Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 175,466

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." Full Story
defender

London, KY

#111789 Dec 10, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>No, its all lies.

Peer reviewed, internationally accepted lies cross checked with multiple line of false 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 lies, 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 conspiracy, I swear it was beyond belief!
Its bias one sided agenda pushing bullshit...
defender

London, KY

#111790 Dec 10, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>Dodge. Nascent means in the process of forming. Beginning to exist or developing. You don't have any of that. It is always loss of genetic information. Macroevolution has no evidence and even more importantly, due to entropy and the time arrow being in the opposite direction, it is impossible.
Exactly ...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#111791 Dec 10, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Cheating again.... Really?... Everybody who pounds the ass of an evolutionist (which the convict did over and over) is cheating... Y'all some sore losers...
In a standard debate it is against the rules to lie. Kent Hovind lied time after time in his debates. That is cheating. And again, people who knew even a little science laughed at Hovind for being a total fuctard. It only looked like he won to the ignorant and the uneducated. If you lie and tell falsehoods you cannot win a debate.

And like I said, he refused to participate in well regulated debates. In other words he refused to participate in debates where they would not let him cheat. He knew he could not win based on the validity of his arguments.
defender

London, KY

#111792 Dec 10, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>The references are fine, it's the articles that suck.
If CNN.com had a section on how to win an argument with a Republican like Talkorigins has one on how to argue creationist would people still say they wasn't bias? Lol..
defender

London, KY

#111793 Dec 10, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>In a standard debate it is against the rules to lie. Kent Hovind lied time after time in his debates. That is cheating. And again, people who knew even a little science laughed at Hovind for being a total fuctard. It only looked like he won to the ignorant and the uneducated. If you lie and tell falsehoods you cannot win a debate.

And like I said, he refused to participate in well regulated debates. In other words he refused to participate in debates where they would not let him cheat. He knew he could not win based on the validity of his arguments.
Ok... What false statements did he make?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#111794 Dec 10, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Its bias one sided agenda pushing bullshit...
Is "Answers in Genesis" or " Creation.com " any less 'biased'?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#111795 Dec 10, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
If CNN.com had a section on how to win an argument with a Republican like Talkorigins has one on how to argue creationist would people still say they wasn't bias? Lol..
Sorry, I misunderstood you.

Talkorigins defends science against superstition.

I supposed you could call that biased. Indeed, it is.

The same way that, for example, Lincoln was biased against slavery and the Free World was biased against the Nazis and Communists and the USA was biased against the Taliban (your spiritual brothers by the way).

Just not even handed at all. Not fair!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#111796 Dec 10, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Its bias one sided agenda pushing bullshit...
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!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111797 Dec 10, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Guy, there's no other life out there. We've been listening for 50 years and only silence. We've been to the next best places and nothing. This is it.

What makes you think there is no other life in the universe? That is statistically near impossible.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111798 Dec 10, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me one genetic mutation that has created some new, or nascent limb or organ. Most are neutral and the rest are deleterious.

This has long been exposed for the fallacy it is.

Why do you persist in such a lost variation?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111799 Dec 10, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm surprised you didn't know this or perhaps you are pretending that you don't. One of the greatest discoveries of the 20th Century - General Relativity - was demonstrated using a solar eclipse. The ratio of the Sun's distance to size of Moon would be ideal during the last 10,000 years but becomes a problem only in much longer ages such as evolution requires. This "coincidence" of the Moon appearing the same size as the Sun and eclipses is just one of numerous "coincidences" that make it "appear" that the universe was fine-tuned for us. Not to mention that the solar system is placed on the outside of a spiral arm perfectly position for observation of the universe which we "appear" to be in the center of.

Sometimes I am pretty sure you are just playing stupid.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#111800 Dec 10, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Different sized human brains is not it. Different sized ape brains is not it. Even today, humans can range from under 4 feet to over 7 feet. We only know there were fossils of skulls that were either human or ape. And besides, we were talking about mutations, remember?
Just .... whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#111801 Dec 10, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Talkorigins has no authority. It is not peer reviewed and is highly biased and single purposed. It is just a collection of evolutionist rants to try and counter the numerous creationist claims.
You don't check their sources, that's all you just said in this post.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111803 Dec 10, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Its bias one sided agenda pushing bullshit...

Yes, but what about evolutionist sites?
LowellGuy

Brooklyn, NY

#111804 Dec 10, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok... What false statements did he make?
Where to begin. Ever hear when an evolutionary biologist called in to Hovind's show? Hundreds of lies by Hovind.
LowellGuy

Brooklyn, NY

#111805 Dec 10, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Talkorigins has no authority. It is not peer reviewed and is highly biased and single purposed. It is just a collection of evolutionist rants to try and counter the numerous creationist claims.
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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#111806 Dec 10, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
I must have because it certainly wasn't in the info about his experiment ...
Too lazy to read all the articles?

Here's two where it is discussed.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035.h...

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/a...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#111807 Dec 10, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Its bias one sided agenda pushing bullshit...
Yes and I wish you folks would knock it off.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#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

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#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.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 min Chimney1 127,774
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 13 min Chimney1 139,492
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 43 min Chimney1 13,577
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) 14 hr MikeF 1,902
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 17 hr Dogen 77
More Theories to Disprove Creation 20 hr The Dude 64
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) Tue The Dude 996

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE