Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."

Comments (Page 5,731)

Showing posts 114,601 - 114,620 of168,481
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117666
Feb 17, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you keep making this bogus claim?
I would like to see an article from a reliable source that says this.
You don't link such an article because you can't.
Another fail for HTS.
You're not interested in the truth... only in the justification of your amoral worldview.
I's common knowledge that the junk DNA paradigm has crashed.

In reference to the collapse of the junk DNA paradigm, Evolutionist Dr. John Mattick, director for the Institute of Molecular Bioscience (Queensland, Australia), wrote,

"The failure to recognize the full implications of this--particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information... may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."

*Mattick, J. Cited in: Gibs, W.W., "The Unseen Genome: Gems Among the Junk", Scientific American, 289 (5): 26-33, November, 2003; pp.29-30

I could site many references, but I know you're not interested in anything that threatens your religion.
Humanoid

Kansas City, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117667
Feb 17, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Bub, even Jimbo is questioning your sanity.
Since his sanity is highly questionable, this is not a good sign.
Hey, I not the one praying to a Bible character. And, thinking that humans are related to the apes. In, 1908 a meteroite exploded over Russia(look it up). Most humans took it as a fire God or something mythical....kind of like the Bible. And, we know the truth. Just like in the future the truth about human existence will be realized, not believed, but realized. Dude, its funny how Godbots question others sanity..........its shoulh be the other way around, for sure. So, go pray, then go to the zoo and watch your relitives swing on the bars. We will be exploring deep space proving the truth.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117668
Feb 17, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The recycled "imperfections" argument is reliant on false assumptions of an intelligent creator and is therefore not a scientific argument.
Actually we can't tell if they're false or not, because you're not capable of even demonstrating it exists. So you're right, it's not a scientific argument. Because there's no such thing as scientific arguments against non-falsifiable concepts.

Duh.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117669
Feb 17, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Interesting that you had to bring up religion in your argument.
It WAS being discussed by you at the time. However if you notice in my actual arguments FOR evolution no reference to theological concepts are necessary.

I've even gone to great lengths to subsequently point that out to you yet anything you don't like, whether it mentions theism or not, you brand "atheism".
HTS wrote:
And for th last time, I never said that ID is a scientific theory.
Then why keep bringing up the concept?

I told you off the other day for doing that even though we both agreed that IDC was to be thrown out and not even mentioned anymore for being non-scientific.

Then someone mentioned evolution and you HAD to call it "atheism".
HTS wrote:
If your claim NDT to be scientific, why do you always have to bring up religion in your arguments. First you say that you never bring up religion,... Then in the same breath talk about "bad design"
Because YOU are talking about design. Evolution on its own doesn't even have to mention it. That is until the fundies come along and bang on about it all the time.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117670
Feb 17, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The recycled "imperfections" argument is reliant on false assumptions of an intelligent creator and is therefore not a scientific argument.
Don't be dumb.

A none functioning gene for vitamin C disproves a designer as a designer would either have protected it or removed it completely, not left a damaged copy.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117671
Feb 17, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Regardless of how fashionable it might be to compare NDT to gravity, the comparison is stupid.
Actually it's not stupid. Your criticism of evolution is that evolution fails if it does not explain its respective origins. Therefore gravity fails if it does not explain the origin of mass. And the germ theory of disease fails if it does not explain abiogenesis.

That might be a surprise to the physics and medical communities respectively, though.
HTS wrote:
Making idiotic comparisons is not science. Show me the math as to how an ape could evolve into a man.
Why are you asking for math instead of biology?

Either way I've given you both.

Numerous times.

For months.

You've never bothered to address it.

All you say is "NO NO NO NO STUPID ATHEISM MEANIES!!!"

Yawn.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117672
Feb 17, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You have the gall to demand mechanisms? Tell me the "mechanisms" of the evolution of migratory instincts in whales... All you can say is "mutations + natural selection + millions of years = migratory instincts. Do you even know how whales migrate? Do you know what genes code for those instincts? Do you know the mechanisms of celestial navigation?
So you're saying we have mechanisms? But mechanisms are not enough but we also have to provide a step-by-step, organism-by-organism, mutation-by-mutation account of the entire history of life for the past 4 billion years?

While you in the meantime have to provide jack shite.

Hypocrisy thy name is fundie.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117673
Feb 17, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
And so?????
Corruption after the Fall is expected and perfectly well represented in Nature
Just as the Bible says
Also see this
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_...
Except that vitamin C is still vital for life.
So if we needed it before the fall then why don't we need it now?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117674
Feb 17, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
Hand waving
Blithe
Smug
Hand waving
You can't help it.(shrug)
Russell wrote:
There is NO evolutionary proposal for the mechanism of the DESIGN of the ATP-ase
Bingo. Because design is your baseless claim.
Russell wrote:
Evo-tards ....like you...will retort.... as you have a multitude of time before
*....small screeching falsetto...*
"That proves nothing..
That just means that God diddit with Jewish magic...
Whinge.....whine....howl"
Give it up, the Dude
Don't need to. Since your position IS Goddidit with magic we already told you that you can't win. A stalemate would be the best you could hope for. Well, if it weren't for the fact you never address the evidence for evolution in the meantime that is.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117675
Feb 17, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The junk DNA paradigm has crashed, and the DarwinBots on this forum are simply ignoring scientific fact. The collapse of junk DNA is a fatal blow to NDT. Most geneticists now believe that 100% of human DNA is functional. In the 1970's and 1980's it was preached on university campuses that 98% of DNA was junk. This was widely claimed to be predicted by NDT.
What's so stupid is that it was always illogical to assume that non-coding = non-functional. Since atheists believe that DNA is everything (such as gender identity, alcoholism, etc.), it is ridiculous to assume that 98% of a genetic code is worthless.
Since we've addressed your lies so many times over now while you in turn fail to deal with rebuttals, the only rational conclusion is that you're just another typical dishonest fundie liar for Jesus.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117676
Feb 17, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
At least CHECK what you hurriedly provide as scathing irrefutable evidence for animalutionism
At least check they were saying what you pretend they were saying. Because it turns out they still think evolution was responsible while you apparently know more than them, even though they were using evolutionary science you reject and evidence is irrelevant to anyone who believes Goddidit with magic anyway.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117677
Feb 17, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not interested in the truth... only in the justification of your amoral worldview.
I's common knowledge that the junk DNA paradigm has crashed.
In reference to the collapse of the junk DNA paradigm, Evolutionist Dr. John Mattick, director for the Institute of Molecular Bioscience (Queensland, Australia), wrote,
"The failure to recognize the full implications of this--particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information... may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."
*Mattick, J. Cited in: Gibs, W.W., "The Unseen Genome: Gems Among the Junk", Scientific American, 289 (5): 26-33, November, 2003; pp.29-30
I could site many references, but I know you're not interested in anything that threatens your religion.
He's an evolutionist you say? And still an evolutionist? So it's just another example of evolutionary biologists debating over the particulars of HOW evolution occurred (which is normal in any scientific theory) rather than IF it occurred or not?

Taking scientists out of context in this way is dishonest.

And you did this 6 months ago.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117678
Feb 17, 2013
 
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be dumb.
A none functioning gene for vitamin C disproves a designer as a designer would either have protected it or removed it completely, not left a damaged copy.
Only if it was a smart designer. It does not falsify the possibility of a dumb designer.

HTS just can't make up his mind whether the designer was smart or dumb.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117679
Feb 17, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not interested in the truth... only in the justification of your amoral worldview.
I's common knowledge that the junk DNA paradigm has crashed.
In reference to the collapse of the junk DNA paradigm, Evolutionist Dr. John Mattick, director for the Institute of Molecular Bioscience (Queensland, Australia), wrote,
"The failure to recognize the full implications of this--particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information... may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."
*Mattick, J. Cited in: Gibs, W.W., "The Unseen Genome: Gems Among the Junk", Scientific American, 289 (5): 26-33, November, 2003; pp.29-30
I could site many references, but I know you're not interested in anything that threatens your religion.
First, atheists are far more moral than Christians. We don't need a book written by bronze age goat humpers to tell us what is right and what is wrong. Also prisons are underpopulated by atheists as a percentage of society overall and rife with Christians. It seems that they took the wrong part of your book to heart.

And you still do not know how to link? Your quotes don't count for shit if you cannot link your source.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117680
Feb 17, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Bring the list of scientists names with the questions they were asked and their answers. Lmao you got nothin but deceit.

Remember there are more scientists name 'Steve' than there are creation supporters.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117681
Feb 17, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Bring the list of scientists names with the questions they were asked and their answers. Lmao you got nothin but deceit.

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

LOL. You got nothin' but deceit. OCD Liar.
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117682
Feb 17, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
He's an evolutionist you say? And still an evolutionist? So it's just another example of evolutionary biologists debating over the particulars of HOW evolution occurred (which is normal in any scientific theory) rather than IF it occurred or not?
Taking scientists out of context in this way is dishonest.
And you did this 6 months ago.
If you would care to frame that statement in any other context, be my guest. You have been nailed... Why don't you just admit it?
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117683
Feb 17, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
First, atheists are far more moral than Christians. We don't need a book written by bronze age goat humpers to tell us what is right and what is wrong. Also prisons are underpopulated by atheists as a percentage of society overall and rife with Christians. It seems that they took the wrong part of your book to heart.
And you still do not know how to link? Your quotes don't count for shit if you cannot link your source.
In the world of atheism, no morality exists. If you care to talk about morality, you. An start by explaining how mutations and natural selection ell us that it's wrong to kill someone...
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117684
Feb 17, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying we have mechanisms? But mechanisms are not enough but we also have to provide a step-by-step, organism-by-organism, mutation-by-mutation account of the entire history of life for the past 4 billion years?
While you in the meantime have to provide jack shite.
Hypocrisy thy name is fundie.
You always throw a hissy fit every time you've been nailed to the wall.
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117685
Feb 17, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually we can't tell if they're false or not, because you're not capable of even demonstrating it exists. So you're right, it's not a scientific argument. Because there's no such thing as scientific arguments against non-falsifiable concepts.
Duh.
Dude, you've just conceded defeat. You've finally acknowledged that imperfections is not a scientific argument. The imperfections argument if the backbone of almost all evidence for evolution.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 114,601 - 114,620 of168,481
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••