Should evolution be taught in high school?

[appleboy]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
Brilliant!
Sometimes I do more heavy lifting than necessary. Nice short reply that cuts to the heart.

Thanks.

[appleboy]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

I cannot think like an evolutionist because I am not an evolutionist but I cannot imagine thinking to myself that...on the question of the origin of the universe...that in the beginning there was nothing; and there was not only nothing but nobody behind it; nothing and nobody. But just by natural processes and Pure chance and time, for no reason at all mind you...that everything evolved into the world we see now? Come on! Everyone needs to at least have an opinion on the matter!

What--if anything--existed prior to our current universe, is not known. Maybe our universe is the product of a previous universe, or maybe it is one of billions. We can only formulate concepts of time in relation to the universe we know of. Any infinity or lack of infinity beyond our universe is just a wild guess. Supposing that the only possibility is that our universe was created by some intelligent designer is just one more wild guess.

[appleboy]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>
Dude, you consistely dodge all legitimate concerns that are posed. For natural selection to preserve an ERV insertion, that organism that has been so endowed has to be functionally superior to all other non-infected members of the species. How does a worthless segment of inserted DNA impart a survival advantage. Any random manipulation of genetic code would result in an inferior outcome... at least such would be predicted by evolution. Why are you bringing up marsupials vs placental mammals?

No. It doesn't have to be superior to anything. It only has to be good enough to survive through the reproduction stage. A modified generation does not have to REPLACE its ancestors. Species tend to eventually branch out in many directions.

[appleboy]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
It is not meaningless. Your opinion is very important. I am not interested in hearing the "official party line" as I've heard that a million times. Your true and honest opinion is really the only thing that matters. I know what it says in the secular text books.
You know what I believe. I believe 100% that God created the universe as it written in the Bible. Of course I don't know exactly how He did it. He has always existed and comes from another universe that we are not aware of. He created this universe with His energy and matter and know how. He created this universe of which we are a part of so this one is all we know. So I have an origin and an explanation for where we come from. All matter, energy, and space was created by God who always existed.
So what am I asking? I am asking you to tell me what you believe the origin of this universe is. All the space, matter, and energy and all the billions of galaxies and stars; time and space, matter and energy, from the beginning of time. If you want, back before life began, back to the big bang, back to the time what all space, time, matter, and energy were all contained in a signularity a million times smaller than the head of a pin. You can also believe that if you want. But where did that pinpoint come from?
Did even that always exist? Never mind all the complications such as how the galaxies got to spinning or how the planets got their rotations or how all the chemicals formed and got organized enough for life to begin. Where did the pinpoint come from in the first place?
Never mind if you don't think the Earth is the center of this universe. What is important is what you really believe about that pinpoint and whether there was any purpose behind it. In other words, was there any thought process involved? Was there any planning or purpose or design or intelligence involved in the creation of this universe?
Again, or me, of course this is easy and satisfying. God created the universe. Of course the details are equally as difficult for me as it is for you but at least I have a logical answer for the biggest question of all. I know where I came from. I was made. Life only comes from life. Cells only come from cells. The first cells were made.
I just have a very hard time accepting your, "I don't know". That is not an opinion, that is you just telling me what the current state of the science is but I already know that. When you do that, it is insulting really. Like I told Kong, you are not typing out peer-reviewed research or anything. Surely you must be able to think for yourself. You people seem to act as though there is a some panel of evolutionist judges or examiners watching you to see if you break any rules or something. Just tell me the truth damn it.

"I don't know" is a statement. You have an opinion that you do know. But your opinion is not actually knowing, it is just an opinion. You don't know. We all have opinions, but many of us don't see a value in giving opinions the same credibility as knowing.

[HTS]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL. Projection. And massive ignorance of what science has demonstrated.

I say there's no evidence... You say there's massive evidence... prove it. Simply parroting the same stale rhetoric isn't science.

[HTS]

appleboy wrote:

<quoted text>
No. It doesn't have to be superior to anything. It only has to be good enough to survive through the reproduction stage. A modified generation does not have to REPLACE its ancestors. Species tend to eventually branch out in many directions.

you obviously have no concept of "survival of the fittest"

[HTS]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
Each of the mechanisms of evolution are peer reviewed by, at least hundreds of articles.
You might want to learn how to use pubmed.com so you can check your ideas before you say ignorant things like this.
<quoted text>
Actually, peer review suggest that Haeckle was more right than wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_t...
"Darwin's view, that early embryonic stages are similar to the same embryonic stage of related species but not to the adult stages of these species, has been confirmed by modern evolutionary developmental biology."

For the last time... Consensus is not science.

[HTS]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
Okay, Wiki is very handy for questions like this.
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support...
Please note, that to get %5 of all scientists accepting creationism they had to include sciences outside of biology. In biology acceptance is over 99%. In other words to get 5% creationists they had to go to sciences that had no clue about evolution.
You are in the fringe. There is no doubt about it.
No creation "scientist" has ever produced anything of note using creation "science".

I asked you for numbers on scientists who believed in "molecules-to-man" evolution, and you failed to provide them. What percentage of scientists believe that no intelligent design exists?

[Subduction Zone]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>I asked you for numbers on scientists who believed in "molecules-to-man" evolution, and you failed to provide them. What percentage of scientists believe that no intelligent design exists?

What? Did you or didn't you see that article that I posted?

By the way, since technically abiogenesis and evolution are two different topic by definition your question is wrong. I know what you meant, so if you want a better answer perhaps you should ask your question correctly.

[Subduction Zone]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>
For the last time... Consensus is not science.

Yes, but evolution is science. Too bad you don't understand how science works.

Here is your chance. If you understand science you can explain how the fossil record supports the theory of evolution and not creation.

[One way or another]

It's absolutely hilarious that the Evo morons would point to the fossil records, when out of billions of fossils, evolutionists point to two, would be samples of theorized change.

That's as pathetic as it gets folks.

[One way or another]

Evolution is pure BS.

[Dogen]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>I say there's no evidence... You say there's massive evidence... prove it. Simply parroting the same stale rhetoric isn't science.

LOL.

You refuse to look at evidence.
You refuse to acknowledge evidence that is spelled out for you.
You ignore links to the whole of modern knowledge.
Then you say the evidence does not exist.

If you want to "argue" like a child I will treat you as such.

IS SO!
IS SO!
IS SO!!!!!

MOMMEEEEEEEEEE!

[Dogen]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>you obviously have no concept of "survival of the fittest"

That was actually moving the goal posts. You moved from the individual level to the population level.

[Dogen]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>
For the last time... Consensus is not science.

First of all, you have demonstrated no knowledge of science, whatsoever.

But Who said anything about consensus. Contentiousness is more science than consensus. I merely provided the scientific facts.

[Dogen]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>I asked you for numbers on scientists who believed in "molecules-to-man" evolution, and you failed to provide them. What percentage of scientists believe that no intelligent design exists?

You would have to define your terms.

Physicists acknowledge and attest to physical evolution.
Chemists acknowledge and attest to chemical evolution.
Biologists acknowledge and attest to biological evolution.

Few scientists believe in literal creationism as it is presented in the bible. What is called ID is nothing other than creationism. That does not mean that many don't have some spiritual beliefs or believe there is some cause behind it.

[Dogen]

One way or another wrote:

It's absolutely hilarious that the Evo morons would point to the fossil records, when out of billions of fossils, evolutionists point to two, would be samples of theorized change.
That's as pathetic as it gets folks.

You might be interesting if you had a clue as to what you are talking about.

[Subduction Zone]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>I asked you for numbers on scientists who believed in "molecules-to-man" evolution, and you failed to provide them. What percentage of scientists believe that no intelligent design exists?

You still can't ask questions properly.

Nor do you know what evidence is. Why don't you post a proper definition of evidence so we can see whether or not it is worth our time to post any for you?

[Holy Ghost]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>I asked you for numbers on scientists who believed in "molecules-to-man" evolution, and you failed to provide them. What percentage of scientists believe that no intelligent design exists?

Intelligent design? What is that exactly?

[Mugwump]

Holy Ghost wrote:

<quoted text>Intelligent design? What is that exactly?

The intellectual turd of creationism rolled in glitter ?