Should evolution be taught in high school?

[Mugwump]

Adam and Steve wrote:

<quoted text>2 questions: 1)Are we alone in the universe? and 2)Is the God/Jesus story true or a fable?

1) probably not
2) can't be proved either way, but as there is no evidence to support it - can replace 'God/Jesus' with Flying Spaghetti Monster and ask the same question.

[Subduction Zone]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>Evolution is not remotely "science". It is a metaphysical paradigm founded on an a priori rejection of intelligent design. Nothing in the world of experimental biology has any relevancy to evolution whatsoever.

Thanks for admitting that you are an idiot.

Now if you would like to know how evolution is science and I would be more than happy to help an idiot even as foolish as you are.

[Dogen]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>What misconceptions and logical fallacies? You are obviously a total stranger to experimental science if you think evolution remotely qualifies as science.

I have a MS in Science and have one published research paper. I have taught science at the undergraduate level and have been a science junkie since about age 8. I bet I know a good deal more about the the scientific method, reading and critiquing research and the philosophy of science than you do.

From the content of your posts I expect most H.S. graduates know much more about science than you do (or at least should if they graduated).

[One way or another]

Evolutionist scientists like congress, lie their asses off for grants and their paychecks.

[Dogen]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>How about four years of medical school?

Sorry, but medicine is mostly an applied science. If you want to learn about how research is done you better go back and get a Ph.D. But even an MD SHOULD know how to read a research paper, and this you apparently don't.

[Dogen]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>m
Materially supported? What a joke... Evolution is entirely irrelevant to experimental science and is founded solely on man's imagination.

I used that word because that makes it a fact. There is more material evidence for evolution than any other science.

There are also few areas of science that have as many independent lines of supporting evidence from as many different areas of scientific study as evolution.

Evolution is observable and has been observed.
Evolution is testable and has been tested.
Evolution is falsifiable but has never been falsified.
Evolution can and does make successful predictions.

That is pretty much the DEFINITION of science. You can get upset about it, but that means little. Facts are facts.

[Dogen]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>Dogen... Your insecurity is transparent. I have obviously assaulted your atheistic religion, and I understand your pathetic attempts to justify your amoral worldview with science.

Sorry, you have flung hollow assertions into the night.

BTW, I am not an atheist. I have my picture in my church directory and everything.

[Dogen]

Adam and Steve wrote:

<quoted text>2 questions: 1)Are we alone in the universe? and 2)Is the God/Jesus story true or a fable?

1. maybe
2. yes.

[Subduction Zone]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>I see you've been logging on to that worthless atheist website talkorigins. Every one of those "29+ evidences" has been soundly debunked, so my advice to you is to stop blindly parroting whatever BS you read on the Internet. Please tell me how any form of life could survive a minimum of hundreds of years on a comet. You've ASSUMED that abiogenesis occurred, but have no science to back it up. That's RELIGION.

TalkOrigins is no more "atheistic" than a site that describes how a ball falls or what happens in a collision is atheistic. Actually what that site would be is a physic site. Nor is it any more "atheistic" than a site that describes equilibria and the pH of an acid. That site would be a chemistry site. So why pick on a site that describes how life evolved?

[Mugwump]

One way or another wrote:

Evolutionist scientists like congress, lie their asses off for grants and their paychecks.

Will ask again

Mugwump wrote:

<quoted text>
Jim, what exactly is the purpose of your posts?
It obviously isn't to further the scientific knowledge of mankind - or you would submit your 'new science' to the relevant publications.
It obviously isn't to engage in any discourse as you never respond to any questions about your 'new science'
It obviously isn't to endear yourself - as your homophobic and anti-semetic rants have burned that bridge.
You could learn something (I know I have) from reading and engaging with posters (even if you disagree with them)- but you don't.
So what exactly are you trying to achieve?

[Mugwump]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
TalkOrigins is no more "atheistic" than a site that describes how a ball falls or what happens in a collision is atheistic. Actually what that site would be is a physic site. Nor is it any more "atheistic" than a site that describes equilibria and the pH of an acid. That site would be a chemistry site. So why pick on a site that describes how life evolved?

Good question, though I suspect you know the answer - basically

Evolution takes LOTS of time

Those whom Interpret the genesis account literally believe the earth has only been here for 6000 years

Hence HAVE to reject evolution.

Simple really, wrong, but simple

[Anonymous]

just keep telling them it was all done in 7 days,

yeah ;)
www.clubvegas999.com

[One way or another]

Without hard evidence, there is no science. Evolution offers no hard science.

[Mugwump]

One way or another wrote:

Without hard evidence, there is no science. Evolution offers no hard science.

And the hard science your you pet psychology was ???

Or your bacteria are intelligent argument

Or your capitalism is the same as communism argument

Or your spin = gravity argument

Or your sulphur metabolizing = sulphar based argument

Don't worry - your absense of a response Is response enough - just keep posting your nonsense and refusing to defend it.

[Adam and Steve]

Mugwump wrote:

<quoted text>
1) probably not
2) can't be proved either way, but as there is no evidence to support it - can replace 'God/Jesus' with Flying Spaghetti Monster and ask the same question.

For #1 we got a "Maybe" and a "Probable not". Nice. The question was, "Are we alone in the universe?" There is hope for the human race. In primitive terms humans still believe in the God theory. Going forward, humans are at a fast pace to search for and make contact with an advanced civilization. We have seen things most humans would never talk about. Those advanced being they are searching for will never make contact with humaniods.......Wait, they already do. They study and control the human animal. Its scary but true.

[One way or another]

lalin 168 wrote:

just keep telling them it was all done in 7 days,
yeah ;)
www.clubvegas999.com

Purely from a scientific standpoint, prove it wasn't.

[One way or another]

No one can prove old age earth by any of the theories out there.

[One way or another]

Varves don't stand a chance and neither do plate tech tonics. Anything else?

Mid Atlantic mountains width

Original work
By Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence

I told you children to be aware of a game of chess. I kept you looking in one place, making you feel comfortable and getting you to do exactly what you did, thanks.

Now children, ask yourselves, how wide are the mountains at the mid Atlantic ridge? They surely aren't 67,500 miles wide
The width of the mountains should equal the movement of those plates and science claims that in one million years, the plates lose approximately 15 miles, so if the earth is 4.5 billion years old and one million divided into 4.5 billion is 4500, then multiply 15times 4500, which equals 67,500 miles of lost plate. The width of the mountains at the mid atl ridge is minuscule, so please explain how that can be, when the width of the mountain range should be, 67,500. as the mountain range is the only place that shows the addition of material.

[KittenKoder]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>Kong, I see you've been nailed to the wall. Now you're falling prey to the classical logical fallacy of the false alternative. You cannot logically defend a scientific theory by ranting about your disbelief in God. Your personal incredulity is irrelevant to science.

Not a fallacy, there is evidence that suggest everything was done naturally, with no supernatural influence. You cannot present any evidence of your god, therefore, your god is dismissed. That's how logic works.

[Mugwump]

One way or another wrote:

Varves don't stand a chance and neither do plate tech tonics. Anything else?
Mid Atlantic mountains width
Original work
By Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence
I told you children to be aware of a game of chess. I kept you looking in one place, making you feel comfortable and getting you to do exactly what you did, thanks.
Now children, ask yourselves, how wide are the mountains at the mid Atlantic ridge? They surely aren't 67,500 miles wide
The width of the mountains should equal the movement of those plates and science claims that in one million years, the plates lose approximately 15 miles, so if the earth is 4.5 billion years old and one million divided into 4.5 billion is 4500, then multiply 15times 4500, which equals 67,500 miles of lost plate. The width of the mountains at the mid atl ridge is minuscule, so please explain how that can be, when the width of the mountain range should be, 67,500. as the mountain range is the only place that shows the addition of material.

Jim can I suggest an improvement to your file-system?

You obviously have all of these examples stored on your PC in a word document or notepad.

Why don't you ALSO store the responses that various people have posted to show where you are wrong.

Probably best to store each of your new ideas in seperate documents - I would suggest a naming convention like the following

Nonsense_varves.doc
rebutal_varves_1.doc
rebutal_varves_2.doc
rebutal_varves_3.doc
rebutal_varves_4.doc

Nonsense_speedoflight.doc
Rebuttal_speedoflight_1.doc
Rebuttal_speedoflight_2.doc
Rebuttal_speedoflight_3.doc

And so on (you may need to purchase some more PC storage for the rebuttal docs.

You see if you adopt this filling system, BEFORE you paste you already rebuffed nonsense YET AGAIN, you can check to see if anyone has already addressed the nonsense already - and not waste your valuable time..

If you want to go the extra mile you can set up a simple database (open office is good and free) and store the nonsense and rebuttals in that - that way you can do reports such as
Most frequently posted nonsense
Most often rebutted nonsense
And so on.

Make sense jimbo?- as I say if you adopted a better organizational policy you can save a lot of time, which you could use to read a science book/take your meds