 163]

In the search for life on other planets there is one problem. First you need to find suitable planets for that life. In that respect significant progress has been made recently.

A team of researches lead by planet hunter Prof. Michael Mayor (University of Geneva) announced yesterday at the 2009 JENAM conference two discoveries significant to astronomy and exobiology.

The first was the discovery of the least massive exoplanet so far, Gliese 581 e which is approximately 1.9 times the mass of the Earth. Gliese 581 e orbits the red dwarf staf Gliese 581 which is only 20.5 light years from Earth.

Although the orbit of Gliese 581 e is too close to the star for liquid water to exist, it's discovery is a significant step forward in the hunt for Earth like planets.

Mayor's main planet-hunting competitor, Geoff Marcy of the University of California, Berkeley, praised the find of Gliese 581 e as "the most exciting discovery" so far of exoplanets — planets outside our solar system.

"This discovery is absolutely extraordinary," Marcy told The Associated Press by e-mail, calling the discoveries a significant step in the search for Earth-like planets.

While Gliese 581 e is too hot for life "it shows that nature makes such small planets, probably in large numbers," Marcy commented. "Surely the galaxy contains tens of billions of planets like the small, Earth-mass one announced here."

Mayor has further unpublished data from which he hopes may yield up to 80 further discoveries of low mass planets. "Maybe the first twin of the Earth will come out of this type of experiment," he says, adding that such a planet could be found within four or five years.

The second discovery announced was a refinement to the estimate of the orbit of the previously discovered Gliese 581 d. The discovery puts the planet well within the the star's habitble zone, where liquid water could exist. Team member Stéphane Udry (Geneva University) explains that at about seven times the mass of the Earth, Gliese 581 d is too big to be made only of rocky material and it was possible the planet had a “large and deep” ocean. “It is the first serious ‘water-world’ candidate,” Udry said.

Red dwarf stars are less massive than stars like the sun which puts the habitable zone closer to the star. Gliese 581 d is about a third the mass of the sun. The latest discoveries bring it's known family to four planets now, a Neptune sized planed (Gliese 581 b at 16 earth masses), two super-Earths (Gliese 581 b at 5 earth masses and Gliese 581 d at 7 earth masses) and the smaller rocky Gliese 581 e.

Jon Jenkins, one of the principal investigators on the NASA Kepler telescope, which is designed to detect Earthlike exo-planets, comments, "There should be many more planets similar to these - I think we're seeing just a glimpse of what's out there."

The discovery was announced at the 2009 European Astronomical Society’s Joint European and National Astronomy Meeting at the University of Hertfordshire. 

The press release can be found here: http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2009/pr-15-09.html

A paper has been submitted for publication in the research journal Astronomy & Astrophysics: M. Mayor et al.: An Earth-type planet in GJ 581 planetary system. A pre-print can be found here: http://obswww.unige.ch/~udry/Gl581_preprint.pdf

Statement from Professor Michel Mayor from Geneva Observatory (flash, in English, in French)

 

Further reports and blogs:

Exoplanets lighten up - Nature News

"It's Life, Jim, But Not As We Know It": Gliese 581 d and the potential for a spacefaring civilization. Questionable Authority

Astronomers Find Planet Closer to Size of Earth. New York Times

Most Earthlike Planet Yet Found May Have Liquid Oceans. National Geographic News

Those creationist probability of life calculations are starting to look a little shaky.

Existence of Earth size planets around other stars? ... check

Non-gas giants in habitable zone? ... check

Gas giants in system? ... check

Liquid surface water? ... looking good

Common? ... probably

 

 

 

[ianpaschal 77]

I played Spore and that got boring in less than 6 days so it's clearly not the answer.

[powellinthesouth 0]

I believe in evolution because I don't believe everything I read in books

Let me ask you, who was there to write all the stuff down when god was doing it? Sounds like someone made it all up to unite the people so they can kill other people and can dominate. Religion (in my opinion) clouds peoples minds, affects what decisions they make.

And saying you believe in creationism ultimately means you believe in God(or a god or a spirit etc)

[mightygoose 92]

well he is abit new to get away with that kinda sarcasm... and lol @scipio

[Patricius Maximus 236]

creationism is fact accept it you stupid arrogant scientists ur all satanistsquote>

1. Prove Creationism is a fact.

2. Show evidence scientists are stupid.

3. Show evidence scientists are arrogant.

4. Prove all scientists are Satanist.

[Sam 163]

And those "missing links" just refuse to stay missing.

Yesterday saw the announcement in Nature of a new pinneped (seals, sealions and walruses) fossil. We've seen "Walking Whale" now we can see "Walking Seal".

Puijila darwini lived in what is now the arctic but instead of having flippers like modern seals, it had forelegs and hind legs similar to modern carnivores, and a long tail. The structure of the shoulder suggests it was a swimmer, and the flattening of the phalanges (toe bones) suggest it had webbed feet.

The skull and teeth are very seal like. It has four incisors (cf six in carnivores), large eyes (like seals have, and good for seeing both underwater and in the low light arctic), a large infraorbital foramen (hole in the skull below the eye that nerves and blood vessels go through) which indicates it may have had sensitive whiskers like modern seals, and last upper molars that are very seal like in size and position but different to most other mammals. The specimen found was male.

Puijila darwini lived 24 to 20 million years ago, about the same time as flippered forms also lived. As such it is probably not on the direct line to modern pinnepeds, but represents a sister branch of the lineage which had a common ancester with the flippered forms. Puijila darwini is in essence a true transitional form, transitional in both form and lifestyle.

As well as the fossil itself, which was almost complete, the vegetation and climate of the area is well represented. The fossil was found in the Haughton Crater which at the time was a quite calm lake, based on the fossil sediments and well preserved and largely undisturbed fossils found. The vegetation was a mix of conifer and deciduous forest.

The climate was also in transition from  warmer to cooler, although the time Puijila darwini lived the area was warmer than today and similar to the north Eastern united States based on vegetation similarities. The winters were just as long and dark as they are now (hence the value of large, light sensitive eyes).

The find suggest the pinnipeds originated in the Arctic and then radiated from there to their current habitats. 

And thus in the 150th year since the publication of On the Origin of Species we have powerful confirmation of another of Darwin's original predictions - "A strictly terrestrial animal, by occasionally hunting for food in shallow water, then in streams or lakes, might at last be converted into an animal so thoroughly aquatic as to brave the open ocean''. The walking seal carries his name.

The fossil can be seen on display (reconstructed from 3D imaging) from April 28 to May 10, 2009 at the Canadian Museum of Nature.

Rybczynski N, Dawson MR, Tedford RH (2009). A semi-aquatic Arctic mammalian carnivore from the Miocene epoch and origin of Pinnipedia. Nature 458 (23 April): 1021–1024. doi:10.1038/nature07985

Puijila, A Prehistoric Walking Seal, Canadian Museum of Nature

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: AxaphalEsteus

creationism is fact accept it you stupid arrogant scientists ur all satanistsquote>

There's no need for that. If you can't at least try to have a civil discussion, then maybe this isn't the best place for you. Posts of this kind do no one any good.

[Evlanti 0]

Evolution is fact because of genetics.

Genetics cemented the already stronge case supported by the fossil record, chemical and anatomical similarities with other related forms of life.

Now if you deny Evolution you deny all the evidence of it (and there is alot) therefor you deny genetics

Genetics has be instumental in forensics and convicting many criminals and identifing victims (alot of victims of the Twin Towns were identified through genetics)

Therefor all those murderers and rapists will have to be let go due to lack of evidence/wrongfull conviction, do you like that because thats how creationism effects the world outside science.

(and yes I realise not all criminal are convicted just on DNA evidence, but it has proved vital in cases where other evidence hasn't been avilable).

Just trying to give reality to Creationists.

[IDS2 3,346]

Originally posted by: AxaphalEsteus

creationism is fact accept it you stupid arrogant scientists ur all satanistsquote>

OK genius, prove to me that your IQ is over 80; hard to do when you type with "ur satanists stupid arrogant scientists"

We're just stating fact, and as far as anyone on Earth can tell, there is no proof of God existing. However, there is massive amounts of evidence stating that evolution exists. We just happen to be the first species to realize it.

[Airtime&Gravity 0]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

creationism is fact accept it you stupid arrogant scientists ur all satanistsquote>

1. Prove Creationism is a fact.

2. Show evidence scientists are stupid.

3. Show evidence scientists are arrogant.

4. Prove all scientists are Satanist.quote>

1. Considering he couldn't spell except correctly, I wouldn't take him seriously

2. He's a troll, so reasoning won't work

I still believe in evolution, but I believe that it was all started through God.  The creation story was just a way to explain what couldn't be explained, although that could also be religion as a whole, and through science, we have been able to explain what they couldn't thousands of years ago.

Edit  Oops, I skipped the it, which is why I thought the wrong word was used

[aiumkastarkius 0]

Originally posted by: Airtime&Gravity

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

creationism is fact accept it you stupid arrogant scientists ur all satanistsquote>

1. Prove Creationism is a fact.

2. Show evidence scientists are stupid.

3. Show evidence scientists are arrogant.

4. Prove all scientists are Satanist.quote>

1. Considering he couldn't spell except correctly, I wouldn't take him seriously

2. He's a troll, so reasoning won't work

I still believe in evolution, but I believe that it was all started through God.  The creation story was just a way to explain what couldn't be explained, although that could also be religion as a whole, and through science, we have been able to explain what they couldn't thousands of years ago.

quote>

1. He spelled "accept" correctly

2. No, reasoning won't work, but I believe he's probably been banned anyway.

Why would your so-called "god" be the one to start this process? Why would "god" do that? All religion is is the explanation of events as the ancient founders of that religion tried to interperet what they didn't understand. The six days story to me is just as likely as the Greco/Roman one, the Hindi one, the Norse one..... Modern day religous people just take the stories to extremes where they refuse to see the truth if it conflicts with the creation STORY they have been taught... Just look at the Bill Nye story....  Classic example. Honestly I'm suprised the catholics don't use the "6 days work, one day rest" story for an excuse for 6 day work weeks...

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Sam 163]

Well we can't let New Zealand get all the credit now can we?

Interesting article though. We'll just have to wait and see what further evidence turns up before we know what's going on with these little guys.

[fukuda 351]

...........5-6 months later............

Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists

On one of the Galapagos islands whose finches shaped the theories of a young Charles Darwin, biologists have witnessed that elusive moment when a single species splits in two.

In many ways, the split followed predictable patterns, requiring a hybrid newcomer who’d already taken baby steps down a new evolutionary path. But playing an unexpected part was chance, and the newcomer singing his own special song.

This miniature evolutionary saga is described in a paper published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It’s authored by Peter and Rosemary Grant, a husband-and-wife team who have spent much of the last 36 years studying a group of bird species known collectively as Darwin’s finches.

The finches — or, technically, tanagers — have adapted to the conditions of each island in the Galapagos, and they provided Darwin with a clear snapshot of evolutionary div

ergence when he sailed there on the HMS Beagle. The Grants have pushed that work further, with decades of painstaking observations providing a real-time record of evolution in action. In the PNAS paper, they describe something Darwin could only have dreamed of watching: the birth of a new species.

The species’ forefather was a medium ground finch, or Geospiza fortis, who flew from a neighboring island to the Grants’ island of Daphne Major, and into their nets, in 1981. He “was unusually large, especially in beak width, sang an unusual song” and had a few gene variants that could be traced to another finch species, they wrote. This exotic stranger soon found a mate, who also happened to have a few hybrid genes. The happy couple had five sons.

In the tradition of finches, for whom songs are passed from father to son and used to serenade potential mates, the sons learned their immigrant father’s tunes. But their father’s vocalizations were strange: he’d tried to mimick the natives, but accidentally introduced new notes and inflections, like a person who learns a song in a language he doesn’t understand.

These tunes set the sons apart, as did their unusual size. Though they found mates, it may only have taken a couple generations for the new lineage to ignore — or be ignored by — local finches, and breed only with each other. The Grants couldn’t tell for certain when this started, but they were certain after four generations, when a drought struck the island, killing all but a single brother and sister. They mated with each other, and their children did the same.

No exact rule exists for deciding when a group of animals constitutes a separate species. That question “is rarely if ever asked,” as speciation isn’t something that scientists have been fortunate enough to watch at the precise moment of divergence, except in bacteria and other simple creatures. But after at least three generations of reproductive isolation, the Grants felt comfortable in designating the new lineage as an incipient species.

The future of the species is far from certain. It’s possible that they’ll be out-competed by other finches on the island. Their initial gene pool may contain flaws that will be magnified with time. A chance disaster could wipe them out. The birds might even return to the fold of their parent species, and merge with them through interbreeding.

But whatever happens, their legacy will remain: New species can emerge very quickly — and sometimes all it takes is a song.

Images: 1) An example of Daphne Major’s native medium ground finches (left), differs from the new species’ original newcomer (right).

2) Top to bottom: A to F show successive generations of the hybrids, which now mate only with each other.

[Boggy1 45]

 A very similar story was reported by the BBC just a few days ago. Incredible how fast adaptation like this can be..

Feeding birds 'changes evolution'

By Victoria Gill  Science reporter, BBC News Birds that spend winter in the UK find food in many gardens Bird-feeders, hung in many a garden, can affect the way our feathered friends evolve, say scientists. European birds called blackcaps follow a different "evolutionary path" if they spend the winter eating food put out for them in UK gardens. The birds' natural wintering ground is southern Spain, where they feed on the fruits that grow there. Researchers describe the impact this well-intentioned activity has had on the birds in Current Biology journal. Dr Martin Schaefer from the University of Freiburg in Germany led the research. He and his team found that blackcaps that migrated to the UK for the winter were in the very earliest stages of forming a new species. He explained that some blackcaps (Sylvia atricapilla) would always have migrated "a little further north" than others and eventually "ended up in Britain in the winter".  It's positive news for us, because it means not all the changes [humans] produce are necessarily bad  Martin Schaefer, University of Freiburg "But those birds would have had nothing to eat," he said. It was when garden bird feeders became more popular in the UK, that an evolutionary division began to emerge. "As soon as the British provided a lot of bird food, those birds would have had a much higher probability of surviving the winter." And because the UK is closer to their breeding ground, those birds would also have returned earlier to claim the best territory. The researchers, from Germany and Canada, set out to discover if the birds that spent the winter availing themselves of garden bird-feeders were in fact a distinct group. To do this, they studied the blackcaps at a breeding ground in Germany. The team were able to use a chemical "signature" from the birds' claws to identify where they spent the winter, and what food they ate. "Then we took blood samples and analysed those to assess whether... we had two distinct populations. And that's exactly what we found," said Dr Schaefer. The blackcaps have adapted to their shorter journey and different food supply "To a very large extent the birds only mate [with] birds with the same overwintering grounds as them." This initial "reproductive isolation", Dr Schaefer explained, is the very first step in the evolution of a new species. "This tells us that by feeding birds in winter we... produce an evolutionary split. And we have produced these initial steps in as little as 50 years." The team also observed differences in the birds' beaks, wings and plumage. Blackcaps that migrated along the shorter route to the UK had rounder wings, and longer, narrower beaks. The scientists said these differences were evidence that the birds had adapted to their shorter journey, and to eating seeds and fat from bird-feeders, rather than fruit from shrubs and trees. But, Dr Schaefer pointed out that the evolution of a new bird species "could take 100,000 to a million years". "At this stage this is reversible," he added. "And it's hard to envision a species change, because if there's another economic crisis and people stop feeding the birds, the whole system might just collapse." Man-made change In this case, Dr Schaefer thinks the human impact on blackcaps has been a positive thing. "[The birds have] found a better overwintering area that is closer to the breeding ground, where they can obtain food easily. "And I also think its positive news for us, because it means not all the changes we produce are necessarily bad, and that some species have the potential to adapt quickly to the changes." Grahame Madge from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) said that this was "a fascinating piece of research" and that it fitted in with the birds adapting to a changing climate. "Blackcaps have been able to start this behaviour because of the milder winter we've experienced in the last few decades," he said. "And because they're getting food, this reinforces the behaviour and will enable them to survive a colder winter [in the UK]." Joseph Tobias, a biologist from the Oxford University in the UK, agreed that the UK climate may have been a more important factor contributing to the changes observed in the blackcaps. "The study clearly demonstrates that a new lineage has arisen... [but] it doesn't actually demonstrate that food hand-outs by humans are the root cause," Dr Tobias said. "It is possible that the main reason for the switch in migratory behaviour was a warming winter climate in the UK. The best we can say on the basis of the evidence is that the increase in bird-feeding in the UK may have contributed to the switch in behaviour." Mr Madge added that putting food out for birds in the winter was "very important" and that many birds "need the energy boost at this time of year".

[Patricius Maximus 236]

So much for "macroevolution" not being proven. Look, Creationists -- use the pair of eyes and the brain that you possess to evaluate real facts, such as this.

[ecoba 28]

I don't want to cause a riot, but I have to agree with what PM said above.

There is a huge amount of proof that evolution is real. Humans and Apes are mammals that have opposable thumbs, we are in the same scientific classification pretty far down the list. And how would you explain the fossils of partially evolved humans? How would they get there.

This also applies to dinosaurs. How did dinosaurs get there? There is so much proof of dinosaurs existing, (fossils...) but, according to the story of creationism there is not time for dinosaurs to even be on the planet, yet alone time for the bones of the dinosaurs' bodies to fossilize.

I have many friends who are deeply religious, and attend religious services bi-weekly. But, they all believe in evolution. Simply put, the facts are there, and it seems arrogant to overlook them and say: "No, that's wrong! God made the planet and humans!" 

Also, looking at the articles posted above by Boggy1 and fukuda? This is plain proof of evolution in your eyes.

Another question also follows this one. Why was Earth god's chosen planet to create life on? You can not deny that there are other beings in the Solar System and the Universe. You simply can't. So, if creationism is how humans came to be, why did god choose Earth, and not Mars, or Neptune?

I completely respect all peoples' beliefs and I am not denying the existence of a god. (Regardless of my beliefs.) I am simply stating that evolution is true (In my opinion.), and there are facts to prove it. Creationism may be true (may be!), but there is absolutely no fact to prove it!

Take this into consideration...

Ethan

[Duke87 1,070]

No exact rule exists for deciding when a group of animals constitutes a separate species. That question “is rarely if ever asked,” as speciation isn’t something that scientists have been fortunate enough to watch at the precise moment of divergence, except in bacteria and other simple creatures. But after at least three generations of reproductive isolation, the Grants felt comfortable in designating the new lineage as an incipient species.

The future of the species is far from certain. It’s possible that they’ll be out-competed by other finches on the island. Their initial gene pool may contain flaws that will be magnified with time. A chance disaster could wipe them out. The birds might even return to the fold of their parent species, and merge with them through interbreeding.quote>

Hate to rain on the parade here, but...

the definition of what makes two separate species separate is that they cannot reproduce with each other.

We have clearly witnessed here two groups which do not reproduce with each other. But it hasn't been demonstrated that they can not. In fact, it's even admitted that in the future the two groups may reunite.

They certainly could eventually become a separate species, yes, but they aren't yet.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Hate to rain on the parade here, but...

the definition of what makes two separate species separate is that they cannot reproduce with each other. quote>

 

um . . . so horses and donkeys are not separate species?

 

 

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Meg

Originally posted by: Duke87

Hate to rain on the parade here, but...

the definition of what makes two separate species separate is that they cannot reproduce with each other. quote>

 

um . . . so horses and donkeys are not separate species?quote>

Okay, more specifically: they cannot reproduce with each other and create virile/fertile offspring. Some species, if they are closely related enough, may be capable of reproducing with each other, but the offspring will be sterile. Mules and hinnies cannot reproduce, so they aren't a violation or an exception.

[hamsterTK 93]

I've read the females can actually be fertile, creating something that's 3/4 of either horse or donkey

its probably not a hard and fast rule

[fukuda 351]

the definition of what makes two separate species separate is that they cannot reproduce with each other. quote>

There's no formal definition of what species are. That definition works all fine with animals (more or less) but loses any meaning with plants, fungi and the other living beings

Ornamental Planes (the trees) are a good example, they are Platanus orientalis x Platanus occidentalis, a fertile hybrid of 2 different plane species. But are they different species? They've been living in different continents for millions of years and are more genetically distant between them than most other plants when compared to another random plant of their family despite being able to produce fertile offspring.

This happens all the time in plants, for instance:

And that definition also loses all its meaning when talking about beings that do not engage in sexual reproduction, obviously.

We have clearly witnessed here two groups which do not reproduce with each other. But it hasn't been demonstrated that they can not. In fact, it's even admitted that in the future the two groups may reunite. quote>

The PNAS article never pretended it to be a new species, it was about observing and following a speciation process, the species thing is Wired's doing.. Wired's article was not what I wanted to post, but all the other ones were a pain (or just plain impossible) to copy/paste and clean all the ads and crap

[MattShizzle 11]

"Microevolution" and "Macroevolution" aren't even scientific terms - they were created by creationists. It certainly shouldn't be taught in a Biology class for the same reason Astrology isn't taught in Astronomy classes, Alchemy in Chemistry classes and that we don't teach the "Stork" idea to future OBGYN's. Richard Dawkins pointed out once the error in saying the Earth is about 6000 years old is in scale about equivalent to saying New York is located 15 inches from Los Angeles. Why a modern person would believe such nonsense is shocking.

Images removed

[simcity4fan12 13]

Wow, I didn't like those last pics Mattshizzle posted at all.

Evolution, to me, seems like just one of those other things made to break people apart. Why argue your beliefs? Just believe what you believe and don't make a debate about it all the time. I believe in God, and that's what I believe. I'm not the type of christian, however, to take things out of proportions are make a big issue about these beliefs. And for those who make fun of the Bible, you do realize that it has existed for over a thousand years(most likely longer), so there's no doubt that people with the Church or any one could have changed ALOT of things said in there which God doesn't actually want.

Creationism(I prefer to call it my religion) may not seem logical to most, but if someone believes in it, that's it. No need for someone to make all these facts just to make them disbelieve something. Who knows for sure the real answers? God might have used evolution to create the world's life and it was just misinterpruted when written in the Bible.

Evolution infact seems logical, then to others it doesn't. Oh well, move on with life. You're given a life on Earth once, live it good and live it well. Don't spend your entire life in a never ending debate.

I usually stay away from things like this becuase it upsets me to see this, but I felt like sharing my opinion. Personally, I don't really care for all these facts or anything. They're not gonna change what I believe. I believe in my religion, and no, it doesn't mean I've been hypnotized to follow certain political things, I don't care for any government at all.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: simcity4fan12

Evolution, to me, seems like just one of those other things made to break people apart. Why argue your beliefs? Just believe what you believe and don't make a debate about it all the time.quote>

It becomes a debate largely with respect to what's taught in schools. "Believe what you want" works fine, but what about the kids? They don't believe what they want, they typically believe what the grown-ups tell them. What do we tell them?

[simcity4fan12 13]

Well, I understand not all kids or teenadgers aren't like me(15 years old by the way...).

Personally, I'd rather have them find out what they want to believe in rather being told at a young age, even if, it's finding out from someone of their age when they are older or if they find out from someone older than them. Honestly, I think they should just be taught to find their beliefs by reading and finding things out themselves rather than someone(parent or anyone else) telling them something without hardly a good explanation.

It's sad that this stuff is taught in schools. What ever happened to just Math and other actually important core subjects? Now, in private schools they teach religion, and in public schools, they teach evolution. If these two key things were removed from schools, I believe that things like this would go more smoothly.

Basically, yes, kids tend to believe what grownups tell them, but they(when they are at an age they can read and understand certain things) they should search for the answers themselves rather than being told. But, actually, even reading things, is basically being told what to believe. So, what could be done? What could help promote "to believe what you want and not debate about it"? Well, the corrupt society is going to make that very difficult.

Or, kids, could be told what grown-ups believe, but later on in life find out what they really want to believe. This happened to me, I was taught about God and such, and believe in it. Of course my view on it, and beliefs around certain topics about God, have definately changed as I got older to my current age.

[Boggy1 45]

simcity4fan12: Agreed, images like that are not at all needed.

Let's remember to keep things civil. The entire purpose of this thread is a little intellectual debate; not name calling or overtly bashing another persons belief.

And to respond to the second part of your post; the problem about beliefs comes into play when people with these sorts of believes are teachers or politicians; who try to actively change and "educate" another person. Teachers through the teaching of creationism as if it were a science (it is not; I'm sure even you can appreciate that), and politicians through the passing of legislation that make these beliefs into some sort of official policy.

I am happy for you to practise your beliefs. But when it comes to openly trying to change or influence other people; especially children who are extreamly susceptive to those sorts of things, then it should be stopped.

[MattShizzle 11]

You pretty much have to teach evolution if you want to teach biology at all. Teaching Biology without evolution would be like teaching Math without teaching multiplication or division.

We also know the Bible was first made into one book in the 4th century in what is now Western Turkey. We have enough ancient manuscripts to know at least what it said about that time. I'm an atheist and personally see it as nonsense.