Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179697 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

#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...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128609 Apr 29, 2013
Russell wrote:
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...
What a lying idiot you are.

First I am sure that your odds calculation is just as valid as any of the crap that comes from creatard.com .

Too bad for you that the Tyre prophecy fails in all important aspects. Zeke new that Nebby was going to attack. He wrote the "prediction" that he would attack after the fact. Nebby did not enter the city of Tyre, and the island city was the one Zeke was clearly referring to, it does not matter if there was a "land based city of Tyre" or not, and there wasn't, Zeke predicted that Nebby would defeat and wipe out the island.

You can lie as much as you like, but your own God Damned Bible testifies against you.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#128610 Apr 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Please don't forget that it was I that first called you 'Marshmallow terminator'...

Gooey, squishy and out to get me

And no

I do not consider your links anything remotely like good quality

Case in point is the ridiculous YouTube clip regarding the Ezekiel prophesy

Its shockingly poor quality

Shameful!

Why do I bother?
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#128611 Apr 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Ha ha ha

You think we're done with Tyre and can safely move on to Egypt now?

Uh

Na!

Your goofy denials have not proven anything

I said that was a trash site, you boob

But you obviously like it

Wow

Neatly proves my very point
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#128612 Apr 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yes
I know that my 'sites' are decent

Quite unlike your's
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#128613 Apr 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What a lying idiot you are.
First I am sure that your odds calculation is just as valid as any of the crap that comes from creatard.com .
Too bad for you that the Tyre prophecy fails in all important aspects. Zeke new that Nebby was going to attack. He wrote the "prediction" that he would attack after the fact. Nebby did not enter the city of Tyre, and the island city was the one Zeke was clearly referring to, it does not matter if there was a "land based city of Tyre" or not, and there wasn't, Zeke predicted that Nebby would defeat and wipe out the island.
You can lie as much as you like, but your own God Damned Bible testifies against you.
Er

No

You are denying reality again

Head in the sand, ostrich

But that does not make FACTS go away

Where did Ezekiel say Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the island city?

Show me

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128614 Apr 29, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
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
I am unsure of what you mean by "Ancient Tyre". The subject is the Tyre of Zeke's prophecy. If you read it he is clearly referring to the island city. By the way "Tyre" or rather than the anglicized version let's use the Phoenician version: "Sur" was always an island. Its name means "rock" since the island was a rock in the sea. The kingdom of Tyre was named for the island of Tyre, not the other way around. So back to the subject at hand. Tyre in the Bible clearly refers to the island.

Nebby did not defeat the island. Nebby was the "many nations" of the prophesy. Nebby did not defeat Tyre and tear down her towers as predicted.

It is a terribly failed prophesy. Once again, Zeke was a captive of Nebby. He was ticked off at Tyre and wrote his prophecy after Nebby started the attack. His prophecy failed since the parts that he did not know pretty much failed. The only part that came true was the fairly obvious prediction that the "settlements on land" would be defeated.

P.S. When did Nebby defeat Egypt?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128615 Apr 29, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes
I know that my 'sites' are decent
Quite unlike your's
No, I have provided an excellent site that blows all of your claims out of the water. Most of your sites rely on lies at one point or another. Did you want to see it again?

Your best sites that you post go directly against your claims Squishy.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128616 Apr 29, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha ha ha
You think we're done with Tyre and can safely move on to Egypt now?
Uh
Na!
Your goofy denials have not proven anything
I said that was a trash site, you boob
But you obviously like it
Wow
Neatly proves my very point
Sure, as long as you know you lost terribly. Oh, I see, you are lying again.

Yes, the Yahoo site is not the best. I never used that a source. The point was that the person with that answered the so called question handed the questioner his ass. I liked it because the respondent was correct. You only like people that lie for Jesus.

Squishy, why do fundies think that it is correct to lie for Jesus?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128617 Apr 29, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Er
No
You are denying reality again
Head in the sand, ostrich
But that does not make FACTS go away
Where did Ezekiel say Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the island city?
Show me
I have quoted that verse to you more than once. I tell you what go to the prophesy, find the city that is described as being "out in the sea". Now think for a minute or two Squishy, what do you find out in the sea where people can live?

It is not a boat.

It is not a goat.

It doesn't float.

There is no moat.

Come on Squishy,

Don't be fishy.

It isn't ishy.

We know you're swishy.

I thought the Dr. Seuss might help your thought process. Come on rusty, you can get the answer if you think real hard.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#128618 Apr 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I have quoted that verse to you more than once. I tell you what go to the prophesy, find the city that is described as being "out in the sea". Now think for a minute or two Squishy, what do you find out in the sea where people can live?
Where did Ezekiel say Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the island city?
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#128619 Apr 29, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =sSVRlDGfqCwXX
Nope, just more of the same bias

"The overwhelming majority of old-earth, or old-universe arguments are fallacious because they are based on faulty, unbiblical initial conditions"

Mixed in with some nonsense

"Strictly speaking, something cannot appear old or young, because age is not an observational property. Age is a concept indicative of history, which cannot be observed in the present"

Circular logic

"But if God is willing to make movies of fictional events at distances beyond 6,000 light years, then why would we arbitrarily assume that He would not also make fictional movies nearby?"

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

What seems to be missing is any actual evidence , suggestions for testing the hypothesis , falsifiable conditions - you know all that tedious science stuff.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#128620 Apr 29, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, just more of the same bias
"The overwhelming majority of old-earth, or old-universe arguments are fallacious because they are based on faulty, unbiblical initial conditions"
Mixed in with some nonsense
"Strictly speaking, something cannot appear old or young, because age is not an observational property. Age is a concept indicative of history, which cannot be observed in the present"
Circular logic
"But if God is willing to make movies of fictional events at distances beyond 6,000 light years, then why would we arbitrarily assume that He would not also make fictional movies nearby?"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/...
What seems to be missing is any actual evidence , suggestions for testing the hypothesis , falsifiable conditions - you know all that tedious science stuff.
You're entitled to your opinion of course

But I have the same objections about evolution

"What seems to be missing is any actual evidence , suggestions for testing the hypothesis , falsifiable conditions - you know all that tedious science stuff."

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128621 Apr 29, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion of course
But I have the same objections about evolution
"What seems to be missing is any actual evidence , suggestions for testing the hypothesis , falsifiable conditions - you know all that tedious science stuff."
But Squishy, you don't know what evidence is. So therefore you cannot say there is no evidence.

I have made a genuine offer to help you learn about evidence. Until you do I will remind everyone that you don't know dick about evidence.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 13 min emperorjohn 20,203
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 38 min lightbeamrider 209,421
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr ATHEOI 45,414
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 hr Shavin Marvin 152,069
America evolving into lockdown on purpose 17 hr One way or another 66
New law to further hatred towards police Sat One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner Sat One way or another 4
More from around the web