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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125357 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
"A team of researchers recently completed a thorough investigation of 158 ancient leg bones that belonged to giant extinct birds called moa, which once lived on New Zealand's South Island. Using radiocarbon ages and measures of DNA integrity, the researchers generated a DNA decay rate with unprecedented rigor. But their results do not fit with claims from secular scientists who have found plenty of examples of intact DNA from supposedly million-year-old samples.
"The moa bone researchers, publishing in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, discovered that after only 10,000 years, DNA strands in bone would be so far dilapidated that DNA sequencers could no longer process it.1 They found that their DNA decay data best fit a logarithmic decay model, which follows the molecule's initial disintegration into large fragments as happening faster than its later disintegration into smaller fragments. At room temperature, they measured the half-life of DNA to 521 years.2 After this time, only half of the amount of DNA present when the animal cells died should remain. And after another 521 years, only half of what remained after the first half-millennium would remain, and so on until none remains."
http://www.icr.org/article/7088/
Now now SZ
No sobbing into your pillow
Be a man
At least try
Apologise to your brother
About what?

I don't see any science being done. I see a bunch of creatards playing dress up.

When they quit doing circle jerk science and grow up I might pay attention.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125358 Mar 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, Russ got caught using the same lie 6 months ago. Not that we'd ever expect either of you to apologize.
Heaven forbid.(shrug)
Who let you out of rehab, Dude. You should be in group therapy now.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125359 Mar 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you really are full of shit. Here's why:
You have a commandment that says "Thou shallt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Yet, without any evidence at all, you decide I (and others) have no objective basis for morality. You don't know a damn thing about me. You have no idea what my basis of morality is. Yet you have no problem lying about me for no reason whatsoever.
Conclusions:
1) You ARE full of shit (and a liar).
2) My morality is better than yours.
OK, I'm listening...
What is your objective basis for morality?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125360 Mar 26, 2013
Poor rusty, he still does not know what Sanford did wrong, nor why Creation magazine and ICR, which stands for I Can't do Research, are both piles of stinking dingo feces.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#125361 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I'm listening...
Oh wow. I supposed I should be impressed that the great and powerful HTS is listening.
HTS wrote:
What is your objective basis for morality?
In its simplest form, the ethic of reciprocity (Golden Rule).

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125362 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
"A team of researchers recently completed a thorough investigation of 158 ancient leg bones that belonged to giant extinct birds called moa, which once lived on New Zealand's South Island. Using radiocarbon ages and measures of DNA integrity, the researchers generated a DNA decay rate with unprecedented rigor. But their results do not fit with claims from secular scientists who have found plenty of examples of intact DNA from supposedly million-year-old samples.
"The moa bone researchers, publishing in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, discovered that after only 10,000 years, DNA strands in bone would be so far dilapidated that DNA sequencers could no longer process it.1 They found that their DNA decay data best fit a logarithmic decay model, which follows the molecule's initial disintegration into large fragments as happening faster than its later disintegration into smaller fragments. At room temperature, they measured the half-life of DNA to 521 years.2 After this time, only half of the amount of DNA present when the animal cells died should remain. And after another 521 years, only half of what remained after the first half-millennium would remain, and so on until none remains."
http://www.icr.org/article/7088/
Now now SZ
No sobbing into your pillow
Be a man
At least try
Apologise to your brother
And he wonder why we call them creatards.

Out of curiosity I checked out the linked article and the idiots at creatard.com misread the articles on collagen found in dinosaur bones. A very amazing discovery to say the least. Somehow it looks like they thought the discovery of collagen meant that they had discovered dinosaur DNA. I tried to point out to rusty that all of the journal and more scientific articles said that the various chemicals used to test the bone reacted with proteins, not cells. Now some idiot at creatard.com has taken those articles to mean that dinosaur DNA was found and they think they have proven something by showing that Moa DNA decays too fast for it to have survived millions of years.

No sh1t Sherlock. Talk about not being able to follow a chain of thought.

Thanks rusty, that article was my laugh of the day.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125363 Mar 26, 2013
Here are the last two paragraphs from the article that rusty linked. Strap yourself into your chairs first:
Should the supposedly million-year-old DNA from fossils justify calling this study's analysis of 158 bones "nonsense," or should the analysis of 158 bones call into question the age labels of reportedly ancient DNA samples? Secular scientists have been processing the same vexing questions for decades regarding protein decay rates and proteins found in fossils, including dinosaur bones.

But abandoning the millions-of-years dogma in favor of a young world solves the whole problem. Ancient DNA is in the fossils and DNA half-life is short, which makes perfect sense if the fossils are only thousands, not millions, of years old.
From: http://www.icr.org/article/7088/

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125364 Mar 26, 2013
In response to rusty's last article:

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#125365 Mar 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh wow. I supposed I should be impressed that the great and powerful HTS is listening.

...
Wonders never cease

Or do you think it’s just another HTS lie?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125366 Mar 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh wow. I supposed I should be impressed that the great and powerful HTS is listening.
<quoted text>
In its simplest form, the ethic of reciprocity (Golden Rule).
So you're borrowing your morality from Christianity?

What you're saying is that the golden rule feels right for you, but you can't argue your position with someone who feels different by any reference to absolutes.
To what absolute standards can you appeal to justify your beliefs to a serial killer?
You might say that you have a personal way of defining morality, but you cannot extend that beyond yourself.
Some people want everyone to live in a state of communism, and could use your same argument. They want you to throw all of your money into a world fund and have bureaucrats decide who gets what... And they can argue that they are practicing the golden rule as well.

Totalitarian dictators such as Stalin and Mao believed that they were doing what felt right to them.... And that they were acting in the best interests of scoring as a whole. They believe that purging the country of millions of innocent people who weren't pulling their own weight was fundamentally no different than mowing the lawn, and they justified their beliefs by references to Darwinian evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125367 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're borrowing your morality from Christianity?
What you're saying is that the golden rule feels right for you, but you can't argue your position with someone who feels different by any reference to absolutes.
To what absolute standards can you appeal to justify your beliefs to a serial killer?
You might say that you have a personal way of defining morality, but you cannot extend that beyond yourself.
Some people want everyone to live in a state of communism, and could use your same argument. They want you to throw all of your money into a world fund and have bureaucrats decide who gets what... And they can argue that they are practicing the golden rule as well.
Totalitarian dictators such as Stalin and Mao believed that they were doing what felt right to them.... And that they were acting in the best interests of scoring as a whole. They believe that purging the country of millions of innocent people who weren't pulling their own weight was fundamentally no different than mowing the lawn, and they justified their beliefs by references to Darwinian evolution.
The Golden Rule did not come from Christianity. It predates Christ and can be found in several different cultures.

But as I said, you are far too dense to understand ethics. Let's try to understand the small stuff first, and then we will work you up to ethics.

Okay, slugger?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#125368 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're borrowing your morality from Christianity?
You stupid f*ck. The Golden Rule is as old as humanity. Look it up.
HTS wrote:
What you're saying is that the golden rule feels right for you, but you can't argue your position with someone who feels different by any reference to absolutes.
Who says? You?
HTS wrote:
To what absolute standards can you appeal to justify your beliefs to a serial killer?
I don't have to justify my morality (not beliefs) to anyone. Even you.
HTS wrote:
You might say that you have a personal way of defining morality, but you cannot extend that beyond yourself.
Why should I?
HTS wrote:
Some people want everyone to live in a state of communism, and could use your same argument. They want you to throw all of your money into a world fund and have bureaucrats decide who gets what... And they can argue that they are practicing the golden rule as well.
Totalitarian dictators such as Stalin and Mao believed that they were doing what felt right to them.... And that they were acting in the best interests of scoring as a whole. They believe that purging the country of millions of innocent people who weren't pulling their own weight was fundamentally no different than mowing the lawn, and they justified their beliefs by references to Darwinian evolution.
What a load of horseshit.

You start off stating - INCORRECTLY - that the Golden Rule comes from Christianity then proceeds to disparage it. How's THAT for Stupid?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125369 Mar 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The Golden Rule did not come from Christianity. It predates Christ and can be found in several different cultures.
But as I said, you are far too dense to understand ethics. Let's try to understand the small stuff first, and then we will work you up to ethics.
Okay, slugger?
Better put, you have no ABSOLUTE basis for morality.
Your standards are ultimately foounded on what you believe is right.
You cannot argue your position with anyone else by reference to any absolute standards of right and wrong.

Many officers of the Third Reich believed that they were courageous pioneers who were doing what was ultimately in the bests interests of society as a whole.
The mass extermination of weaker members of society is a logical conclusion of a belief in the mechanisms of evolution.
Mutations are nothing more than accidents.
If man is the result of unplanned accidents, what is wrong with one "accident" eliminating another so that a greater number of "accidents" can enjoy life?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#125370 Mar 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
You stupid f*ck. The Golden Rule is as old as humanity. Look it up.
"In his commentary to the Torah verse (Hebrew: "&#1493;&#1488; &#1492;&#1489;&#15 14; &#1500;&#1512;&#15 06;&#1498; &#1499;&#1502;&#14 93;&#1498;" ca.1300 BCE):


You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

—Leviticus 19:18[10], the "Great Commandment"

As Plaut points out, this is the earliest written version of the Golden Rule in the Bible in a positive form.[11] All versions and forms of the proverbial Golden Rule have one aspect in common: they all demand that people treat others in a manner in which they themselves would like to be treated."

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

Englewood, CO

#125371 Mar 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You stupid f*ck. The Golden Rule is as old as humanity. Look it up.
<quoted text>
Who says? You?
<quoted text>
I don't have to justify my morality (not beliefs) to anyone. Even you.
<quoted text>
Why should I?
<quoted text>
What a load of horseshit.
You start off stating - INCORRECTLY - that the Golden Rule comes from Christianity then proceeds to disparage it. How's THAT for Stupid?
You're obviously a liar.
You stated that your morality is based on the golden rule.
Then you immediately broke the golden rule by insulting me.
I rest my case. You have no absolute standards of morality.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#125372 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're obviously a liar.
You stated that your morality is based on the golden rule.
Then you immediately broke the golden rule by insulting me.
I rest my case. You have no absolute standards of morality.
I spit coffee all over my keyboard at that one!!! You're one funny bastard!!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125373 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Better put, you have no ABSOLUTE basis for morality.
Your standards are ultimately foounded on what you believe is right.
You cannot argue your position with anyone else by reference to any absolute standards of right and wrong.
Many officers of the Third Reich believed that they were courageous pioneers who were doing what was ultimately in the bests interests of society as a whole.
The mass extermination of weaker members of society is a logical conclusion of a belief in the mechanisms of evolution.
Mutations are nothing more than accidents.
If man is the result of unplanned accidents, what is wrong with one "accident" eliminating another so that a greater number of "accidents" can enjoy life?
Obviously you don't either. Or you don't follow your rules of morality.

And why do you keep going back to that Christian group and try to use it against atheists? The Third Reich was not technically a Christian group, but all of its members were Christians. Atheism was not treated well under Hitler in Germany, nor of course were the Jews.

Your point seems to be that Christians can kill all sorts of people following their beliefs.

What a strange way to shoot yourself in the foot.

How's That for Stupid.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#125374 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're obviously a liar.
You stated that your morality is based on the golden rule.
Then you immediately broke the golden rule by insulting me.
I rest my case. You have no absolute standards of morality.
You should have thought of that before you lumped me in with Stalin and Mao. You've earned the insults. As I've said before, you have no problem lying about someone else and you want to lecture on morality. Piss off.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125375 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're obviously a liar.
You stated that your morality is based on the golden rule.
Then you immediately broke the golden rule by insulting me.
I rest my case. You have no absolute standards of morality.
One question, is it an insult to call a moron a moron?

Or, better yet, is it an insult to tell a person who knows better that he is acting moronic?

Perhaps we need to be a bit more gentle with you and point out that you are acting like an idiot rather than shortening the sentence to "you are an idiot". Hmmm, you might have a point there.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#125376 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Better put, you have no ABSOLUTE basis for morality.
Your standards are ultimately foounded on what you believe is right.
You cannot argue your position with anyone else by reference to any absolute standards of right and wrong.
Many officers of the Third Reich believed that they were courageous pioneers who were doing what was ultimately in the bests interests of society as a whole.
The mass extermination of weaker members of society is a logical conclusion of a belief in the mechanisms of evolution.
Mutations are nothing more than accidents.
If man is the result of unplanned accidents, what is wrong with one "accident" eliminating another so that a greater number of "accidents" can enjoy life?
OK, HTS. What is YOUR absolute standards of right and wrong?

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 20 min DanFromSmithville 142,665
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 29 min DanFromSmithville 172,002
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 3 hr GTID62 289
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr dirtclod 20,647
Dr. David Berlinski corrects himself on whale e... 3 hr Paul Porter1 52
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 6 hr Paul Porter1 38
News Bobby Jindal: I'm fine with teaching creationis... (Apr '13) Sat Chimney1 248
More from around the web