Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 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.

Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123796 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
When you can prove just one hypothesis of abiogenesis then it's game over... Got that? Just one..
All the kings horses and all the kings men have failed despite all the technology of today .... The silence is deafening.... Dream another dream... This dream is over.... M theory anyone?
As expected - complete dodge

Can you answer the following question

which of the two assumptions outlined by Dogen do you disagree with

There is a HUGE logic fail in conflating abiogenisis with evolution and it is always disappointing that creationists use it as an argument - it is however predictable that they refuse to accept it is flawed argument.

So - gonna redeem yourself and answer the question about which assumption you disagree with?
defender

United States

#123797 Mar 16, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>As expected - complete dodge

Can you answer the following question

which of the two assumptions outlined by Dogen do you disagree with

There is a HUGE logic fail in conflating abiogenisis with evolution and it is always disappointing that creationists use it as an argument - it is however predictable that they refuse to accept it is flawed argument.

So - gonna redeem yourself and answer the question about which assumption you disagree with?
We have bro... Time and time again... The chemical soup theories have failed... It's just not gonna happen... As more and more walk away in the hushed silence of defeat the few who hang on do so with anger and contempt
... I come and go on this thread about every six months and it's the same old song by the same old people... Nothing new...
Perhaps it's time to embrace this theory for what it is... Foolishness that has clearly been exposed.... I think its time to put our hard earned tax dollars to something that will yield some fruit...
Not wishful thinking unsupported by science...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123798 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
We have bro... Time and time again... The chemical soup theories

Stop. You have either not read or not understood my post.

Go back and read it again.

Then come back and make a sensible comment.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123799 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
We have bro... Time and time again... The chemical soup theories have failed... It's just not gonna happen... As more and more walk away in the hushed silence of defeat the few who hang on do so with anger and contempt
... I come and go on this thread about every six months and it's the same old song by the same old people... Nothing new...
Perhaps it's time to embrace this theory for what it is... Foolishness that has clearly been exposed.... I think its time to put our hard earned tax dollars to something that will yield some fruit...
Not wishful thinking unsupported by science...
Why are you incapable of answering a simple question?
defender

United States

#123800 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>Stop. You have either not read or not understood my post.

Go back and read it again.

Then come back and make a sensible comment.
By your argument that "we are here so it must hold true" is a lame duck.... Can I not say the same about God?... Like I've said all the effects none of the cause... You call that science I say it's hogwash.... Science and speculation are NOT the same but you can't seen to grasp that...
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123801 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop. You have either not read or not understood my post.
Go back and read it again.
Then come back and make a sensible comment.
I suspect he has read and understood your post - it just means he hasn't got a rational comeback - hence the dodging.

Think we up to 3 dodges so far - am guessing we can make double figures.

Must admit - always found the abiogenisis argument against evolution a laughable one - it's not even logical - but is always fun to watch creationists pull it out - then run a mile when you call them on it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123802 Mar 16, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you incapable of answering a simple question?

Obviously.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123803 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
By your argument that "we are here so it must hold true" is a lame duck.... Can I not say the same about God?... Like I've said all the effects none of the cause... You call that science I say it's hogwash.... Science and speculation are NOT the same but you can't seen to grasp that...

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.
defender

United States

#123804 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>Stop. You have either not read or not understood my post.

Go back and read it again.

Then come back and make a sensible comment.
Further more your arguments are weak... Just listen to yourself: "So I guess you've got to admit microevolution"
"So your saying I was right"... Blah blah...
You sound like a fifth grader trading Yo Moma insults...
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123805 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
By your argument that "we are here so it must hold true" is a lame duck.... Can I not say the same about God?... Like I've said all the effects none of the cause... You call that science I say it's hogwash.... Science and speculation are NOT the same but you can't seen to grasp that...
Which of the two assumptions do you disagree with (will give you a hint - it can't be the second)

(If people are counting the next dodge will be four)
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123806 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Further more your arguments are weak... Just listen to yourself: "So I guess you've got to admit microevolution"
"So your saying I was right"... Blah blah...
You sound like a fifth grader trading Yo Moma insults...
That was four (f@&k it offering 2-1 on getting to double figures)
One way or another

United States

#123807 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Further more your arguments are weak... Just listen to yourself: "So I guess you've got to admit microevolution"
"So your saying I was right"... Blah blah...
You sound like a fifth grader trading Yo Moma insults...
That's the best they have.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#123808 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
By your argument that "we are here so it must hold true" is a lame duck.... Can I not say the same about God?........
You could IF you can first establish that your God exists.

In the other theories of abiogenesis, all the required elements are known to exist. Not so much for your God.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#123809 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah there's a few of them on this thread...
You should have looked at the article then admit you were wrong, because now you just look like a total fool. Mudskippers are the tiktaalik of a different lineage of vertebrates, from aquatic to terrestrial. Of course when they manage to evolve to actually walk like other terrestrial animals, and begin moving along the plains instead of the mud, you'll still be calling them mudskippers.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#123810 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Further more your arguments are weak... Just listen to yourself: "So I guess you've got to admit microevolution"
"So your saying I was right"... Blah blah...
You sound like a fifth grader trading Yo Moma insults...
There is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution, they are the same thing. Just like there is no difference between micropregnant and macropregnant. They are the same thing.

Evolution is a fact. Deal with it!!
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123811 Mar 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the best they have.
You got an answer as to why we DON'T observe cells spinning as you spin science suggests.

Nope - thought not - go back to your coloring book

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123812 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Further more your arguments are weak... Just listen to yourself: "So I guess you've got to admit microevolution"
"So your saying I was right"... Blah blah...
You sound like a fifth grader trading Yo Moma insults...

Sounds like you need to go back and read your OWN post.

Your argument implied acceptance of macroevolution. That is your own fault.

I notice you still have not disputed either of the premises of abiogenesis yet either.

Hummm. Wonder why.



If you cannot dispute a logical argument it SHOULD tell you something.
HTS

Williston, ND

#123814 Mar 16, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
You could IF you can first establish that your God exists.
In the other theories of abiogenesis, all the required elements are known to exist. Not so much for your God.
All required elements for a space shuttle are known to exist.
That doesn't suggest that a space shuttle could self organize. So much for your god of evolution.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#123815 Mar 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
The childish Evo morons seem to think cells moving at 1,000 mph in such a confined space will look like anything other than a blur.
Electrons are a blur.
Electrons are a blur.
Electrons spin at 1,000 mph, the same as the speed of the earth spinning. That's why we aren't constantly dizzy and throwing up.
Now what does science say about electrons,-- oh yea,----The physicists used a nanoscale wire to deliver a small amount of DC current to a magnet. All electrons possess angular momentum in the form of spin. Picture a spinning top. Angular momentum is what keeps that top upright, or pointed in a particular direction. Each electron within the magnet is like a spinning top, and in magnets, all of the electrons' spins are aligned in roughly the same way. Putting DC current into that group of electrons injects energy into the magnetic system, changing the spin of the local electrons in that immediate area. The spins of the electrons then precess, or "lean" like a top does when it is no longer upright, which causes a tiny spinning magnetic droplet, or soliton, to form.
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.
defender

Manchester, KY

#123816 Mar 16, 2013
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.
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...

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) 27 min showmethemoney 171,718
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Paul Porter1 142,557
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 3 hr Paul Porter1 266
Science Suggests That A Quantum Creation Force ... (Jun '14) 4 hr Paul Porter1 33
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr DanFromSmithville 20,565
News Intelligent design 4 hr GTID62 2
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 10 hr Zog Has-fallen 15
More from around the web