Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178597 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.

One way or another

United States

#122826 Mar 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So when you see the clear trend of the intermediate hominid species, from the early Australo's through habilis, erectus, heidelbugensis, archaic and then modern Sapiens, what part of this series of intermediates that conform perfectly to evolution's predictions do you find is "coming apart at the seams"?
I see no small steps that were supposed to happen over millions of years, like the forehead of cro magnon making small changes instead of the abrupt changes in the fossil record.

There are no small graduations in any lineage of fossils as evolution claims is the case. Ya got nuthin.
One way or another

United States

#122827 Mar 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Errrrmmm SZ, I wrote that post and it was addressed to our resident idiot Jim Ryan. So yes, it supports evolution!
BTW, I have not really found anything definitive on the pre-Cambrian pollen circa 1965 issue that Russell did raise. Its an interesting quandary.


Well stupid, show us the small graduations from one animal to the next or evolution is a farce. Evolution makes that claim idiot.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122828 Mar 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Pure BS. How many different kinds of monkeys are there? How many different kinds of fish are there?
About 260 species of monkey.
About 32,000 species of fish.

Now, Mr. Spin, how many species of monkeys can be found in the BOTTOM 9/10ths of the geologic column since the Cambrian?

NONE.

However, at around the beginning of that last 10th, we find the earliest primate mammal species...still very different from any monkey. Monkeys had not yet evolved.
Nothing in your post is proof. It's all speculation.
Absolutely false. If you go back 10 million years, we find NO modern horse fossils, just fossils of a creature quite similar...and 10 million years before that, creatures different again but still showing the same progression. etc.

That is not speculation, its exactly what we FIND. Speculate your way out of THAT without evolution. Come on Mr. Original Thinker, come up with a good explanation as to why there are NO modern monkey (including any of the 260 species of old and new world monkeys), horse (including horses, donkey, zebras), cat (including lions, pumas, cheetahs etc), or dog (including wolves, coyotes, foxes etc) fossils in strata over 50 million years old, but there ARE more primitive mammals found there resembling these later groups in some ways.
defender

Duluth, GA

#122829 Mar 10, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>Let me get this straight: you exhibit profound scientific ignorance, your ignorant questions are answered, and then you demand that the answers be demonstrated to you? Why don't you do your own homework? Your questions were answered. People who pay attention to science know why the answers are what they are. If you don't, that's not OUR problem. Go read a book.
Yeah I'm just going to take the word of a dribbling idiot that states the speed of light is a known constant... And I need to read a book? Energy can create matter?... Lol... Ok the top scientific minds of today wrestle with these questions but hey look no further cause Dogen and his merry men have all the answers... Wow...
defender

Duluth, GA

#122830 Mar 10, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>Now you do mental gymnastics to avoid reality. I suppose you consider that an upgrade.
The reality is he is correct... Life cannot arise from nothing... What part of that statement don't you understand bro?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122831 Mar 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
I see no small steps that were supposed to happen over millions of years, like the forehead of cro magnon making small changes instead of the abrupt changes in the fossil record.
There are no small graduations in any lineage of fossils as evolution claims is the case. Ya got nuthin.
Of course there were.

If you look at Homo erectus, there is NO forehead apparent and the brow-ridges form a virtually horizontal aspect with the top of the head.

If you look at Rudophensis or Heidelburgensis, there is a heavily sloping forehead.

If you look at archaic sapiens, there is still a very sloping forehead but far more vertical.

And modern foreheads range from slightly sloping to very vertical, with or without visible brow ridges.

Looking at your horse examples, we see over the period from Eohippus to intermediate forms, a gradual reduction in the peripheral toes and the dominance of one...though even in modern horses an extra vestigial toe sometimes appears.

Now why don't you stop cutting and pasting stupid claims from every creotard site you can find, and actually take a look at the evidence? Oh, I forgot, you do not care about the truth, ever. You only care about taking down know-it-all scientists, lawyers, doctors, teachers...or just about anyone better educated than you are.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#122832 Mar 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Its fine to be a Christian. If you can grant the obvious fact that most of what you know about Christ was written generations after His departure and you actually have no way of knowing what He believed about everything, or even that just because He said something, it was right.
Whenever I read your comments, I can rarely get past the first one or two sentences because they are so outrageously wrong.

Chimney it is well accepted that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John. He was the most intimate witness of Jesus' earthly ministry. The rest of your post also adds up to nothing but a bunch of hooey.
One way or another

United States

#122833 Mar 10, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
We already know why they do that. It confuses predators, making it more difficult for a hungry fish to fixate on any particular target and eat it. Seriously, read a science book sometime. There's just TONS of information in them that would answer pretty much every question you've posed to us. And, you'd be smarter after having done so. Wouldn't that be cool?
<quoted text>
What possible difference could that make?
Have you ever taking LSD?
Just because you're an idiot, that doesn't mean others take LSD, but we can't expect a willing, one sided idiot with no respect, not even for himself, to understand more than follow the leader. Wow, thank your teachers and parents. Lol you moron.

The question is not why moron, but that they can swim in circles for hours or days, depending on the duration of attacks and NOT GET DIZZY.

Can you spin in circles for 10 minutes without getting dizzy and losing your balance? Of course not.

Don't think idiot, just copy and regurgitate like you always do.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122834 Mar 10, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
The reality is he is correct... Life cannot arise from nothing... What part of that statement don't you understand bro?
What is your body made of?

Chemicals.

Were there chemicals at the time life formed?
One way or another

United States

#122835 Mar 10, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
But, you're the one who decided he could define gravity as a result of rotational speed. I thought making shit up was your thing...
Your deceit is all you have, we'll that and copy and regurgitate. I said there can be no gravity without spin. Keep your deceit, it defines you.
One way or another

United States

#122836 Mar 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
About 260 species of monkey.
About 32,000 species of fish.
Now, Mr. Spin, how many species of monkeys can be found in the BOTTOM 9/10ths of the geologic column since the Cambrian?
NONE.
However, at around the beginning of that last 10th, we find the earliest primate mammal species...still very different from any monkey. Monkeys had not yet evolved.
<quoted text>
Absolutely false. If you go back 10 million years, we find NO modern horse fossils, just fossils of a creature quite similar...and 10 million years before that, creatures different again but still showing the same progression. etc.
That is not speculation, its exactly what we FIND. Speculate your way out of THAT without evolution. Come on Mr. Original Thinker, come up with a good explanation as to why there are NO modern monkey (including any of the 260 species of old and new world monkeys), horse (including horses, donkey, zebras), cat (including lions, pumas, cheetahs etc), or dog (including wolves, coyotes, foxes etc) fossils in strata over 50 million years old, but there ARE more primitive mammals found there resembling these later groups in some ways.
Gosh moron, evolution is the one making the claims of small graduations over millions of years and yet, not one fossil lineage shows small graduations. You're a willing idiot, plain and simple.
One way or another

United States

#122837 Mar 10, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah I'm just going to take the word of a dribbling idiot that states the speed of light is a known constant... And I need to read a book? Energy can create matter?... Lol... Ok the top scientific minds of today wrestle with these questions but hey look no further cause Dogen and his merry men have all the answers... Wow...
Lmao, how true.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122838 Mar 10, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Whenever I read your comments, I can rarely get past the first one or two sentences because they are so outrageously wrong.
Chimney it is well accepted that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John. He was the most intimate witness of Jesus' earthly ministry. The rest of your post also adds up to nothing but a bunch of hooey.
Gospel of John

"The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." The text does not actually name this disciple, but by the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition began to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus's innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[11][12] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[13][14][15][16][17][18] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90-100 AD.[19][20] According to the Church Fathers, the Bishops of Asia Minor requested John, in his old age, to write a gospel in response to Cerinthus, the Ebionites and other Hebrew groups which they deemed heretical.[21][22][23] This understanding remained in place until the end of the 18th century.[24]"

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

Now, do I take the word of textual and historical scholars and even the Church traditions, or the hopes and wishes of you, in comparing the likelihood that the Gospel of John was all written up close and personal by one of Jesus' disciples? Even Christian Scholars do not pretend that.

Only latter day fundies, the same kind that reject the overwhelming evidence of an old earth and like to rattle around the floor babbling in Tongues. etc. Sorry mate but you just aren't a credible source about either science or biblical scholarship.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122839 Mar 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Gosh moron, evolution is the one making the claims of small graduations over millions of years and yet, not one fossil lineage shows small graduations. You're a willing idiot, plain and simple.
I just gave you the small graduations of the hominid skull and the horse's hoof. Many fossil lineages show these graduations.

And the more fossils we find, the finer the graduations. Big gaps become little gaps down to the point where the continuum is so fine that paleontologists argue about whether a new find belongs in X species or Y species. That is called a seamless continuum, you fool.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#122840 Mar 10, 2013
Every month, Creation Magazine interviews scientists who reject evolution for Creation. This is from the current issue.

Dr. Markus Blietz, PhD Astrophysics, became a Christian and a Creationist in 2008. From an interview by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati:

"If Jesus didn't speak the truth about Genesis, how could we trust what He was saying about sin, the cross, ressurection, and everlasting life?"

He also affirms (among other things) the fact that comets, after 10,000 years, should have disappeared completely and reminds us that after intensive search in the last century, there is not the smallest piece of evidence for the so-called Oort Cloud.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#122841 Mar 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gospel of John
"The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." The text does not actually name this disciple, but by the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition began to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus's innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[11][12] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[13][14][15][16][17][18] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90-100 AD.[19][20] According to the Church Fathers, the Bishops of Asia Minor requested John, in his old age, to write a gospel in response to Cerinthus, the Ebionites and other Hebrew groups which they deemed heretical.[21][22][23] This understanding remained in place until the end of the 18th century.[24]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John
Now, do I take the word of textual and historical scholars and even the Church traditions, or the hopes and wishes of you, in comparing the likelihood that the Gospel of John was all written up close and personal by one of Jesus' disciples? Even Christian Scholars do not pretend that.
Only latter day fundies, the same kind that reject the overwhelming evidence of an old earth and like to rattle around the floor babbling in Tongues. etc. Sorry mate but you just aren't a credible source about either science or biblical scholarship.
The apostle John wrote the Gospel of John.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#122842 Mar 10, 2013
"The Church Fathers generally identify him as the author of five books in the New Testament: the Gospel of John, three Epistles of John, and the Book of Revelation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Apostle
HTS

Williston, ND

#122843 Mar 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So to compound the foolishness of the -
Seal in Baikal = proof of the Goddidit hypothesis.(NO other explanation is POSSIBLE!)
You wish to add:
The presence of a chariot wheel in the Red Sea = proof of the literal parting of the waters by God as the Israelites fled the Egyptian army (NO other explanation is POSSIBLE!!)
There are plausible natural explanations for both these examples.
FYI, undersea teams clearing unexploded ordnance etc in the Persian Gulf find thousands of pieces of flotsam from several thousand years of history during their cleanups.
On the other hand, there is no plausible alternative to the massive 15,000 foot geologic column other than that it took many eons to form, and no plausible explanation has ever been offered to the evidence of
a. divergence of fossil forms from modern ones as we go to earlier strata
b. the convergence of those forms with each other in an orderly pattern consistent with the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution.
Even though this pattern directly contradicts the dogma of ex-nihilo creation of modern forms from the beginning.
Yet you wave this massive body of evidence away casually while claiming your evidence of nothing is enough to overturn it.
Really, its hilarious.
I never said that chariot wheels on the Red Sea floor was proof of the Bible. I acknowledged that I didn't even know if the account was authentic. I merely pointed out that you hadn't examined the evidence. Someone said there is no evidence of the truthfulness of the Bible. Chariot wheels on the Red Sea floor at the precise historical site of the crossing is evidence. It is not proof. You seem to think that if you can offer an alternative explanation that you've erased evidence.

Why do you assume that intelligent design requires ex nihilo creation? I don't believe in that.

And what's this nonsense about ToE "predicting" nested hierarchies"?
A scientific prediction is made before the outcome is known. It is not simly looking at reality and plugging it into a predetermined atheistic paradigm.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122844 Mar 10, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct no one knows!! Why is that so hard for the evolutionist to admit?
"Evolutionists" DO admit it. If you ask a scientist about the ultimate origins of the universe, or multiverse, he will say we do not know, if you take the question back far enough.

Ask a religious person like you, and you will insist that you DO know and the answer is GOD. Yet that answers nothing.

Well, news flash. Nobody knows.

PS Nebraska man is such a joke - on you. It was not taken seriously by paleontologists even at the time...I had never HEARD of Nebraska Man until creatards started warbling about it. And Piltdown was discredited by evolutionists. And it was a century ago. Keep holding onto it though, its all you have in your mental blinkering against the overwhelming evidence of intermediate ape/hominid remains. That is the ONLY REASON you keep ranting about finds discredited before your grandaddy was born.

Incredible desperation. You have nothing.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122845 Mar 10, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The apostle John wrote the Gospel of John.
Not according to the Biblical Scholars, or at most some bits of it.

Too bad for you.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 19 min Subduction Zone 163,640
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 1 hr Paul Porter1 78
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 20 hr Chimney1 141,315
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Tue Kathleen 19,031
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) May 18 MADRONE 1,870
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) May 15 emrenil 1,243
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) May 15 MikeF 13,700
More from around the web