Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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.

HTS

Mandan, ND

#125857 Mar 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Its reliable when the sample is free of contamination etc. What I said did not even suggest your statement. Must be grasping at red herrings again. Creationist. Stands to reason.
Contamination = Any finding inconsistent with ToE dogma.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125858 Mar 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know what scientific evidence is, how would you recognize it when it is given to you.
But here's a freebie, how do we now that Lucy is millions of years old? The volcanic event that buried her occurred millions of years ago. How simple is that?
Radiometric dating of volcanic ash has been proven to be useless, as documented by dating recent eruptions such as Mt. St. Helens, Hualailai, etc.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125859 Mar 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

The Real GOD as a concept comes down to the question of whether intelligence created reality or reality created intelligence, not whether some goatherds in the desert discovered the meaning of life. That is an open question. Most here will agree - so your continual mixing of evolution and atheism is also supremely silly since God is not incompatible with evolution at all. Merely with literal interpretation of Genesis, a book written by men.
OR one might stretch and consider that GOD manifested through all of everything is also growing. And that you .
A supreme intelligence is not incompatible with gradualistic evolution except for one problem.
Modern intellectuals assume that everything can be explained WITHOUT God. That is why I keep insisting that NDT = atheism.
Example... Irreducible complexity... It is insisted that mechanisms of gradualism that man cannot conceptualize came into existence SOLELY by naturalistic means. It is assumed that everything can be explained oly by mutations and differential reproductions.

Of course a supreme being could have used evolution to accomplish His purposes. But such a concept is categorically rejected by modern evolutionary theorists.

NDT is not neutral toward God. If it was neutral, then unknown mechanisms such as the evolution of echolocation in whales would be stated as unknown, and ID would remain a possibility.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125860 Mar 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
But they have shown how life evolves. Therefore if you want to argue about God in abiogenesis, go for it, but stop with the lies about evolution.
You speak of abiogenesis as if it's a minor glitch in Toe. The impossibility of abiogenesis reduces Darwinism to nothing. No life is possible without DNA, and DNA is the most profound example of IC in nature.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125861 Mar 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
But they have shown how life evolves. Therefore if you want to argue about God in abiogenesis, go for it, but stop with the lies about evolution.
It is shown how life is IMAGINED to have evolved.
What has actually been shown?
1. Microevolution
2. Mutations involving single nucleotide substitutions that impart obvious survival advantages (sickle cell trait, antibiotic resistance in bacteria)
3. Lenski's 20 year experiment that resulted in suppression of a pre-existing citrate utilization system after 31,500 generations.

None of that proves that man evolved from apes. None of that even suggests that it is possible.

Meanwhile, there is massive evidence that evolution is impossible.
1. Failure to produce macroevolution despite deliberate attempts involving trillions of trillions of bacteria.
2. Irreducible complexity of the genetic code.
3. No conceivable or observable genetic mechanism to create added information.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125862 Mar 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Contamination = Any finding inconsistent with ToE dogma.

You still have not told me how creotardism accounts for the observed fact of evolution.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125863 Mar 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Radiometric dating of volcanic ash has been proven to be useless, as documented by dating recent eruptions such as Mt. St. Helens, Hualailai, etc.

Another deliberate creotard lie.

Stick your foot in it all the way!!

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_he...

"YEC Dr. Steve Austin and his associates at the Institute for Creation 'Research'(ICR) collected a dacite sample from Mt. St. Helens, Washington State, USA, which probably erupted in 1986 AD. Austin et al. then ineffectively separated the sample into several mineral and glass 'fractions', submitted the dacite and its 'fractions' for potassium 40-argon 40 (K-Ar) dating, and subsequently used the bogus results to inappropriately attack the K-Ar method. Austin's conclusions on this project are summarized at the ICR website."

Questions:
1. What is the effective range of K-Ar dating?
2. Were the samples handled appropriately?
3. Are all creotards flaming liars?






Answers:

1. Considering that the half-life of potassium-40 (40K) is fairly long (1,250 million years, McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 9), the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 93). A few thousand years are not enough time for 40Ar to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be detected and quantified.

2. Duh!

3. Signs point to yes.
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#125864 Mar 28, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text> Any religious views are irrelevant in a discussion of science. I have no religious views, just views on religion.
Says he who has named himself "the gods" and in Hebrew, no less
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#125865 Mar 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You still have not told me how creotardism accounts for the observed fact of evolution.
Where has evolution occurred?

Where has it been observed?

If you say Lenski, I swear I will cry all over my Easter eggs
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#125866 Mar 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text> Actually, as I have pointed out many times, atheists and agnostics have a more objective basis for reality than we do (if we only rely on our beliefs and the bible).
We need to aspire to follow our morality even without real or imagined threats.
People are moral because it is in their nature.
Also, studies have found that when rules are added to morality then people will reject their innate morality and will follow the rules of the law and the loopholes that the law allows for.
In other words, people behave MORE moral when there are no rules to get around!
Please don't say "we" when referring to my and your beliefs
I am a creationist Christian
A fundy, as I am happy to be known

You, on the other hand, are a compromiser

I, and you,....and here you may say "we", have no idea what you believe
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#125867 Mar 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, you yank out a piece of informative but completely irrelevant junk. What is your point supposed to be? You think the trace metals found are supposed to have a half life too? They were in a creature that died and some remain. So what?
It has feathers that are detectable after alleged 150,000,000 years

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125868 Mar 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
A supreme intelligence is not incompatible with gradualistic evolution except for one problem.
Modern intellectuals assume that everything can be explained WITHOUT God. That is why I keep insisting that NDT = atheism.

That is, how do you say, "moronic".

BTW, NDT = National Debate Tournament.

We are used to your cock and bull stories, your delusions, your warped view of Christianity, and your hatred of real science. But your straw men are the worst.

Why do you keep running from issues? Why do you avoid posts you can't reply to? Okay, that one is self evident.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Example... Irreducible complexity...

Yes, IC is moronic and it is has never been found, to date.


HTS wrote:
<quoted text> It is insisted that mechanisms of gradualism that man cannot conceptualize came into existence SOLELY by naturalistic means.

"gradualism" ..... Your ongoing use of this word indicates that you have not read scientific literature on evolution in at least 35 years.


HTS wrote:
<quoted text> It is assumed that everything can be explained oly by mutations and differential reproductions.

That is not assumed. That is what the literature demonstrates. Try reading some of it some time.



HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Of course a supreme being could have used evolution to accomplish His purposes. But such a concept is categorically rejected by modern evolutionary theorists.

No, it isn't. It is accepted that there no need to resort to magic poofing by and activist god have been found. In other words there needs to be evidence of other mechanisms, yet MANCOVA analysis accounts for nearly 100% of the variance.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> NDT is not neutral toward God.

Neither is bowling.

Neither is gravity.

Nor is germ theory.

ALL assume that the universe is governed by natural laws.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> If it was neutral, then unknown mechanisms such as the evolution of echolocation in whales would be stated as unknown, and ID would remain a possibility.

ID as it is conceived is not a possibility. I admit that. I admit that ID has lost favor as both a philosophical and religious concept and that it never did have any standing in science.

Do we need to go over the definition of what science is again?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#125869 Mar 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Where has evolution occurred?
Where has it been observed?
If you say Lenski, I swear I will cry all over my Easter eggs
The Easter Egg comes from Pagan religions .... imagine that!!

http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/tracts/t...

Religiturds can't even keep track of the gods they are worshiping this week.
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#125870 Mar 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Am I supposed to read that?
Its not per reviewed.....
No you jackass
I had provided a link to that very quote ages ago
Try not to teach grandma to suck eggs, will ya?
The
I think he likes me
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#125871 Mar 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't love it.
I love God.
I love my wife.
I love science.
I love the 9th commandment.
I hate lying.
So why would I love it.
Everybody loves it

...except Dogem
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#125872 Mar 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
In context both SZ and AE were right. If you don't understand that then you don't understand how data is dealt with in science.
If the ToE was disproved what do you think would replace it?
Creation/IDism?
Not hardly.
Science is only replaced by science. Science is never replaced by pseudoscience.
Find me one case where that has not been true.
Animalutionism?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125873 Mar 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You speak of abiogenesis as if it's a minor glitch in Toe. The impossibility of abiogenesis reduces Darwinism to nothing. No life is possible without DNA, and DNA is the most profound example of IC in nature.

Abiogenesis is chemistry.
Abiogenesis is not biology.
Abiogenesis is not impossible.

It is 100% certain (even by your own definitions) that abiogenesis occurred. Nothing that is known to have occurred can be considered impossible.

DNA is giving up its secrets rapidly. It isn't even unique. Double strand RNA is essentially simple DNA. Not even all life is based on DNA as many virus are now known to be based on RNA.

DNA is a rock. You strip enough of it out of cells and throw them together you basically have a rock.

If you want to bank on DNA that is fine. But your account is being robbed blind behind your back.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125874 Mar 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It is shown how life is IMAGINED to have evolved.
What has actually been shown?
1. Microevolution
2. Mutations involving single nucleotide substitutions that impart obvious survival advantages (sickle cell trait, antibiotic resistance in bacteria)
3. Lenski's 20 year experiment that resulted in suppression of a pre-existing citrate utilization system after 31,500 generations.
None of that proves that man evolved from apes. None of that even suggests that it is possible.
Meanwhile, there is massive evidence that evolution is impossible.
1. Failure to produce macroevolution despite deliberate attempts involving trillions of trillions of bacteria.
2. Irreducible complexity of the genetic code.
3. No conceivable or observable genetic mechanism to create added information.

It there anything above that I have not refuted?

Of course not.

Is there anything above that I HAVE refuted but you were to dumb to understand the refutation?

Ah ha!

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125875 Mar 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Says he who has named himself "the gods" and in Hebrew, no less

Says he who acts like he is speaking for god and knows the mind of god.

Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#125876 Mar 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You speak of abiogenesis as if it's a minor glitch in Toe. The impossibility of abiogenesis reduces Darwinism to nothing. No life is possible without DNA, and DNA is the most profound example of IC in nature.
Question - could your 'god' have sparked life into existence - then used (in his omnipotence) evolution as a method to produce the diversity we observe?

If your answer is yes - then your 'abiogenesis is a minor glitch' wrt to evolution is mute

If your answer is no - then outline the the limits of your 'god'

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 min Endofdays 79,885
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 10 min Dogen 163,757
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 12 hr WHAT 222,738
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 18 hr Eagle 12 - 32,581
What's your religion? 20 hr Zog Has-fallen 2
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
Science News (Sep '13) Sep 8 Ricky F 4,001
More from around the web