Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119186 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Face it Dogem
You have no evidence

The name is Dogen. It is a long O sound. Like Doe-gin or Doe-gen.

If that was the only thing wrong with your posts you would be doing well. However, I am the one that DOES have the evidence. It is evidence that:

Has been accumulated by MILLIONS of scientists.
Has withstood 150 years of the scientific method.
- It is observable
- It is testable
- It is falsifiable (but has never been falsified)
- It includes experiments and observations that are repeatable
- has repeated the experiments and observations.
- has been peer reviewed.
- has advanced science.
- has made predictions (which have been successful)
Has been observed in nature
Is based on over a BILLION fossils.
Is based on over 10 TRILLION pieces of data.
Has multiple lines of evidence from different fields of science (the holy grail of science)

Russell wrote:
<quoted text> You repeat what you hear and think others are saying....
You link to tediously sloppy sites
You repeat yourself endlessly
You can't even refute what creationists say about theistic evolution
You claim to be a Christian...but you scorn God's word...
Real smart....

**[Psychological Projection Test]**

Russell, you repeat what you hear and think others are saying....
You link to tediously sloppy sites
You repeat yourself endlessly
You can't even refute what scientists say about evolution
You claim to be a Christian...but you scorn God's word...
Real smart....
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119187 Feb 23, 2013
This guy reminds me of the Dude

Slippery
Snake

Dawkins, 2009: on “junkDNA”
“it’s full of junk, which is just as Darwinism predicted… how embarrassing for those creationists who say it shouldn’t be!”

Dawkins, 2012: on non-junkDNA…
“it’s not full of junk, which is just as Darwinism predicted… nothing for the creationists to take advantage of here, move along!”

Richard Dawkins ENCODE 2013 “Junk DNA”
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119188 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The name is Dogen. It is a long O sound. Like Doe-gin or Doe-gen.
If that was the only thing wrong with your posts you would be doing well. However, I am the one that DOES have the evidence. It is evidence that:
Has been accumulated by MILLIONS of scientists.
Has withstood 150 years of the scientific method.
- It is observable
- It is testable
- It is falsifiable (but has never been falsified)
- It includes experiments and observations that are repeatable
- has repeated the experiments and observations.
- has been peer reviewed.
- has advanced science.
- has made predictions (which have been successful)
Has been observed in nature
Is based on over a BILLION fossils.
Is based on over 10 TRILLION pieces of data.
Has multiple lines of evidence from different fields of science (the holy grail of science)
<quoted text>
**[Psychological Projection Test]**
Russell, you repeat what you hear and think others are saying....
You link to tediously sloppy sites
You repeat yourself endlessly
You can't even refute what scientists say about evolution
You claim to be a Christian...but you scorn God's word...
Real smart....
No I think Dogem is a better representation of you

Your evidence falsifies the Bible
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119189 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Emotionalism without substance. Typical of creationists.
You need to learn evolutionary theology and come to realize that science does not refute religion nor does science ever even attempt to refute religion. That is just a function of your paranoid belief system.
http://evolutionarytheology.wordpress.com/
I've always said evolution is a religion
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119190 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Since these errors have been occurring for over 3.5 billion years, when exactly did "the fall" (sic - not actually a biblical term) occur?
Neither is Biblical...

So there you go...

So you don't believe Genesis?

Neither can you believe a virgin birth

Nor a resurrection

Cult
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a problem.
I do not belong to a cult
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>

Second, the similarity of genomes is directly related to the length of time the two organisms have been separated by evolutionary history. Not one counterexample has been found.
You knowledge of genetics is bleak

HLA-DRB 1 exons may show what you claim
HLA-DRB 1 introns 1-4 do not

Naturally you have not a clue what I am saying but never mind...
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The EXACT same nested hierarchy found in the fossil record is found in:
- DNA
- Morphology
- Ontogeny
- ERV insertion pattern
- Redundant pseudogenes
- Phylogenies
- Cladistics
You mean like this?

http://genomebiology.com/2007/8/6/R109/figure...
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>

What in the name of Osirus are you talking about? So, in addition to biology you also don't get chemistry. Small wonder.
I go even a step further. I claim that hydrogen atoms turned into horrendously intricate molecules by a process I call nature.
You call nature-god
No evidence
Just confidence and heaps of faith
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, Darwin formulated punctuated equilibrium. Gould supplied the name and ran with the concept.
Gradualism was assumed early on due to the principle of parsimony. Observations required that to be rejected. Still, Darwin got it right in the beginning.
Yes, we argee
There were and are massive insurmountable issues with the fossil record
One way or another

United States

#119191 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No of course I don't understand plain English
<quoted text>
You wish
Dream on, Bud
This is all you have
Argumentum ad hominem
<quoted text>
What insults?
Are you mistaking me for someone else?
You have been known to make some rather....shall we say...."strange" remarks when you're off your evo-goblin face
<quoted text>
You mean like the RLN being bad design?
The retina being wired backwards being bad design?
Fast and slow rabbits?
Whale evolution?
Archie?
Lenski's bacteria?
Junk DNA?
Haeckel's drawings?
Chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor?
Mutations and the like dunnit over millions of years?
Transitional fossils?
.
.
.
.
.
This list goes on...and on.....and...on
Evo-tard "brilliance" in general...
<quoted text>
Says he from his ivory tower of oblivion driven by a frantic desire to remain champ of the chumps
....And the droning offers to teach....
Uggh!
Lmao, how true.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119192 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution = change over time.
No more evidence needed.
<quoted text>
That is my point. Who would deny that evolution happens? I just substituted one scientific fact for another (evolution for electricity).
<quoted text>
No your analogy is not good. Electricity existed for billions of years before those things came into being on this planet. Likewise, evolution existed for billions of years and eventually a lifeform came along that was able to utilize electricity with wiring, cabling,.... But that is not really the point.
It is interesting to note that humans have been USING evolution for longer than they have been using electricity (except as a source for fire). Selective breeding uses the mechanism of evolution to alter existing animal with the characteristics the breeder desires.
So evolution has been a fact longer than electricity.
Not withstanding lightening, of course

You have no idea
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119193 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>

**[Psychological Projection Test]**
When all you have is a hammer...
..everything looks like a nail
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119194 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>

[crickets chirping in February]
Its called tinnitus

Get it checked
One way or another

United States

#119195 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
This guy reminds me of the Dude
Slippery
Snake
Dawkins, 2009: on “junkDNA”
“it’s full of junk, which is just as Darwinism predicted… how embarrassing for those creationists who say it shouldn’t be!”
Dawkins, 2012: on non-junkDNA…
“it’s not full of junk, which is just as Darwinism predicted… nothing for the creationists to take advantage of here, move along!”
Richard Dawkins ENCODE 2013 “Junk DNA”
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Amen, just as the gov teaches through the schools and the cliques, created by the schools. Ignorance for the sake of a fully corrupt gov and their proxies.
One way or another

United States

#119197 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No I think Dogem is a better representation of you
Your evidence falsifies the Bible
More like dodger. Someone else have him that name, even though the entire clique copy dodging--101.

Many children have nothing else.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119198 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Where has DNA occurred “naturally” in a cell?
It's in this place called the nucleus of the cell.

I see Rusty failed even grade school biology.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#119199 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
This guy reminds me of the Dude
Slippery
Snake
Dawkins, 2009: on “junkDNA”
“it’s full of junk, which is just as Darwinism predicted… how embarrassing for those creationists who say it shouldn’t be!”
Dawkins, 2012: on non-junkDNA…
“it’s not full of junk, which is just as Darwinism predicted… nothing for the creationists to take advantage of here, move along!”
Richard Dawkins ENCODE 2013 “Junk DNA”
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Funny that the first two statements have quotation marks even though they are not quotations. Are you just making things up again?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119200 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No of course I don't understand plain English
I know, you are an Aussie. That is no excuse if you want to participate in a debate. Other Aussie's have overcome this inability, why can't you?
<quoted text>
You wish
Dream on, Bud
This is all you have
Argumentum ad hominem
Wrong again. You made statements in the past that indicated you reject even Newtonian mechanics. When I challenged you on that statement you avoided repeating it.
<quoted text>
What insults?
Are you mistaking me for someone else?
You have been known to make some rather....shall we say...."strange" remarks when you're off your evo-goblin face
You try to insult people constantly since you have no science to back up your idiocy. Me, I have been extremely patient when you consider the lying fools that I am dealing with.
<quoted text>
You mean like the RLN being bad design?
The retina being wired backwards being bad design?
Fast and slow rabbits?
Whale evolution?
Archie?
Lenski's bacteria?
Junk DNA?
Haeckel's drawings?
Chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor?
Mutations and the like dunnit over millions of years?
Transitional fossils?
.
.
.
.
.
This list goes on...and on.....and...on
Evo-tard "brilliance" in general...
<quoted text>
Says he from his ivory tower of oblivion driven by a frantic desire to remain champ of the chumps
....And the droning offers to teach....
Uggh!
Unfortunately for you all of these are either very strong evidence for evolution or topics that you do not understand.
For example let's take Haeckel's drawings. I gave you and your other creatard friend a simple challenge. That was to say what was wrong with Haeckel's drawings. All you idiots can do is to claim that they are "fraudulent" without saying that they are how the are fraudulent. That shows that you got this from a creatard site that did not know either.
What a gullible moron you are. You show it in each and every post.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119201 Feb 23, 2013
Rusty, instead of spewing a series of lies, why don't you pick what you think is your one best point against evolution and try to defend it.

And if you want to talk about that myth you believe in, including the nonsense of a virgin birth we can discuss that next.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#119202 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The name is Dogen. It is a long O sound. Like Doe-gin or Doe-gen.
If that was the only thing wrong with your posts you would be doing well. However, I am the one that DOES have the evidence. It is evidence that:
Has been accumulated by MILLIONS of scientists.
Has withstood 150 years of the scientific method.
- It is observable
- It is testable
- It is falsifiable (but has never been falsified)
- It includes experiments and observations that are repeatable
- has repeated the experiments and observations.
- has been peer reviewed.
- has advanced science.
- has made predictions (which have been successful)
Has been observed in nature
Is based on over a BILLION fossils.
Is based on over 10 TRILLION pieces of data.
Has multiple lines of evidence from different fields of science (the holy grail of science)
The so-called "evidence" that you site is imaginary. You have nothing but propaganda.
One way or another

United States

#119203 Feb 23, 2013
Dealing with people that choose just one side like dems and repubs, destroys intelligence, as the Evo morons here do, but what can you expect from the school systems that must focus on money, to the detriment of the mind.

HTS and Russel and UC, for each of your own reasons, you have chosen to speak to the mind instead of the money. Not an easy road as you know.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119204 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The so-called "evidence" that you site is imaginary. You have nothing but propaganda.
Once again you show that you are a fool who does not understand evidence.

Of course there is safety for the creatard in ignorance. That may be the reason that they don't want to learn what constitutes evidence.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#119205 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your declarations are worthless. There is evidence of an intelligent force... The complexity of life. You can deny it all day... That doesn't erase anything. Science is not making unsubstantiated proclamations. It's providing evidence that can be validated by a skeptic. I am a skeptic. You have provide stories only. Your mountains of "evidence" is non-existent.
Complexity is a relative term. Gold has a very complex molecular structure. A million chimps throwing together various chemicals could never produce a gram of gold. So you would say that it must have been intelligently designed, correct?

However, given the right conditions, like with the chemistry of a supernova star, nature produces gold in abundance.

Could you tell us what exact conditions existed on earth 3.5 billion years ago and why those conditions could not have produced life?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#119206 Feb 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again you show that you are a fool who does not understand evidence.
Of course there is safety for the creatard in ignorance. That may be the reason that they don't want to learn what constitutes evidence.
Simple insults are empty. You cannot logically back up any of your claims. All are easily refuted by intelligent scientists. You haven't proven anything. You need to humbly acknowledge that your worldview is ultimately founded on atheism.

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
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... 9 min rogermunns 632
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 15 min scientia potentia... 216,606
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 21 min scientia potentia... 48,388
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Genesis Enigma 154,611
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 11 hr Porkncheese 6
Science News (Sep '13) Fri _Susan_ 3,980
News Does Mike Pence Believe in Evolution? Thu scientia potentia... 9
More from around the web