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 6,093)

Showing posts 121,841 - 121,860 of171,372
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125020
Mar 25, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't need to draw any conclusions.
Gould said that Ernie's teachings set the stage for Hitler.
Your own high priest said it.
We don't have high priests.

We have individuals with opinions that must be backed by facts and are open to critical review before we will take their opinions seriously.

Dogmatists like you do not understand this.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125021
Mar 25, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
And then he rejects ANYONE who is a scientist who also believes in creation and is a Christian
People are not rejected.

Idea are rejected, or accepted, based on the merits of the evidence in support and the logic of the claims.

YEC Creationism is universally rejected by rational people because the evidence and logic do not stack up, no matter how you try to distort the truth.

One can accept some ideas from an individual and reject others. We are not in the business of rejecting whole people. One caveat there is that once a person has shown a repeated willingness to lie and twist and quote-mine and talk absolute rubbish, such as a Ken Ham, or our local friend here Jimbo, then very little they have to say about anything is likely to be accepted even if they happen to be right once in a while.

Kaiser

Stockton, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125022
Mar 25, 2013
 
This subject is a waste of time.
If you believe this should be taught in school simply take your soon to be dumb ass inbred child to church more. Don't shove your shit down the throat of my kid.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125023
Mar 25, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You posted another link that you didn't understand.
Chuck saw racism as a logical conclusion of evolution.
If you can't defend something yourself, don't hide behind links.
Everyone in 1850 was a racist! Even Lincoln, diabolically so by today's standards.

So naturally, everyone applied the new science to justify their existing beliefs - because racism has existed since the dawn of civilisation.

However, that is not true today. We now see more racism in religious enclaves than in secular society. Because there is something deeper at work.

The modern rational skeptic is looking to human happiness, but not even CONCERNED about some imaginary scale of "superiority / inferiority", or mission of Man or God. These are shadows of a past imbued with old notions of imperialism, duty, and some or other great "mission in the world" towards an imaginary ideal.

Your misunderstanding is deeper than you realise!

Racism is not merely dead, its completely irrelevant and silly. Even if you could convince a rational skeptic individual that he was one of the favored Perfect Ones making the laundry list of "desired racial/genetic characteristics", he would probably just say, "So what?".
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125024
Mar 25, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey tard, why did you link the same abstract twice?
If you read the articles on how the chemicals react they do not react to cells. They react to proteins associated with those cells. And they do not claim actual cells, they always use wording like this:
" exhibited organelle-like microstructures". Never organelle, always organelle-like.
I bet that you still don't get it.
It is an interesting problem in paleontology and nothing more.
It was linked several times since you often respond by saying that a link has not been provided

As you had, here--->

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, perhaps you meant to link it, but you never did. The only paper you have linked to was the abstract of a paper by Armitage MH, Anderson KL. So perhaps you might want to wipe the drool off of your face and try again.
----------

I am aware it is a ploy you use to try and buy time and/or to distract

This usually happens...often....when you are stymied, out of your depth and haven't a clue what's happening...again, often

Now, in relation to the paper at hand--->

There WERE osteocytes present in the T rex specimen and in the Triceratops horn specimen

Osteocytes are a mature bone CELL and differ from osteoblasts
----------
QUOTE:
"And when the team subjected the supposed dinosaur cells to other antibodies that target DNA, the antibodies bound to material in small, specific regions inside the ----APPARENT CELL MEMBRANE----apparent cell membrane." End of the Quote

An apparent cell membrane....

Must mean a cell
----------

Therefore, cells, cell structures and proteins and DNA were all present

----------
Immunohistochemistry does not make mistakes

The antibodies were selected specifically for antigens in bird osteocytes and not just any structure, including not osteoblasts, which are immature bone cells

Are you able to read at all?

All that being as it may....

What is clearly established is that

Dinosaurs are not 65 millions years old

There goes evo-dating down the gurgler....

Glug....glug...glug

----------
Please be mindful of this following fact

I am very aware of how you are trying to avoid my rather inconvenient posts

I am not easily distracted

Nor easily fooled

----------
Accept defeat

Admit you are wrong

Apologise to your brother
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125025
Mar 25, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone in 1850 was a racist! Even Lincoln, diabolically so by today's standards.
So naturally, everyone applied the new science to justify their existing beliefs - because racism has existed since the dawn of civilisation.
However, that is not true today. We now see more racism in religious enclaves than in secular society. Because there is something deeper at work.
Huh?
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The modern rational skeptic is looking to human happiness, but not even CONCERNED about some imaginary scale of "superiority / inferiority", or mission of Man or God. These are shadows of a past imbued with old notions of imperialism, duty, and some or other great "mission in the world" towards an imaginary ideal.
Your misunderstanding is deeper than you realise!
Racism is not merely dead, its completely irrelevant and silly. Even if you could convince a rational skeptic individual that he was one of the favored Perfect Ones making the laundry list of "desired racial/genetic characteristics", he would probably just say, "So what?".
Huh?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125026
Mar 25, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Only one was requested. I gave more than twice what was asked for.
Damn creatards, always moving the goal posts.
Twice zero is zero
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125027
Mar 25, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, be definition he is right.
Since evolution is constantly occurring technically all fossils are transitional fossils.
Wrong

But in your case

Wrong AND dumb
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125028
Mar 25, 2013
 
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove present day sharks and prehistoric sharks are the same species, show they can interbreed. I'll wait ...
Firstly

What's prehistoric?

Why type of term is that?

----------
From the display in New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science from an upper Cretaceous fossil shark tooth that is identical to the living Goblin shark's

Living---> Mitsukurina, Goblin shark

http://www.worldbook.com/images/stories/gobli...

And

http://www.pinktentacle.com/images/goblin_sha...

----------

Fossil---> Scapanorynchus, found in dinosaur rock layers

"Scapanorhynchus appears to have been so much like the living goblin shark (Mitsukurina owstoni) that the two were considered by some to be the same genus."

http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schoolad...

From this page

http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schoolad...

They're so similar that many argue that Scapanorynchus should be the same genus as Mitsukurina

I am AGHAST that they are given separate genus and species names

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125029
Mar 25, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong
But in your case
Wrong AND dumb
Tell us what you think a transitional fossil would look like.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125030
Mar 25, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Well since Hitler was one of you guys I suppose you could try to defend him in the same way, but I wouldn't.
But since you are claiming that Hitler was right sometimes how was he right?
<quoted text>
Now that is a lie. I have said countless times that when creationism is not involved there are some creationist scientists who can do science. What they cannot do is science involving creationism. They fall flat on their faces every time they try it. And they know it. Thanks to you we now know how Sanford tried to avoid the peer review process when he published his book.
I have to thank you for that since I did not know the details of how dishonest Sanford was.
So are you done lying for the night? I doubt it.
Tsk tsk...

How low you go..

The sheer desperation to avoid admitting to your brother that you are wrong..

Anyway

Dr Sanford did not avoid the peer review process

He was co-editor of a book with up to 10 others

This book satisfactorily passed the publisher's review process

When it was realised that the authors and editors were ID proponents and creationists

ONLY THEN was the book...that had already been advertised on Springer Verlag's website for $175-00-----pulled off and labelled needing further review

That's utter bigotry

And guess what?

You're a CREATION RACIST BIGOT

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125031
Mar 25, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh?
<quoted text>
Huh?
Too much for your dogma addled brain to absorb?

Yes, virtually everyone in 1850 was a racist, even the anti-slavers, even Lincoln. They did not get their racism from evolution.

Today, no rational person gives a damn about race. Its a moot point, a dead letter, a conviction belonging to a time when somehow such a conviction mattered. Those who regard notions of racial superiority as important are a sad joke, usually the bottom of the heap themselves, looking for some pathetic reason to feel better than somebody, anybody, else.

So its not even a case of proving racism, or disproving it. Its a matter of not giving a damn about race.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125032
Mar 25, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Well since Hitler was one of you guys I suppose you could try to defend him in the same way, but I wouldn't.
But since you are claiming that Hitler was right sometimes how was he right?
That the kind of thing you would claim
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that is a lie. I have said countless times that when creationism is not involved there are some creationist scientists who can do science. What they cannot do is science involving creationism. They fall flat on their faces every time they try it. And they know it. Thanks to you we now know how Sanford tried to avoid the peer review process when he published his book.
I have to thank you for that since I did not know the details of how dishonest Sanford was.
So are you done lying for the night? I doubt it.
And you have yet to demonstrate any creationist science being wrong

Go figure...

Desperation on the back of bigotry--> thy name is "mud"
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125033
Mar 25, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Too much for your dogma addled brain to absorb?
Yes, virtually everyone in 1850 was a racist, even the anti-slavers, even Lincoln. They did not get their racism from evolution.
Today, no rational person gives a damn about race. Its a moot point, a dead letter, a conviction belonging to a time when somehow such a conviction mattered. Those who regard notions of racial superiority as important are a sad joke, usually the bottom of the heap themselves, looking for some pathetic reason to feel better than somebody, anybody, else.
So its not even a case of proving racism, or disproving it. Its a matter of not giving a damn about race.
Huh?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125034
Mar 25, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell us what you think a transitional fossil would look like.
Since they are none when there should be MILLIONS....I wouldn't really know

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125035
Mar 25, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Tsk tsk...
How low you go..
The sheer desperation to avoid admitting to your brother that you are wrong..
Anyway
Dr Sanford did not avoid the peer review process
He was co-editor of a book with up to 10 others
This book satisfactorily passed the publisher's review process
When it was realised that the authors and editors were ID proponents and creationists
ONLY THEN was the book...that had already been advertised on Springer Verlag's website for $175-00-----pulled off and labelled needing further review
That's utter bigotry
And guess what?
You're a CREATION RACIST BIGOT
Lay off the melodrama Russell.

Its not bigotry. Its the simple fact that creationist peer reviewers will review work based on its adherence to the Bible, as they openly admit on their websites.

Sorry mate, but that is not the criterion for scientific validity.

In science, the criteria for peer review are whether the thesis is consistent with previously verified empirical data, whether the measurement and data gathering used to justify the thesis free of errors and mistakes, and whether the conclusions offered follow logically from the empirical data and the premises.

Nothin' about "does it agree with Genesis" in there I am afraid.

So when Creationists claim their work is scientific, and have put the work through "creation criteria" and not accepted science criteria, they are JUST BLOODY LYING.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125036
Mar 25, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Since they are none when there should be MILLIONS....I wouldn't really know
Do you know the difference between an intermediate and a transitional?

I can give you a clue. Transitionals are a subset of intermediates. And we have millions of intermediates, while we cannot be sure which of them are necessarily THE transitionals and which are evolutionary dead ends.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125037
Mar 25, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh?
Never mind, its probably over your head.

But you started it with your evolution = racism nonsensical prattling.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125038
Mar 25, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Since they are none when there should be MILLIONS....I wouldn't really know
So if you don't know what a transitional fossil is, why do you assume that you do know that none of them are?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125039
Mar 25, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
You're a CREATION RACIST BIGOT
Guess what?

"Stoopid lying cowards" is not a race.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 121,841 - 121,860 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.

10 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min Charles Idemi 112,794
Big Bang? 13 min TurkanaBoy 103
British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... 17 min wondering 105
Chicken or the egg. Lets settle this 35 min TurkanaBoy 44
The Universe is fine-tuned for life 38 min wondering 26
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr wondering 133,974
Modern YEC is Not An Aberration of Traditional ... 1 hr TurkanaBoy 113
•••
•••