Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 comments on the www.scientificblogging.com story from Feb 24, 2008, titled Should evolution be taught in high school?. In it, www.scientificblogging.com reports that:

Microbiologist Carl Woese is well known as an iconoclast. At 79 years of age, Woese is still shaking things up. Most recently, he stated in an interview with Wired that...

"My feeling is that evolution shouldn't be taught at the lower grades. You don't teach quantum mechanics in the grade schools. One has to be quite educated to work with these concepts; what they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teachers don't understand."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#111808 Dec 10, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
But "creation science journals" are objective and unbiased. Retard. That you think PNAS and NEJM are on par with the Bible-based reality-denying rags you read shows how detached from reality you are..
Found a single technological innovation, invention, or medical treatment to come from "creation science" yet? You've had plenty of time.
I could say the same about you.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#111809 Dec 10, 2012
One hundred billion galaxies containing 100 billion stars each. Thirteen point four billion years. That would mean that about 20,000 new stars would have to form each second for 13.4 billion years. And yet, we have yet to see the first documented new star form. There is not even one unequivocal, clear-cut, indisputable case of a new star. No before and after picture and any portion of the entire universe. (Plus the fact that the laws of physics makes it impossible to happen anyway.) It is true, you are without excuse.
Tyler Across the Galaxy

Battle Creek, MI

#111810 Dec 10, 2012
Again, all I'm hearing is that Talkorigins doesn't hold creationism in high regard. Nobody's actually said it's wrong, or pointed out any flaws in the arguments. It's like everybody's trying to get around refuting the actual argument by attempting to discredit the source, except very very badly.
Portal

United States

#111811 Dec 10, 2012
Psychology wrote:
If I'm a planet and my orbit gets closer to the sun, is my gravity going to change? Why yes jimmy, it's going to get stronger. Thank you.
Have you got a pickle, why no, I have a pickle.
Is a straight line straight? No, if you look with a microscope, you will see deviations.
Watch for the spelling cop, he has nothing else.
I scared off C1....I mentioned.....ETs.....scary stuff! Thats why most humans bow and bury their heads in religious crap....not one piece of evidence that anyone walked on water! To many galaxies to count.....theres your sign.....use your gray to make it matter!
Portal

United States

#111812 Dec 10, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes! Peer reviewed, internationally accepted bullshit cross checked with multiple line of bullshit evidence and decades of falsified experiments, designed by the 150 year old world wide conspiracy of scientists working in league with Satan to discredit Jesus. You will find these Satanists everywhere, in their white coats or with their little palaeontology pick-axes and ugly sandals, scouring the earth for bullshit, falsifying radiometric dating results, deliberately miscounting molecular clocks, misreporting on the cosmic background radiation, pretending that the continents are moving, hiding all the fossils of flowing plants from the deeper strata, pretending there is a geologic column, inventing intermediate forms and smuggling them into dig sites to be "discovered".
When I discovered the true depth and breadth of the bullshit conspiracy propounded by science, I swear it was beyond belief!
You WILL respond......is that clear C1? Blue Book, SETI any ideas......why no contact, just sightings? Let me enlighten you.........The controllers are in control........Humans are ease to control because their senses and subconscious are limited....yes C1, you are included..........later.Compre hention is the most limited human function!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#111813 Dec 10, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
One hundred billion galaxies containing 100 billion stars each. Thirteen point four billion years. That would mean that about 20,000 new stars would have to form each second for 13.4 billion years. And yet, we have yet to see the first documented new star form. There is not even one unequivocal, clear-cut, indisputable case of a new star. No before and after picture and any portion of the entire universe.(Plus the fact that the laws of physics makes it impossible to happen anyway.) It is true, you are without excuse.
Geez, I'm really sorry, Urb. We'll get that time-lapse camera on Hubble as soon as possible. Come back in a few million years and we can all watch it.

You really have no concept of cosmological time scales whatsoever, do you?

Putz.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#111814 Dec 10, 2012
Tyler Across the Galaxy wrote:
Again, all I'm hearing is that Talkorigins doesn't hold creationism in high regard. Nobody's actually said it's wrong, or pointed out any flaws in the arguments. It's like everybody's trying to get around refuting the actual argument by attempting to discredit the source, except very very badly.
You are kidding, right? How long have you been here?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#111815 Dec 10, 2012
Portal wrote:
<quoted text>I scared off C1....I mentioned.....ETs.....scary stuff! Thats why most humans bow and bury their heads in religious crap....not one piece of evidence that anyone walked on water! To many galaxies to count.....theres your sign.....use your gray to make it matter!
Well, it is 5AM in Abudabi.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#111816 Dec 10, 2012
Portal wrote:
<quoted text>You WILL respond......is that clear C1? Blue Book, SETI any ideas......why no contact, just sightings? Let me enlighten you.........The controllers are in control........Humans are ease to control because their senses and subconscious are limited....yes C1, you are included..........later.Compre hention is the most limited human function!
Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#111817 Dec 10, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Geez, I'm really sorry, Urb. We'll get that time-lapse camera on Hubble as soon as possible. Come back in a few million years and we can all watch it.
You really have no concept of cosmological time scales whatsoever, do you?
Putz.
It already has one you moron. What part of the time scale don't I understand? Will for once say something at least remotely comprehensible? Are you capable of expressing a complete thought?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#111818 Dec 10, 2012
Mike, do you think you see the entire cosmos as a snapshot in time or are you looking back in time the further you look? Just curious.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111819 Dec 10, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
One hundred billion galaxies containing 100 billion stars each. Thirteen point four billion years. That would mean that about 20,000 new stars would have to form each second for 13.4 billion years. And yet, we have yet to see the first documented new star form. There is not even one unequivocal, clear-cut, indisputable case of a new star. No before and after picture and any portion of the entire universe.(Plus the fact that the laws of physics makes it impossible to happen anyway.) It is true, you are without excuse.

Actually we have seen stars both go on and go off.

Maybe you mean in our own galaxy as that would still be true. The same with supernova, at least for the last 400 years.

We also have many pictures of stars being formed.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#111820 Dec 10, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually we have seen stars both go on and go off.
Maybe you mean in our own galaxy as that would still be true. The same with supernova, at least for the last 400 years.
We also have many pictures of stars being formed.
Nope not a one. There is not a single documented, undisputed case of a new star forming - anywhere in the universe. That is a fact. You have pictures of rotating gas pulling apart and that's it.

I'll state the problem again. You have 100 billion galaxies times 100 billion stars to have formed with the assumed age of the universe, an average of 20,000 new stars every second of the entire 13.8 billion years. But not even one can be found!
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#111821 Dec 10, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity.
Outer Limits or Twilight Zone? Either way, it does describe Darwinism quite well.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#111822 Dec 10, 2012
defender wrote:
Talkorigins is not truthful at all
Funny, then, that you've failed to identify a single one of its "lies".

Why is that?
Tyler Across the Galaxy

Battle Creek, MI

#111823 Dec 10, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope not a one. There is not a single documented, undisputed case of a new star forming - anywhere in the universe. That is a fact. You have pictures of rotating gas pulling apart and that's it.
I'll state the problem again. You have 100 billion galaxies times 100 billion stars to have formed with the assumed age of the universe, an average of 20,000 new stars every second of the entire 13.8 billion years. But not even one can be found!
Hi,

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

are we done with this line yet
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#111824 Dec 10, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I could say the same about you.
And that would be projection.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#111825 Dec 10, 2012
Portal wrote:
<quoted text>I scared off C1....I mentioned.....ETs.....scary stuff! Thats why most humans bow and bury their heads in religious crap....not one piece of evidence that anyone walked on water! To many galaxies to count.....theres your sign.....use your gray to make it matter!
Actually I am quite comfortable with the notion of life on other planets. As there are an estimated 10^24 in the observable universe, it seems very likely.

You need to get off the recreational drug or get onto some medical ones, fast.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#111826 Dec 11, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Glad you agree that it's finely tuned. Why are you concerned about 10,000 years making little difference on the Earth's rotation, tides, or Moon? That was my point.
Actually more coincidentally aligned rather than finely tuned, there is a terrific wobble (almost 10%) and the distance from earth varies between 363,104 kilometres and 405,696 kilometres. But hey, if you want to call that finely tuned that’s fine by you, but whatever you do don’t go in for an engineering degree when you grow up.

I am not concerned, it was you who brought it up that there was a difference, I was educating you on precisely how little difference 10,000 years makes. Whether you actually take any notice of that maths I very much doubt but I have no hesitation in saying I tried

Let me quote you from
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT...
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ten thousand years would actually make it a little better. The scientific discovery benefits associated with solar eclipses have been invaluable.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#111827 Dec 11, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
One hundred billion galaxies containing 100 billion stars each. Thirteen point four billion years. That would mean that about 20,000 new stars would have to form each second for 13.4 billion years. And yet, we have yet to see the first documented new star form. There is not even one unequivocal, clear-cut, indisputable case of a new star. No before and after picture and any portion of the entire universe.(Plus the fact that the laws of physics makes it impossible to happen anyway.) It is true, you are without excuse.
Star nuseries and forming stars are regularly observed in nebulae

Here's a situation a lot closer to home that I offered you back in July:

"Interestingly, the moon has more than 250 impact craters larger than 100 km in diameter and presumably caused by asteroids hitting the surface. The Earth, having a much greater surface area and gravity well, would be expected to have experienced several times that many impacts. If the Earth was only 6000 years old, there would have been an impact removing several hundred square miles of surface at least every decade or so. Are there any records of that happening? Perhaps you could check Scripture... Or fabricate a "just so" story."

Unlike stars forming a zillion miles away, these asteroid impacts would have blocked out the sun with great clouds of dust for short periods of time, not to mention an area similar in size to that of New Hampshire would be blasted off the Earth's surface every few years. I've never seen one of these events or known anyone who has. How 'bout you? Could the ol' earth be a little older than you thought?

Last time, you responded with vapid nonsense. Go on... Take another shot.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 3 min ChromiuMan 1,144
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 min one way or another 52,030
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 13 min 15th Dalai Lama 157,603
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 24 min Aura Mytha 24,843
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 15 hr Regolith Based Li... 218,797
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Thu scientia potentia... 98
News Darwin's Doubt: Giving a Case for Intelligent D... Thu scientia potentia... 1
More from around the web