As I've said, my views on evolution are complex. I agree in it prettty much entirely apart from the Man/Ape thing, but since I'm outnumbered 1000000 to 1 at that, I'll surrender that arguement for now.
Life definitely exists on other worlds- they've foudn stuff on mars for instance. Intellignet life is the tougher question. Although I personally think it must exist, and life less, equally and more intelligent than us is everywhere in the unvierse in great numbers. Distances may be too great for travel, but I have long been interested in the Panspermia theory. It is fully possible, but for me to present an argument on that now isn't going to happen because:
a) it's too late- 20 to 10, and I've yet to have tea/dinner.
b) I'd need to gather up some sources first, as my mind can be hazy- I tend to have several miscellaneous thoughts going on at once or close proximity yet not the ones I want to be thinking about.

Anyway, yeah evolution is fact (not gonna put forward my arguement now), yeah there's life far smarter than us elsewhere, yeah they're too faraway to reach us intentionally or don't want to reach us yet, yeah Panspermia is possible but probably wrong.

Holy freaking crap, could you be any more ignorant?

"Believe" can mean more than one thing, and I just happened to be using it as a synonym for "think". I was expressing an opinion, not acknowledging evolution as a religious belief, damn it.

Yeah, but splitting hairs is fun for the entire family!

Wrong, actually. They've found some marks in rocks that appeared to be indications of bacteria and amino acids that are necessary for (but do not definitively indicate) life.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on...odern_findings)

BM is the definition of non-ignorant.

Well, apparently not, since he made an idiotic mistake like that.

I was pointing out a use of language that can lead to confusion when discussing evolution and scientific thought. There is a veritable minefield of pitfalls when teaching the subject, so careful use of language is a must in order to connect with people in the right way, and convey your message effectively.

Language is our servant, not our master. Or at least it should be. Sometimes we have to be careful about what we say on these matters. A classic example is the common usage of the word "theory" and the scientific usage. This one misunderstanding (it has descended into pedantics now, as we have drummed it into everyone's skulls) is fuel for some very ignorant arguments.

I wasn't saying that you considered it a religious belief, merely suggesting a better way to express your statement. As I say, "belief" is incorrect terminology in the fields of science.

Well, as much as I appreciate the compulsive manner in which you pick apart other people's posts, I feel I must reiterate what I have just said. I did not mean I believed in the sense you are talking about. Once again, I meant that I accept the Theory of Evolution as something that actually occurred.

There. That clear enough for ya pal? Or would you like to perhaps have me translate it too, so that everyone can understand?

:nonono: No, you've made yourself quite clear.

You're so dense.

Now you're just name-calling, and discussion or debate isn't name calling. Senseless arguing is name calling. And this is all just a misunderstanding- believe can suggest religious belief/faith ,but also merely an opinion or viewpoint in discussion. It';s just a misunderstanding, let's all forget it and have an nice cup of tea.
Also nate, are you sure about that? I thought they'd found very primitive, slug-like or mollusc-like lifeforms on Mars. But since I can't actually find my source while you can, I'll assume yours is more reliable. I really could do with some reliable sources for this discussion.

They were shapes in a Martian rock that fell on Antarctica that could have been fossilised bacteria. I don't think they ever established whether they were fossils or ordinary mineralisationa.

*emerges from behind flame-proof shield*

Let's just forget this shall we?

OnT: All life that may have existed on Mars died a long time ago. What they want to know is whether there used to be life.

Read my last post. They looked like fossils but ended up being an artifact of the processing of samples.

Yes, I'm sure. If there had been anything beyond single-cell organism it would be big news and everyone would know.

You have a very questionable teacher then. Mine made sure to stamp that misunderstanding out of us the first day of the unit:|

And to Mojo, awesome reference. You made my day.

Yeah, but it starts getting stupid after a while.

Okay, wouldn't Theistic Evolutionism and Old Earth Creationism be the same thing, basically? What, are you going to say that the universe was created within the past century?

EDIT: Whoa, didn't realize there were 3 pages to this beast.

We, along with modern and prehistoric monkeys, hominids, non-hominid apes and simians such as lemurs, are all primates, and modern apes (humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons) are all grouped under the superfamily Hominoidea, which is named after the human groups in the old Linnaean taxonomy system. Me explaining

There is a new classification system out now, Cladistic Taxonomy. Basically, as well as classifying organisms, it also shows how they are related in evolutionary terms, to the best of our knowledge. So all the organisms in one clade are descended from a common ancestor, although on a diagram the common ancestor won't be on the point of the clade- it will be attached to it. It isn't a family tree, it still uses classifications ("taxa", singular: taxon), but it is useful to both see how organisms are related to each other and also organises them into distinct groups. We know how organisms are related using evidence from the fossil record, genetics, and other, more complicated methods.

However, this means that the term "reptile" is no longer scientifically appropriate in the classic sense, because now the clade reptillia* also includes birds and mammals, as they are descended from reptiles.

Wikipedia: Cladististics

This is a fantastic site for the ins and outs of evolution, and clears up alot of confusion and misconceptions, especially the "For teachers" section: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

*There isn't one, it is separated into such divisions as diapsids and anapsids, based on fundamental differences in skull structure. I used this term for convenience in explaining my point.

I knew the whol reptillia thing ages ago. I thought the stuff about reptiles being linked to birds and certain mammals was old knews?
Geez, you know so much about biology. And all the fancy words. You're both a walking thesaurus and walking science encyclopedia.

I am a Marine Biology student.

Heh, when it comes to this sorta thing, you could always rely on Bullet Magnet to set the record straight :p

They are different. Old Earth Creationists generally believe that God still created everything except humans at once (I think), and that evolution didn't happen, and that humans were created recently, but they accept Terra's age of 4.5 billion years. Theistic evolutionists believe God used evolution to create all life.

Has anyone seen in the news recently about the newly discovered marine species in Antarctica? Great news obviously, but I am horrified by the inaccurate data that every single media outlet in the world has repeated.

They report the species dubbed the "Jurassic Shrimp", being a species of crustacean thought extinct for 50 million years, and is now a living fossil. I'm trying to clear this up, but it's me against the world here: it is not the same species. It is a modern species, no fossil known records it. It is of the same group, previously thought extinct, but evolution has quite clearly occurred. This is a different species from the extinct ones!

This is going to be the coelacanth controversy all over again...

Since you're so well up on marine biology, I'll ask- Is there any truth to the rumours of the living, undisturbed/undiscovered lifeforms in the udnerwater lake in the antarctic? Only I've heard there's a preserved lake beneath the ice, thought to house 'new' species. Do you know any more about this? (Really drifitng off topic here)

I doubt anyone'd know. The conditions there are too harsh for exploration, especially when it comes to underwater exploration. There might be some truth to it though, since most undiscovered organisms dwell in the ocean's depths (seeing as how it's so vast).

Of course there are undiscovered life-forms down there... but therefor we obviously have no idea what they could be.. Currently we fear drilling down there for the risk of contaminating the lake with surface organisms, risking both the ecosystem and our samples.

Actually, some geologists found something similar in an underwater lake in Israel a few months back.

Heh, you want undiscovered mysterious fauna?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_Death_Worm

This sucker good enough?

loles, cryptozoology ftw.

I can't help but think back to that episode of Penn & Teller where they follow the dudes searching for the Loch Ness Monster. The scene where they imitate the duo is priceless.