Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179707 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.

Russell

Canberra, Australia

#128589 Apr 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor Squishy does not like my answers.
Squishy does not like the truth.
And its 'Dr Squishy' to you

I have been promoted
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#128590 Apr 29, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually that is not what you said (or for that matter what I said) at all
<quoted text>
And I am not saying the Pope-meister general doesn't believe in the Bible (presume they would have picked that up at the job interview) but that he / the Catholic Church INTERPRETS much of the bible allegorically rather than literally.
In terms of specifics - as mentioned I am not versed enough to quote passages, but it does seem that we have a disagreement between you and other YECs and the pontiff with the mostest around
A) age of the earth
B) role of evolution (gods work or satans lie)
For a starter
The point I am trying to make is that there is obviously different interpretations of the bible,(both see 'truth' but some accept a non-literal truth), and you insist that your version is the ONLY truth, indeed then proclaimed that there is no disagreement between scholars - which is how we got to the above point.
Now I have a slight suspicion you are going in to minor dodge mode on this (but to be fair Russel started as such when started this in reference to the legitimacy of creation.com ) and am grateful as you are trying to answer.
I have to re-interate, I am not having a pop at your faith or the bible (as if you would give a fetid dingos kidney if I did - DA sorely missed) I am interested in why you insist your view is correct even when compared to others of the same faith (even if not the literal interpretation of scripture)
You're either drunk

Or badly in need of sleep

Take a break......

We'll try again later

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128591 Apr 29, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You promise much
And deliver nothing
==========
Evidence for evolution----->
"It must have happened, we're here, aren't we?"
You have not come through with your end of the deal.

Since you denied evidence in the past you have to take a very short class before you can demand evidence from me. I have told you this countless times before. I will probably have to tell you countless times in the future.

The only one you one you can blame for me not giving evidence on demand to you is yourself.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128592 Apr 29, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
And its 'Dr Squishy' to you
I have been promoted
Nope, still plain old Squishy. I am not a fan of Dr. Pepper or any other fake doctors.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#128593 Apr 29, 2013
Tell me of you approve

I would like to post this on the other forum debating Tyre
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You idiot, the island is still there. It is not an island anymore.
Yours has to be the weakest excuse ever for denying the failure of the Tyre prophesy.
Why can't fundies be honest?
I hadn't realised that this discussion was on-going here and simultaneously on our forum here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT...

My apologies to any creationist Christians that are defending the Tyre prophesy

But I really would like you to know this

The island component of Tyre is largely underwater

This fulfills in entirety the Ezekiel 26:19 prophesy--->

“This is what the Sovereign Lord says: When I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited, and when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you."

Here is the evidence

From this site
http://www.mediterranean-geoarchaeology.com/U...

This is the paper

Marriner et al, Ancient Tyre and its harbours: 5000 years of human-environment interactions,Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 1281e1310

----------
From the abstract---->

"Egyptian harbour is in reality a drowned quarter of the ancient city.-----DROWNED QUARTER------

Informed hypotheses are proposed for a possible second anchorage at Tyre, and it is demonstrated that presently drowned portions ------DROWNED PORTIONS-------of the sandstone ridge served as outer harbours during the Bronze and Iron Ages.
----------

So, we are told of DROWNED parts of Island Tyre
Those parts are obviously not rebuilt

----------

Title of a paper referred to in the abstract of the Marriner et al paper referenced above--->

"Underwater archaeological survey in the northern harbour at Tyre"

----UNDERWATER------
----------
From page 1283 of the Marriner et al paper -->

The mole comprises two parallel walls made-up of 40/5050/60190 cm ramleh headers,and whose surfaces presently lie ~ 2 m below MSL (Descamps, personal communication).

-----TWO METRES BELOW MEAN SEA LEVEL-------

Page 1286

Interpretation: the dominant litho- and biostratigraphical proxies attest to a shallow, low-energy marine embayment newly ransgressed by the post-glacial sea-level rise.

With relative sea-level approximately 7 +/- 1 m below present, the coastal bathymetry shows the existence of a northesouth trending subaerial ridge ~ 6 times longer than the present 1 km island (Fig. 11).

-----THE ISLAND TYRE WAS 6 TIMES LONGER THAN AT PRESENT-------

----------PARTS OF THE ISLAND TYRE ARE PRESENTLY UNDER APPROX 7 METRES OF WATER------

From Page 1285--->

4.2.2. Pocket beach unit and Bronze Age proto-harbour Description: after the onset of relative sea-level stability around 6000 BP, the northern coast of Tyre remained naturally protected by the aeolianite ridge system.

Fig. 11 (inset 2) depicts a tentative coastal reconstruction of Tyre island ~ 6000 BP, with a projected relative sea-level scenario at 5 m below present.

Figure 11 is on Page 1293

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S...

--------ANCIENT ISLAND TYRE PROJECTED RELATIVE SEA LEVEL 5 METRES BELOW PRESENT---------

CONT in Part 2
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#128594 Apr 29, 2013
PART 2--->

Here is fulfillment of Ezekiel 26:21--->

"I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign Lord.”

From this site
http://www.mediterranean-geoarchaeology.com/U...

This is the paper

Marriner et al, Ancient Tyre and its harbours: 5000 years of
human-environment interactions,Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 1281e1310

From Page 1289

At Tyre, linking the coastal stratigraphy to early arti&#64257;cial harbourworks is dif&#64257;cult for two reasons:(1) the dearth of Bronze Age archaeological &#64257;nds in and around the basin; and (2) the relative absence of Middle to Late Bronze age harbour sediments, due to Roman dredging practices (Marriner and Morhange, 2006a).

----------DEARTH OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS IN AND AROUND SITE OF ANCIENT ISLAND TYRE----------

From Page 1291

Direct evidence of this infrastructure is at present sparse and insights into Tyre’s Phoenician and later Persian ports are marred by the relative absence of Iron Age sediments.

Although great tracts of Iron Age strata are missing from the northern harbour, these lithoand biostratigraphic data attest to a well-protected harbour during the Persian period

Page 1289

Phoenician and Persian periods: archiveless harbour Description: paradoxically, Roman dredging means that very little stratigraphic evidence exists for Tyre’s Iron Age harbours. Fine-grained clay deposits found to the south of the city, in the drowned southern quarters,----DROWNED SOUTHERN QUARTERS---- have been dated to the Persian period (see below)

==========

Fulfilled prophesy
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#128595 Apr 29, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You're either drunk
Or badly in need of sleep
Take a break......
We'll try again later
Perfectly sober and hard at work this morning - time zones another thing you don't get I take it.

And we won't try again later, the post you mentioned is a response to a long chain that started with me asking you about the legitimacy of creation.com as a scientific source - you know the one you kept avoiding.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128596 Apr 29, 2013
No Squishy, failed prophesy. Once again you gave a link that shoots you in the foot.

I already pointed out to you that one of your papers points out that the "sinking" of Tyre started 8,000 years ago. That is long before the prophesy.

PARTS of Tyre are under water. Most of the city is not. The prophesy did not say part of Tyre will be buried by the sea, and you don't get to have God take credit for a process that was going on before the prophesy.

Tyre has been rebuilt, it was not swept clean by its enemies. It is a failed prophesy.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#128597 Apr 29, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Perfectly sober and hard at work this morning - time zones another thing you don't get I take it.
And we won't try again later, the post you mentioned is a response to a long chain that started with me asking you about the legitimacy of creation.com as a scientific source - you know the one you kept avoiding.
Creation.com is just as scientific, if you will, as any of your chosen sources

The writers are mainly scientists

They refer to peer reviewed papers that are referenced

What I sense you object to is that they are creationist Christians who uphold God's word above ever changing 'science'

Hence

There is a space for you on the Rosa Park's bus
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#128598 Apr 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
No Squishy, failed prophesy. Once again you gave a link that shoots you in the foot.
I already pointed out to you that one of your papers points out that the "sinking" of Tyre started 8,000 years ago. That is long before the prophesy.
PARTS of Tyre are under water. Most of the city is not. The prophesy did not say part of Tyre will be buried by the sea, and you don't get to have God take credit for a process that was going on before the prophesy.
Tyre has been rebuilt, it was not swept clean by its enemies. It is a failed prophesy.
No Subdud

Fulfilled prophesy

Ancient Tyre has not been rebuilt

I do not take those "dating" methods to be correct anyway

I see now that the facts do not matter to you

All that matters is that you do not lose face

Ancient Pompeii has not been rebuilt

And neither has ancient Tyre

Your arguments are faulty

You require the avoidance of reality in order for your arguments to be true

A island city, that is now largely under water is .....to you....'rebuilt'

Where are these rebuilt underwater buildings?

Archaeologists are having problems getting much at all by way of remains of Tyre, island or mainland

And of course.....as usual, you offer no evidence to bolster your shabby case....it's all just because you say so

Well, you're wrong

I doubt that anyone can help you

Not even Dr Squishy


Russell

Canberra, Australia

#128599 Apr 29, 2013
The probability of Ezekiel's predictions coming true is one in 7.7 X 10^7

And they ALL came to pass...to the last detail

I'm with you UC

This has been a huge faith building exercise

I knew that Bible prophesy has been 100% accurate
But I was unaware of how very accurate

I too have had a great day

http://sciencespeaks.dstoner.net/Prophetic_Ac...
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#128600 Apr 29, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Creation.com is just as scientific, if you will, as any of your chosen sources
The writers are mainly scientists
They refer to peer reviewed papers that are referenced
What I sense you object to is that they are creationist Christians who uphold God's word above ever changing 'science'
Hence
There is a space for you on the Rosa Park's bus
Whatever you say rusty, we already know you think the following is quality science (if you think science is making stuff up to address fundemental problems with your stance)

"If we accept all observations about the universe, realizing they are tainted with certain assumptions, which may be wrong, then creationists have a starlight-travel-time problem. This is true if we believe only 6,000 years have passed since the creation of the most distant light sources, and that they were all created at that time, as measured by normal Earth clocks, and we hold to the convention that the timer was started when the star was created. But if the timer was started when the light first arrived on Earth, when someone first saw the event, then this is the Anisotropic Time Convention,6 and there is no light-travel-time problem. There is nothing to answer"

http://creation.com/creationism-modern-scienc...

When I called you on this before you just dodged and said I wasn't making my point clear - so let me outline the crux of this top quality science

"But if the timer was started when the light first arrived on Earth, when someone first saw the event, then this is the Anisotropic Time Convention,6 and there is no light-travel-time problem. There is nothing to answer""

Can you see the issue, no of course you can't

Don't bother responding - it is kind of a waste of time
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#128601 Apr 29, 2013
SZ

I think this is the site you have been getting your information regarding the Tyre prophesy from?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...

Its a dud, SubDUD

Learn to do good research

Your current inability to find fully referenced papers, and the poor quality of your resources is embarrassing

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128602 Apr 29, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Creation.com is just as scientific, if you will, as any of your chosen sources
The writers are mainly scientists
They refer to peer reviewed papers that are referenced
What I sense you object to is that they are creationist Christians who uphold God's word above ever changing 'science'
Hence
There is a space for you on the Rosa Park's bus
More lies from Squishy, but then what do you expect from a braindead creatard.

The writers at creatard.com may be "mostly" scientists, they clearly do not do science when it comes to anything published in that piece of crap website.

There is a reason that real peer review is the standard of scientific advances. No real science has yet to come from your so called journal.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#128603 Apr 29, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
They (the Chicoms) are aware of the secular West's obsession with the theory of evolution and therefore are profiting from this by manufacturing fake fossils and shipping them out. This evidently got started because it is against the law (death penalty!) to remove real fossils from the country. So they make lots of fake fossils and are apparently very good at it. Even top scientists have been tricked. You'd have to do a CAT scan or other analysis (and partially destroy it in the process) to ensure they are real. But it looks like nothing out of China is real. I mean, who would take THAT chance? And yes, as Sub Zone pointed out, there have been a lot of articles regarding new fossils finds from China in the scientific press. All I have to say is Caveat Emptor.
You know even less about science than most children I have met.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128604 Apr 29, 2013
Russell wrote:
SZ
I think this is the site you have been getting your information regarding the Tyre prophesy from?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
Its a dud, SubDUD
Learn to do good research
Your current inability to find fully referenced papers, and the poor quality of your resources is embarrassing
Nope, never used that once.

Sadly you have no clue on what makes a site a quality one or not.

P.S. Haven't you noticed Squishy that all of your decent sites have agreed with me. That is how you earned the nickname Squishy.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#128605 Apr 29, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you need much more education yourself before you can attempt to educate me
And I am nothing but a fool
Do some reading
Try again later
So instead of learning why you were wrong, you just covered your ears and closed your eyes and repeated "I can't hear you" over an over again.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#128606 Apr 29, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible most certainly means what it says
The highway to nowhere is littered with the carcasses of failures, like you, who have attempted to discredit Gods word
I did not attempt, and it was you who actually discredit your own bible more than anyone.

You creatards make this blasphemy stuff too easy.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128607 Apr 29, 2013
Russell wrote:
SZ
I think this is the site you have been getting your information regarding the Tyre prophesy from?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
Its a dud, SubDUD
Learn to do good research
Your current inability to find fully referenced papers, and the poor quality of your resources is embarrassing
I just read that site and the answer was very accurate. The "question" was an attempt to preach in the first place and is an automatic loss for dishonesty. The selected best answer had all of the basic facts correct. Thanks for another site that shows that you are wrong.

And you wonder why we call you Squishy. You find a site where a boob tries to preach by asking a very leading question and then he got put in his place.

To echo the end of the best answer:

How about that second failed prophecy? When did Nebby beat the Egyptians?
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#128608 Apr 29, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever you say rusty, we already know you think the following is quality science (if you think science is making stuff up to address fundemental problems with your stance)
"If we accept all observations about the universe, realizing they are tainted with certain assumptions, which may be wrong, then creationists have a starlight-travel-time problem. This is true if we believe only 6,000 years have passed since the creation of the most distant light sources, and that they were all created at that time, as measured by normal Earth clocks, and we hold to the convention that the timer was started when the star was created. But if the timer was started when the light first arrived on Earth, when someone first saw the event, then this is the Anisotropic Time Convention,6 and there is no light-travel-time problem. There is nothing to answer"
http://creation.com/creationism-modern-scienc...
When I called you on this before you just dodged and said I wasn't making my point clear - so let me outline the crux of this top quality science
"But if the timer was started when the light first arrived on Earth, when someone first saw the event, then this is the Anisotropic Time Convention,6 and there is no light-travel-time problem. There is nothing to answer""
Can you see the issue, no of course you can't
Don't bother responding - it is kind of a waste of time
If I quoted something from somewhere in this manner, I would be accused of 'quote mining'

But anyway

Have you looked for the reference John refers to in this paragraph?

Lisle, J.P., Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem, Answers Research Journal 2:191–207, 2010; answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/aniso... .

Here is a link

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/...

I have to go now

But perhaps we can chat politely on the topic of creation astronomy at a later time?

It is a fascinating area

Spike Psarris, an engineer who was employed in the US Military Space Program, started work there as an atheist evolutionist, but left there a creationist, first, and then a Christian as well

Here is his website
http://www.creationastronomy.com/

Here he shares information that can remove stumbling blocks to becoming a creationist...

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) 7 min marksman11 154,681
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min Regolith Based Li... 216,680
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 min One way or another 48,495
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr scientia potentia... 23,492
Science News (Sep '13) 11 hr positronium 3,982
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... 17 hr The Northener 642
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 17 hr porkncheese 8
More from around the web