Should evolution be taught in schools?

And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: "What kind of evidence is there for that?" And if they can't give you a good answer, I hope you'll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.
what evidence is there for abiogenisis and cosmic evolution?

I keep telling you the evidence for stellar evolution and you keep ignoring it.
It's not conclusive 120% gold plated, diamond studded, cast iron proof because the time scales are too long. It's a theory which fits all the known and observable facts. like all science it is able to be modified or overturned if new evidence comes to light. It is the THEORY of evolution ffs

stellar and cosmic evolution are two seperate things... you're getting confused.

There is no evidence for stellar evolution, man has witnessed stars go from red giants to white dwarfs, he's witnessed the decay and death of stars... yet the birth of stars has never been documented - untill one is documented it remains a THEORY!

also I ripped apart your other post a few pages back

For abiogenesis: if a lab can make self perpetuating chemicals, will you accept this as evidence that it could have occured in early earth? We know life exists. We strongly suspect it evolved. There must have been some early primordial replication - it could have occured by a few plausible pathways, and I don't know which one (if any) it was. That is happened seems more likely than any alternative proposed though. Hence, it's the best theory and the one to which the rationalist will subscribe.

For stellar evolution: I've not studied it, though I have a friend doing a phd in astrophsyics, who I will ask if he's on MSN later for you

I do hope this new found interest in evidence will translate over to your religious views Joe

saying that something has not been seen is not the same as saying there is no evidence for it. I have not seen you but I beleive you exist on the basis of the evidence available to me.

define cosmic evolution. I don't know what it is supposed to mean

No as a self perpetuating chemical is a million miles from a life form.....

Thats like me saying if I can prove I can eat 1 sausage roll in a day will you believe I can eat all the sausage rolls that exist in a week?

I asked for cosmic evolution... the origins of the universe.

ask him both though... I'd like that.

origin of the universe.

forks all we know is stars came into existence as some point as we witness them in the present.... there is no evidence (only theories) of them being born.

This is what evolution explains so well! Go and read a book on it for crying out loud.

As for cosmic evolution: I'll ask HOWEVER I must add that absence of evidence for a simple probable theory is not evidence for a complex improbable one, obv. In the absence of evidence for either, the rationalist will not default to a complex improbable one, that would be ridiculous don't you think?

science and religion are two seperate things....

one is based on observation, the other introspection.

on one level we are all just self replicating chemicals

the origins of the universe. well you don't want much do you?
some advanced ape on some insignificant planet on the edge of an insignificant galaxy 5 billion years after the event is going to PROVE this beyond ALL doubt to your satisfaction? I don't think so.

Evolution provides a theory that a chemical can turn into a life form... there is no evidence, no detailed explanations, at best you have some educated guesses.

Why do you keep on avoiding the answer by bringing creationism into the discourse? I'm stating there is NO (not even a little) evidence for cosmic evolution.... We don't know how the universe came into existence and any scientist that tells you otherwise is lying.

We're also made out of atoms - but an isolated atom can't make me a cup of tea.

I'm not asking for proof I'm asking for one shred of evidence... the most tiniest of details.

If youre teahcing a scientific theory in schools, you'd think one ought to be able to supply a little evidence...

My enjoyment of a good film/musical/clubbing is entirely irrational, but I enjoy it so I do it. This translates nicely to religion - my aunt enjoys going to church on a sunday and baking cakes. This is therefore a perfectly rational reason to do it.

Where it becomes decidedly irrational is when you talk about scientific questions such as origins of the universe, origins of life and (in my opinion anyway) morality. If God exists, it's a scientific question for sure. The rationalist will demand an equal standard of evidence from both religious and scientific theories and subscribe to which ever theory does better!

The only question is, what is a 'religious' question? I can't think of one that isn't really science.

not so. all religions have at their base an observation of the world around us an an attempt to explain the phenomena we are surrounded by. The complexity of the world (and the human heart) seemed best explained by a deity in the absence of any scientific knowledge. Hence gods.

The only person repeatedly bringing up G-d in this debate is you.... THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION.

I've asked him but god won't make me a cup of tea either........

Eh? I thought you were saying that you thought evolution had holes in therefore the alternative theories should be taught? What are the alternative theories exactly?

There are religions without G-ds....

religion exists in the mind/body/soul.... find me a religion that isn't focused on looking inside the individual and I'll eat a bacon sandwich.

where on earth did i say alternative theories should be taught?!?!?!?

you're loosing the plot... I don't think children should be taught to make bombs in class, does that mean I should find a subject to replace bomb design?