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 6,062)

Showing posts 121,221 - 121,240 of168,548
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124381
Mar 20, 2013
 
Remember Rusty's idiot statement that 60 some million died in the Soviet Gulag system? That would be rather difficult when only 18 million passed through the Gulags.

Rusty is a typical idiot who will believe any numbers that seem to support him. The more they support him the better they seem to him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13717...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124382
Mar 20, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
OK
Do it..
Let's see your research Bud
By the way
Hitler was no more a Christian in the sense of being a follower of Christ than I am a burger by virtue of being in McDonalds'
Historians have long accepted and indicated that Hitler was an evolutionist
The Nazis even planned to exterminate Christianity
http://creation.com/nazis-planned-to-extermin...
Gee
You know very little, eh SZ?
Lazy, dumb and backing a losing horse....
AND you've named yourself "mud"...
It's so hilarious!
Creatard.com is a know lying site. If they publish an article it is automatically assumed not to be true.

Why do Christians want to distance themselves from Hitler? They got along so well during WWII?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124383
Mar 20, 2013
 
What is even more hilarious is that Rusty only read the title of the article.

There was no attempt, even according to Rusty's article from a very dubious source, to exterminate Christianity. All it claims that Hitler did was to go after a few pastors that opposed his reign. There was no attempt to "exterminate Christianity".
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124384
Mar 20, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Creatard.com is a know lying site. If they publish an article it is automatically assumed not to be true.
Why do Christians want to distance themselves from Hitler? They got along so well during WWII?
Killing people is not consistent with Christianity
So, stop being daft

Creation.com is just fine

Stop being a bigot

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124386
Mar 20, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Killing people is not consistent with Christianity
So, stop being daft
Creation.com is just fine
Stop being a bigot
Wow, you just denied your own bible.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124387
Mar 20, 2013
 
I was looking at Rusty's list of murders that were supposedly done by atheists and I am really finding it hard to identify very many actual atheist murderers. Yes, there are some, but the Russian ones were laughably large. The only other one that my be attributable to an atheistic leader is the Chinese. And if that number is like the Soviet number the actual number would be about 1 million. Time to Google search again.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124388
Mar 20, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Killing people is not consistent with Christianity
So, stop being daft
Creation.com is just fine
Stop being a bigot
Yeah right, tell that to the Popes who divided the world in half for the Spanish and the Portuguese. And then of course there are the countless deaths from the Crusades, the various Inguisitions, wars that were started because of Christian beliefs, various massacres of early protestants etc..

No, creatard.com has been shown to be a lying source many times over. And their title in your last article did not agree with the article itself. How stupid can you get?

It is not being a bigot to point out that a site is not scientific and admits they are ready to lie if necessary.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124389
Mar 21, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah right, tell that to the Popes who divided the world in half for the Spanish and the Portuguese. And then of course there are the countless deaths from the Crusades, the various Inguisitions, wars that were started because of Christian beliefs, various massacres of early protestants etc..
No, creatard.com has been shown to be a lying source many times over. And their title in your last article did not agree with the article itself. How stupid can you get?
It is not being a bigot to point out that a site is not scientific and admits they are ready to lie if necessary.
How many did the Popes kill??

Go Wiki!!!!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124390
Mar 21, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
How many did the Popes kill??
Go Wiki!!!!
That would be hard to estimate.

The Mayan Empire, The Incan Empire, countless other Native American groups defeated for oro and as a secondary consideration new Catholics.

The Crusades, the Inguisitions, the massacres of countless early protestants. Who knows? That number may approach 100 million but it was probably close to 10 million.

And don't forget about the various wars by Christians against Christians. The War of the Roses in England was a Christian war.

I tell you what Rusty, I am going to bed. Why don't you find one of your sites that exaggerate just a little bit and see how many there were.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124391
Mar 21, 2013
 
By the way Rusty, Wiki with all of its faults is a far superior site than creatard.com .

When someone lies or makes a mistake on Wiki another member will correct it if he can. Every article in creatard.com has fatal mistakes in it and no one tries to repair them at all.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124392
Mar 21, 2013
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretty funny that you think Dr. Marks is in your camp. He is vehemently against racism, especially scientific racism. He is still, however, an 'evolutionist'.
Have you heard of the concept of a hostile witness?

Did you think I was somehow unaware that Jonathan Marks is an evolutionist?

Gee

You're simpler than I thought
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124393
Mar 21, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be hard to estimate.
The Mayan Empire, The Incan Empire, countless other Native American groups defeated for oro and as a secondary consideration new Catholics.
The Crusades, the Inguisitions, the massacres of countless early protestants. Who knows? That number may approach 100 million but it was probably close to 10 million.
And don't forget about the various wars by Christians against Christians. The War of the Roses in England was a Christian war.
I tell you what Rusty, I am going to bed. Why don't you find one of your sites that exaggerate just a little bit and see how many there were.
How many?

Stop being hysterical...

How many deaths are directly attributable to Christianity?

You are too vague and fuzzy for my liking
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124395
Mar 21, 2013
 
Please note that post #124385 is missing

I believe that is my reply to SZ

It's missing

I suspect perhaps due my use of the word "dumb" too often for the mod

How can one debate SZ without saying dumb?

From now on, SZ, just know I am thinking you're dumb......even if I don't say it

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124396
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you heard of the concept of a hostile witness?
Did you think I was somehow unaware that Jonathan Marks is an evolutionist?
Gee
You're simpler than I thought
I have no idea what you're aware of. And, judging by your posts, not much.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124397
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good argument but it does not really work. Lets score it, while trying to avoid the nauseating meat-market aspect of this whole argument.
Lets say there are 100 points available.
You get 0-50 for the pluses/minuses that can be sensed (seen, smelled, understood by interaction, etc). Thus you can (hopefully) influence this part of the total.
You get 0-50 for the pluses/minuses that are an undetectible and random quantity, and assuming that none of this can be sensed in any way.... so this "score" would be a random distribution from 0-50.
Just add them up.
Whatever proportion you choose to assign to visible vs invisible attributes, your odds on average of a good mate are higher if you choose the best you can on the information you have. A particular individual might get unlucky, having chosen the bombshell who turned out to be a timebomb...but clearly you can see that statistically, ANY information that can improve your odds of a strong partner are going to be valuable.
BTW, evolution would not lose its "main mechanism". Sexual selection is just one aspect of natural selection, and evolution works without it. It may even be that at times sexual selection drives species into evolutionary dead-ends, as traits that are exaggerated initially in a positive way may become burdensome if selected to excess.
Point system? You're just making up stuff to avoid the reality. It doesn't matter what the attraction was, the point is you can't see what's underneath genetically; it is all invisible. At the extreme end, if you were attracted to someone who you know is genetically defective and at the other extreme, a person who appears fit and is genetically fit or isn't. Doesn't matter. The point is that natural selection is selecting without knowledge of the underlying genetic fitness.

Many genetic diseases occur in the population at known percentages, i.e., 1 out 200, etc., but unless a person is tested, one doesn't know who has the recessive gene and who is at risk. People at risk could run the gamut fitness-wise. Recessive genes do not discriminate.(Although, we as humans might discriminate against people who were tested and were known to carry something).

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124398
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
How many?
Stop being hysterical...
How many deaths are directly attributable to Christianity?
You are too vague and fuzzy for my liking
What's the problem idiot?

Do you hate having the same standards applied to you that you try to apply to everyone else?

That makes you a hypocrite.

Hypocrites hate it when they get beaten at a game they started. Especially when their opponents use the same rules that they are.

What a douchebag.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124399
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can't state what constitutes a scientist then your statistics are meaningless.
Don’t talk utter bollocks all your life, take a day off. You posed the question as confusion after the fact that I cited polls taken by “specific scientific organisations”. You only posed the question because you could not argue with my post because it is factual.

Posing irrelevant questions to obfuscate fact and justify your own un-factual belief does not make those facts go away, it just means you pose irrelevant questions.

I know what “constitutes” a scientist, it seem that you don’t, you are effectively diluting science by including “mechanics for the human body”* in that definition.

Look it up, it’s easy, go to Google and type “define scientist”, there are several online dictionaries that could (but probably won’t) educate you

* not my quote but that of a doctor of my acquaintance.

P.S. If you can’t state any peer reviews for the babble then your whole belief is meaningless.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124400
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Russell wrote:
Please note that post #124385 is missing
I believe that is my reply to SZ
It's missing
I suspect perhaps due my use of the word "dumb" too often for the mod
How can one debate SZ without saying dumb?
From now on, SZ, just know I am thinking you're dumb......even if I don't say it
Go ahead Rusty. I don't think that will give you much satisfaction since you have lost every debate with everyone here, including me.

When you are tired of being an idiot and would actually like to learn something I am still willing to teach even the worst of fools a lesson or two.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124401
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Typically a local catastrophe such as a flood or a volcano will simply cover the existing layer, and later events will cover this layer, and so on. Sometimes the events will be sudden, and sometimes the "event" is a long period of steady sedimentation.
You are grasping at straws.
Now please explain how fast velociraptors and flying pteradactyls are only found in far deeper strata than lumbering giant ground sloths, why flowering plants only appear in the strata after the mid Jurassic, etc. Your theory should make some very clear predictions about the fossil order and the reality is NOTHING like what you predict.
So all fossils are a result of "their own" local catastrophy? So where ever a fossil is found, that can't be dated in relation to its surroundings because it is a local catastrophy. Got it.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124402
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I said that DNA is the most complex assembly of matter THAT IS KNOWN TO EXIST. Your accusation is false.
Lying again? jeesus fooking christ on a crutch, don’t you ever get sick of lying? Your post is only on the same page, not to difficult for you to scroll up and see what you actually wrote

EXACT WORDS
DNA is the most complex organized purposeful assembly of matter in the universe that has been proven to exist

My accusation stands and is backed up by your own lies

FYI the human brain is probably the most complex thing that is known to exist

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 121,221 - 121,240 of168,548
|
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.

16 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 17 min MMLandJ 127,073
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 30 min Kong_ 106,031
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 56 min Ooogah Boogah 13,484
Kevin Wingate: ID should be included in science... 22 hr llDayo 5
Science News (Sep '13) Thu Ricky F 2,671
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) Wed MikeF 1,236
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) Apr 15 ChristineM 13,936
•••
•••
•••
•••