Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#116855 Feb 11, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, both religious and gov run schools, for the purpose of control, because control means money.
How do you figure this??

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116856 Feb 11, 2013
Russell wrote:
PART TWO
Ayala was quoted in The Los Angeles Times saying:
<clip of unsupported nonsense>
Russell, I have told you this before I will tell you this again.

Creationists have been shown time after time to be liars and to site lying sources. You have already been found guilty of this.

Therefore any post with a quote is a lie until proven otherwise. Here you are not innocent until proven guilty, creationists are guilty until proven innocent.

So, where was the link to the source of the quote?

You are still losing.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#116857 Feb 11, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
This isn't a matter of opinion; it's a matter of fact. If C14 dating is invalid, that's an assertion of fact. That means the evidence supports the assertion. Perhaps Cowboy isn't as familiar with the evidence as you are. Why not try to help your fellow man understand reality properly? Wouldn't that be better than leaving him to live in ignorance?
You are full of it dude....14C is very valid, and is used every day in science and just happens to be right. You creotards are amazingly obtuse.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#116858 Feb 11, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
The evidence shows constant lies. You believe the lies, I know better. All the so called corroborating evidence is lies.
And why would a creationist, such as yourself, lie about this subject?? And what proof do you have of this deception??
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116859 Feb 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Russell, I have told you this before I will tell you this again.
Creationists have been shown time after time to be liars and to site lying sources. You have already been found guilty of this.
Therefore any post with a quote is a lie until proven otherwise. Here you are not innocent until proven guilty, creationists are guilty until proven innocent.
So, where was the link to the source of the quote?
You are still losing.
SubDud
You can NEVER find anything!

But go away and look for it

I found it..

So you should be able to as well....

Or am I expecting too much from you?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116860 Feb 11, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
SubDud
You can NEVER find anything!
But go away and look for it
I found it..
So you should be able to as well....
Or am I expecting too much from you?
Isn't it WAY past your bedtime?

What are you doing up so late reading stuff that is way above your head?

You better get to bed now...

Otherwise ....your general misconceptions, paranoia and marshmallowness will be....

..a big bore

By the way

Check what I've written from the horse's mouth herself...

Not that she's a horse or anything

....Hang on....

I am not going to spoon feed you anymore...

No more refs for you

Just look up Ann Gauger

And I refuse to accept any bile vomit rejection on the basis of ID

Otherwise---->CREATION DESIGN RACISM BIGOTRY
...will come flying at you

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116861 Feb 11, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
SubDud
You can NEVER find anything!
But go away and look for it
I found it..
So you should be able to as well....
Or am I expecting too much from you?
No idiot, why would I care to go looking for nonsense? I have better things to do. The rule is if you make a claim that involves a quote the source needs to be linked. I am not a lying creationist and I link my sources and quotes. You are a lying creationist and it applies doubly to you.

Of course creationists hate to do that because then they are shown to be how truly idiotic they are.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116862 Feb 11, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it WAY past your bedtime?
What are you doing up so late reading stuff that is way above your head?
Russell, you are still a proven idiot. I don't move my lips when I read.

Once again, I will not do YOUR homework for you. If you want to quote someone provide a reliable source. Creatard sites by definition are not reliable sources.

And one more point about TalkOrigins. If you haven't made a mistake you don't have to update. I challenge you to find one mistake in TalkOrigins.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116863 Feb 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Russell, you are still a proven idiot. I don't move my lips when I read.
Once again, I will not do YOUR homework for you. If you want to quote someone provide a reliable source. Creatard sites by definition are not reliable sources.
And one more point about TalkOrigins. If you haven't made a mistake you don't have to update. I challenge you to find one mistake in TalkOrigins.
Heteroplasmy

Of course
You are NEVER wrong

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116864 Feb 11, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Heteroplasmy
Of course
You are NEVER wrong
Did I make that claim? I don't think so. I am wrong much much less often than you are and I do not make idiotic enigmatic posts.

So what is your claim now idiot? And where is your evidence to support your claim?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116865 Feb 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I make that claim? I don't think so. I am wrong much much less often than you are and I do not make idiotic enigmatic posts.
What is enigmatic for you, is glaringly obvious to others
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
So what is your claim now idiot? And where is your evidence to support your claim?
No way am I providing ANY evidence WHAT SO EVER!

Not until you give me an example of when you have been wrong..and also have ACCEPTED that you are wrong

Even then ...
You STILL have to ask nicely for my evidence

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116866 Feb 12, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
What is enigmatic for you, is glaringly obvious to others
<quoted text>
No way am I providing ANY evidence WHAT SO EVER!
Not until you give me an example of when you have been wrong..and also have ACCEPTED that you are wrong
Even then ...
You STILL have to ask nicely for my evidence
Good, then we can safely assume that you are wrong and that you know it.

Russell, I am never to make the first move towards name calling and bomb throwing. When you decide to be civil, I will be civil too. Until then I will bask in the dull glow your forehead tends to emit when you attempt to do what others call thinking.

AAaaahh......
Mugwump

Croydon, UK

#116867 Feb 12, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go
CREATION RACIST BIGOTRY
Thanks Mugwimp
I do agree with you that RACIST may not entirely be appropriate
But CREATION RACIST BIGOTRY
That really has a ring to it?
Would you agree, Mugwimp?
This is after all a creation evolution debate, is it not?
Or have I foolishly stumbled onto an evolution love fest?
No 'Russ sells out objectivity for religious beliefs' RACISM is NOT the right word for what should be obvious enough reasons I won't explain them.

And the reason creation.com is not a good scientific source is explained by the following question (will post it yet again so you can dodge it once more)

Is a site that dismisses ANY evidence without evaluation should it contradict scripture a,rational objective source?
Mugwump

Croydon, UK

#116868 Feb 12, 2013
One way or another wrote:
I can definitively design a test that would prove once and for all, whether or not c14 dating is a lie or the truth. Why can't scientists?
What's the point?

You would post your ideas , refuse to respond to any questions and ultimately call everyone morons.

It would be as fruitless as a teenagers diet.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116869 Feb 12, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not?
It is not beyond the realm of possibility...
Even phylogenetically..

No, its not.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is all nonsense anyway...but evolutionists ..who have no clue...love that stuff

yea, those darn evolutionists with their scientific method and millions of Christian adherents.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116870 Feb 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, couldn't resist...
"Mitochondrial Eve and biblical Eve are looking good: criticism of young age is premature"
http://creation.com/mitochondrial-eve-and-bib...
Also,
http://creation.com/a-shrinking-date-for-eve
and...
The “Eve” Mitochondrial Consensus Sequence
http://www.icr.org/article/4521/

Sorry, Creation.com and ICR don't even PRETEND to be real science sites and both have anti-science statements in their self descriptions.

Neither one does research. They are just a cesspool in which all the antiscientific creationist crap can collect and rot.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116871 Feb 12, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Then how about HLA-DRB1 introns 1-4 and HLA haplotype variation?

45 million years for HLA-DRB1 interons. So if you are saying the garden of eden was 45 MILLION years ago, then yes, it is possible.

But the earliest apes were only 35 million years ago, so adam and eve would have looked like rodents.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116872 Feb 12, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you imagine the role of Jesus is now that we know that Adam and Eve were fictitious and thus no 'Original Sin'??
I always thought the dogma was bogus because there are several places in the Bible where God said that sin does not pass down to the children. And what was really confusing was God killing all the children and infants of 'sinful' people.

Sin is not inherited, tis true.

But god can curse as many generations as he wants.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116873 Feb 12, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Why were they not real people??
Matt 19:4 Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female?
--Douay-Rheims Bible

What does that have to do with adam and eve? It is true no matter when the "human" lineage began.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus believed they were real
Jesus is referred to as the second Adam
"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."
--King James Bible
The second Adam is the Christ..
Why call Him that if the first one is not real
And what did Jesus die for anyway??

You need to read about the early years of Christianity. You will be very surprised to learn that what early Christians believed is not the same as what most Christians today believe.

Very Surprised, indeed.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#116876 Feb 12, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"Supreme Court"?!?!
You really cannot be this stupid.
Of course he can. He's so dumb he thinks Goddidit with magic trumps all science known to man and forgot that the fundies have lost every single evo/creo court case since 1925.

So what's wrong with getting the Supreme Court to order to do a carbon dating test on a 65MY old sample?

Aside from the fact the fundies don't even believe in carbon dating that is.

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
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min Eagle 12 - 81,844
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Genesis Enigma 164,290
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr Science 2,192
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Science 33,072
Did humans come from Sturgeons? Oct 16 Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee Oct 16 Science 1
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
More from around the web