Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179741 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

#123838 Mar 17, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you get this 1000 mph speed for electrons? Please link us to the scientific source of this "fact."
Also, blurs are seen. Electrons are not. No technology currently known to man can actually "see" electrons. Detect? Yes. See? No.

Also, electrons speed of movement depend on which shell they are in.

In a hydrogen atom (the electron moves at about 2,200 kps). That is fast enough to go around the earth in 18 SECONDS, not 24 hours.

Jimbo can't even get basic math right.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123839 Mar 17, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
You or no one else for that matter has ever proven in anyway that life arose from any spontaneous chemical reactions...
You may be a legend in your own mind but here in the real world you are just another kool aid drinking crack pot...


Again you failed to dispute either of the premises for abiogenesis.

It contains nothing about "spontaneous chemical reactions" so your reference to such is dishonest or mistaken.

Now, which of the two premises of abiogenesis do you wish to dispute?

We are over five on dodges of this on your part.




Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>Another dodge.

I have provided all of the assumption of abiogenesis. You cannot dispute even one of them.

No, you can't say the same thing about god because I can dispute the premises (not that I really want to, but that is not the point).

Now, which premise would you like to dispute?

chickenfeces.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123840 Mar 17, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is religion ... that's the only fact about it...

This has been refuted.

Here are the characteristics of a religion:

a set of beliefs, where the beliefs are derived from fears or desires, and the beliefs...
1) guide social behavior,

2) guide thinking for the individual (i.e., tell the individual the meaning of their life experiences, or tell the individual what they should or should not think),

3) provide life goals for individuals, couples, and families,

4) attempt to provide resolution to questions that have no clear answer, that is, until those questions are answered by science or another entity that has equal or greater authority and influence (e.g., science, governments, a religious leader, or real experiences.);

5) may be sacred in that they are not questioned, and in some cases, to question them is a violation of rule that can lead to real punishment by the group, or potential spiritual punishment (hell), or is just considered foolish by the leaders and followers of a given religion,

6) Aside from beliefs, the religion usually provides a place of "worship" to one or more gods and "prophets" of the religion,

7) And, usually provides for ceremonies or traditions centered around various human milestones or events, such as harvest time, birth and death, etc...

8) is greatly impacted by the natural environment, for example, a desert-based religion is very different from a jungle-based religion is it's metaphors or mythologies - these tend to expose the fears and desires of the culture (e.g., to eat shellfish is an abomination (Judaism: avoid getting ill at all costs, v. it is good to eat the brains of your enemies - Guinea: desire to control or gain power to defeat enemies).

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_charac...
----------

Evolution (either the theory or the observed fact) fails at least 7 of those 8.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123841 Mar 17, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
It was all just there... That's it ... Best answer you'll get... They cannot prove anything in the lab so what the hell just make it up....
?
We have never observed planetary accretion in a lab either.
Please thing things through before you post them. Crap like this juat makes you look stupid.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123842 Mar 17, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah all the known elements are there and yet still can't get a successful peer reviewed experiment in any lab in the world... Epic fail... But hey maybe y'all could get Harry Potter to help you out...

Prove it.

Show me one laboratory attempt that failed to replicate abiogenesis.

Nothing, eh? Epic fail.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123843 Mar 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Absurd scientific logic.
Because simple chemical reactions occur naturally, you assume that vastly more complex molecules could spontaneously evolve.

This is NOT an assumption. This is proven and observed science.

This is how we know you are epic stupid. Because you don't know and understand SIMPLE, BASIC things like this.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You have no plausible theory as to how a genetic code could evolve into existence, so you have nothing.

Again, not true. If you were to look things up from a FACT based site you would know this and would not waste our time by regurgitating crap.

WORSE you will REPEAT the SAME refuted crap over and over. Just as if you had never been exposed to the truth. Why is that?

For my money I think Jimbo understands more science than you do. Of course he is crazy, nevertheless....

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123844 Mar 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
Lord Kelvin, a highly esteemed physicist, wrote, "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words."
*Lord Kelvin: Vict. Inst., 124, pg. 267
Almost all great scientists have believed in intelligent design.

Lord Kelvin died over a hundred years ago.

Lord Kelvin never heard of the rediculous, derived notion of "Intelligent design" (falsely so called).

William Kelvin was arguing against atheism, not against science.

Kelvin also made his share of other mistakes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thomson%...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123845 Mar 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
They think that if they can document self-replication of RNA under controlled laboratory conditions, that a vastly more complex genetic code could evolve without intelligence. Their logic is laughable.

There is that "complex" notion again.

Actually dsRNA is essentially DNA. It is just that easy.

dsRNA is the basis of "life" for some viruses.

You do know you are essentially doing the god of the gaps thing again.

So sad.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123846 Mar 17, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm no... The abiogenesis event you're talking about here is scientifically impossible.

Why would it be impossible? It involves things that are finite (physics, chemistry). It is not only possible, it is very dooable. If we had the equivilant of the Manhattan project to do it we could solve it as quickly as we created an A bomb 70 years ago.
defender wrote:
<quoted text>.. That much is known and is exactly why evolutionist refuse to use this process as starting point for ToE.

No, stupid. Abiogenesis is a different process (chemical) that is a different field (chemistry) than evolution (biology). It is the same reason that people building planes don't start by describing bicycle design.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123847 Mar 17, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Good post... How anyone can argue that intelligent order came from random chance is unreal...

Yes, that is probably why no one really argues that and reference to such is a just another straw-man.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123848 Mar 17, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
If any self replicating molecule can occur naturally? Are you listening to yourself?

Self replicating molecules DO occur naturally.

Please read a science book. For the love of almighty God!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123849 Mar 17, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Your words:" Why should we think more complex molecules cannot come about naturally?":
If you believe in magic that's fine...
Here is where we see the religion of the evolutionist!! Their Wiccan type god can just bypass science and do anything magically... For some reason speculation equals fact... Science demands a step by step process that is provable but at any point in ToE where one of these steps are missing we get "the great evolution god just done it".... That dog won't hunt folks... Sorry

complex molecules DO come about naturally.... dumbarse
One way or another

United States

#123850 Mar 17, 2013
Also, electrons speed of movement depend on which shell they are in.

Funny, humans have all kinds of cells. Of course morons use deceit, because they have nothing else and they can't refute what's written.
One way or another

United States

#123851 Mar 17, 2013
Spin dizzy earth

Science by Jim Ryan

Ask any person to spin around 30 times and see what happens as they spin on their feet at maybe 3 miles an hour.

Then all we need do is consider how the earth is spinning at 1,000 miles per hour in a circle and yet, none show signs of dizziness or sickness from such.

The above implies that our cells are spinning to match the earths amount of spin or everybody would be sick and dizzy.

Any extra spin creates dizziness at the least, implying a pretty delicate balance, but hey, can you or science or anyone give a better reason for such.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123852 Mar 17, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Spin dizzy earth

The above implies that our cells are spinning to match the earths amount of spin or everybody would be sick and dizzy.
Yet this isn't what we observe

Why do you keep refusing to address this simple point Jimbo - bit dishonest of you don't ya think
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#123853 Mar 17, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet this isn't what we observe
Why do you keep refusing to address this simple point Jimbo - bit dishonest of you don't ya think
Warning: The following comment was made before the first cup of coffee!

In a sense, most of our cells (some blood cells the exception?) have spinning motors (ATP Synthase motors) that drive our energy. Or he may be referring simply to electrons (which as far as I know we cannot predict their precise location or velocity). But there is a lot of rotation going on in our bodies for sure. And how this relates to Earth's rotation? I don't know but there sure is a lot of rotation going on everywhere from the atoms to galaxies. Seems fitting.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123854 Mar 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Also, electrons speed of movement depend on which shell they are in.
In a hydrogen atom (the electron moves at about 2,200 kps). That is fast enough to go around the earth in 18 SECONDS, not 24 hours.
Jimbo can't even get basic math right.
One way or another wrote:
Also, electrons speed of movement depend on which shell they are in.
Funny, humans have all kinds of cells. Of course morons use deceit, because they have nothing else and they can't refute what's written.
Hah - you really are a lying piece of sh1t aren't you - cut and pasting from someone else and passing it off as your own knowledge - low, even for you
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#123855 Mar 17, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Hah - you really are a lying piece of sh1t aren't you - cut and pasting from someone else and passing it off as your own knowledge - low, even for you
But where did Dogen copy it from? That's his point.
HTS

Williston, ND

#123856 Mar 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
There is that "complex" notion again.
Actually dsRNA is essentially DNA. It is just that easy.
dsRNA is the basis of "life" for some viruses.
You do know you are essentially doing the god of the gaps thing again.
So sad.
ds RNA cannot self organize from raw materials.
What so you means it's "just that easy."?
Gross and dishonest oversimplification doesn't remove any barriers.
defender

United States

#123857 Mar 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>Why would it be impossible? It involves things that are finite (physics, chemistry). It is not only possible, it is very dooable. If we had the equivilant of the Manhattan project to do it we could solve it as quickly as we created an A bomb 70 years ago.

defender wrote, "<quoted text>.. That much is known and is exactly why evolutionist refuse to use this process as starting point for ToE."


No, stupid. Abiogenesis is a different process (chemical) that is a different field (chemistry) than evolution (biology). It is the same reason that people building planes don't start by describing bicycle design.
"If we had this (whatever) boy we'd show you!!! If if if....
Getting stale...

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) 3 hr Serum1915 216,895
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Yep 154,816
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr SoE 48,824
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 6 hr GoTrump 1,047
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 hr Aura Mytha 23,562
Evolution in action (May '16) Wed Thick cockney cha... 36
Richard Dawkins tells the truth Dec 5 Timmee 9
More from around the web