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 5,874)

Showing posts 117,461 - 117,480 of171,372
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120571
Feb 28, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Precisely where your brain usually resides as well...
Are you related to Charles Idemi?
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120572
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
100% of AIDS patients are HIV positive.
That's because AIDS by definition requires HIV positivity. The correlation is man made. Thousands of patients with clinical ADIS are HIV negative. If a person has tuberculosis and is HIV positive, he has AIDS. If a person has tuberculosis and is HIV negative, he has tuberculosis.

Why are you so committed it the HIV/AIDS connection? You have not studied both sides. You have predetermined that I am wrong...and you're obviously just trying to win an argument. I don't expect you to just believe what I'm saying...
Elohim

Branford, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120573
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>SZ, Russell is obviously very intelligent. According to you, anyone who doesn't share your ridiculous religion of atheism is ignorant... And that must include Einstein, Newton, Kelvin, Pasteur, and many others.
Only in the small minds of anti-science, anti-intellectuals such as you and your ilk.
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120574
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know? You have not read them you are just ranting and putting forward unfounded rejection and denial based on deliberate ignorance and creationist incredulity because such tests disprove your faith which is built on nothing other than you donít understand it must have been goddidit by magic.
As indicated, some of those documents are simply museum literature based on scientific investigation and were included because I considered the childrenís section was more or less the level you could comprehend. Other documents are peer reviewed and reference the type of testing used, times, dates, places, artefacts measured, equipment used and itís calibration certificate information, those present, those doing the tests and their qualification, the acknowledged accuracy of that testing, those verifying the tests and their qualification etc, etc. In other words correct scientific testing using correct scientific procedural methods.
The documentation is laid out in such a way so that any other interested party can repeat those same experiments, test and procedures so that peer review can be accurate and if required offer criticism or methods and offer alternatives
In other they are falsifiable, as true scientific work must be.
in the first place, no Radiometric dating was done to validate those assigned dates. Secondly Radiometric dating is not reproducible,...not even close.,if it were, there would be no purpose for biostratigraphy
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120575
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Swallow this:
http://news.discovery.com/animals/dinosaurs/d...
<quoted text>
No one is pretending. You *are* naive and ignorant as shown by many of your comments here.
None of that proves anything. What proof do you have that those aren't modern feathers? Are you familiar with down and every other modern iteration of feather morphology? Those photos prove nothing. You believe them only because you want to believe them. Where is the peer review? I'm not referring to perfunctory rubber stamping by other atheist stooges... I'm referring to review by histologists and anatomists who aren't committed to Darwinism...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120576
Feb 28, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>None of that proves anything. What proof do you have that those aren't modern feathers? Are you familiar with down and every other modern iteration of feather morphology? Those photos prove nothing. You believe them only because you want to believe them. Where is the peer review? I'm not referring to perfunctory rubber stamping by other atheist stooges... I'm referring to review by histologists and anatomists who aren't committed to Darwinism...
In other words, creationists.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120577
Feb 28, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>None of that proves anything. What proof do you have that those aren't modern feathers? Are you familiar with down and every other modern iteration of feather morphology? Those photos prove nothing. You believe them only because you want to believe them. Where is the peer review? I'm not referring to perfunctory rubber stamping by other atheist stooges... I'm referring to review by histologists and anatomists who aren't committed to Darwinism...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6049/16...
Elohim

Branford, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120578
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

MikeF wrote:
Mike..... Don't you know science magazines are propaganda tools of Satan and the Darwinist crowd.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120579
Feb 28, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, it's it right here on page 172, Genetic Entropy:
"Since this paper, Dr. Kondrashov has indicated to me by way of personal communication that 100 was just a lower estimate and that 300 is his upper estimate. He also indicated to me that he now believes up to 30% of the mutations may be deleterious. This means that, from his persepective, "U" (deleterious mutations per generation) would be 30-90. This is 100 fold higher than would have previously been considered possible. In the end, he dismisses the entire problem with "synergistic epistasis" and "truncation selection".

Point being that we don't understand everything yet. Since we have not boxed science up and put it in storage that is a given.

Still, evolution happens. Genetic entropy does not (except perhaps under restrictive conditions).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120580
Feb 28, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
What HTS said
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. If you say that feathers started out as heat regulators before flight, the ony logical conclusion is an end goal. Otherwise they would not have been pre-adapted for flight.

Early feathers were not suitable for flight.

Other animals that fly don't have feathers.

Only the ones evolved from theropod dinosaurs.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120581
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>Mike..... Don't you know science magazines are propaganda tools of Satan and the Darwinist crowd.
The devil made me do it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120582
Feb 28, 2013
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
And this from a guy who claims to be a physician and who criticizes ToE without even a high school understanding of it. Laughable.

I know. There must be a creationist site somewhere that encourages creotard to pretend they know more a lot more about science than they do in order to win some credibility they can't sustain because all of their posts point to the fact that they really don't understand anything about evolution.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120583
Feb 28, 2013
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Swallow this:
http://news.discovery.com/animals/dinosaurs/d...
<quoted text>
No one is pretending. You *are* naive and ignorant as shown by many of your comments here.

Nice photo.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120584
Feb 28, 2013
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you related to Charles Idemi?

Ouch!!!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120585
Feb 28, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I know. There must be a creationist site somewhere that encourages creotard to pretend they know more a lot more about science than they do in order to win some credibility they can't sustain because all of their posts point to the fact that they really don't understand anything about evolution.
Maybe the DI is doing one of those extra credit things again for harassing evolution sites.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120586
Feb 28, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because AIDS by definition requires HIV positivity. The correlation is man made. Thousands of patients with clinical ADIS are HIV negative.

Duh! Ya think?


[QUOTE who="HTS"]<quoted text> If a person has tuberculosis and is HIV positive, he has AIDS. If a person has tuberculosis and is HIV negative, he has tuberculosis.

Without bothering to correct the error above, HIV progresses faster when someone has a depleted immune system. Look up what the letters HIV stand for!



[QUOTE who="HTS"]<quoted text> Why are you so committed it the HIV/AIDS connection?

Because that is what REAL SCIENCE shows. Why are you so committed to refuted and dangerous pseudoscience?

Now, I am no stranger to pseudoscience myself. I have always believed there is a correlation between metals and Autism. The evidence I saw did not discredit it. Now:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/...

So I go hummmmmm..... Does not mean I was right, but now I have some more evidence.


[QUOTE who="HTS"]<quoted text> You have not studied both sides. You have predetermined that I am wrong...and you're obviously just trying to win an argument. I don't expect you to just believe what I'm saying...

The science is not on your side. Sorry. Quoting things from yesteryear that have since been refuted is not the way to go.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120587
Feb 28, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>in the first place, no Radiometric dating was done to validate those assigned dates. Secondly Radiometric dating is not reproducible,...not even close.,if it were, there would be no purpose for biostratigraphy

Radiometric dating IS reproducible if you have enough sample or can acquire samples from the same source. How you come up with this nonsense is beyond me.

All dating methods work together to confirm one another. That is how science works.

Silly rabbit.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120588
Feb 28, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>None of that proves anything. What proof do you have that those aren't modern feathers? Are you familiar with down and every other modern iteration of feather morphology? Those photos prove nothing. You believe them only because you want to believe them. Where is the peer review? I'm not referring to perfunctory rubber stamping by other atheist stooges... I'm referring to review by histologists and anatomists who aren't committed to Darwinism...

OMG. You just wave your hand at anything that you don't like and expect it to go away!!!!

Amber is relatively easy to date.

Feather morphology is well known.

Plenty of peer review. I notice you have not looked for them either.

You are trying to wish away evolution. fine. Just don't try to rape science because science fights back.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120589
Feb 28, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>in the first place, no Radiometric dating was done to validate those assigned dates. Secondly Radiometric dating is not reproducible,...not even close.,if it were, there would be no purpose for biostratigraphy
Yes it was and of course that is why there have been OTHER dating methods used to validate.

Stop picking on radiometric dating as if itís the be all and end all of your denial Ė Oh wait a moment, it isÖ.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120590
Feb 28, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing that matters is that I believe in God...

As do the Hindu's, Islamics, Mormons, Jews,....


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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 117,461 - 117,480 of171,372
|
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.

•••
•••