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.

“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

Adelaide, 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

Adelaide, 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

Adelaide, 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

Adelaide, 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

Adelaide, 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

Adelaide, 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

Manchester, 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

Adelaide, 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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128622 Apr 29, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did Ezekiel say Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the island city?
I already told you. I see your mental process is not even up to solving a simple Dr. Seuss poem.

There is no point in me showing it to you again. You would more than likely lie about your Bible again.

Don't you worry about committing blasphemy? There is no "lying for Jesus" exception to the blasphemy rules.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#128623 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)
I can only speak for myself. The Bible contains all types of writing so you need to be specific. There is narrative and there is poetry, etc. So I'm still not sure what you are asking. You should know why I reject macroevolution and an old Earth, right? You've seen my list of 99 Reasons? I am not dodging you as I am right here; I just don't know what you want.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128624 Apr 29, 2013
Urb, your list of 99 reasons has been debunked more than once. You know that they are wrong.

Scientific evidence supports evolution, no scientific evidence supports creationism.

Perhaps you can answer this question:

Why can't fundamentalist Christians be honest?

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) 1 min Brian_G 19,796
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 min ChromiuMan 141,849
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 56 min Chimney1 168,950
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 4 hr thetruth 6,221
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? Fri Paul Porter1 13
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Jul 2 Paul Porter1 197
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Jul 2 Paul Porter1 561
More from around the web