Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 175,466

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." Full Story

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?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#128625 Apr 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
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?
I was persuaded to take one or two of them off the list but I still have 99 that stand. We are not lying. I wish you would stop saying that. These sweeping generalizations just paint you as a bigot.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#128626 Apr 29, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
I love music so much. I recently learned Eric Clapton's beautiful instrumental "Peaches and Diesel" from his "Slowhand" album. God bless you Eric Clapton. I love this composition. Beautifully perfect fingerstyle song I love to play. Mike, ever heard it? I think it is a great work.
I probably have since I've listened to that album. I'll look it up.
Russell

Australia

#128627 Apr 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Where did Ezekiel say Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the island city?
Russell

Australia

#128628 Apr 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
But Squishy,......
I think he likes me.....

<small vomit>

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128629 Apr 29, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Because perhaps part of you wants to learn the truth.

I know you don't like the quality of my links, but even the worst of mine beats the best of creatard.com . When a site openly admits that they will not be scientific in their approach their articles very quickly become worse than useless.

How was Ozmoroid's clip of "poor quality"? He was correct in all of his facts. He was correct in all of his conclusions. All you are able to do is to complain about the quality.

I would rather have a poorly made video that was correct than a nice professional looking video that is wrong. But then we are different that way. The facts and the truth do not matter to you.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128630 Apr 29, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did Ezekiel say Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the island city?
Already asked and answered tard.

When did Nebby defeat Egypt?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128631 Apr 29, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I was persuaded to take one or two of them off the list but I still have 99 that stand. We are not lying. I wish you would stop saying that. These sweeping generalizations just paint you as a bigot.
If you are not lying then you are a monumental idiot.

So which one is it.

You know that you lie when you say we have no evidence.

You might have a point. You might be a monumental idiot. Only when your idiocy approaches the 90% drool level will I call you a liar since an idiot who spends 90% of the time drooling in the corner could not possibly make any replies on this website.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#128632 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
Isn't it odd how only fundamentalist Christians (and fundamentalist Muslims, to be fair) think anything that comes out of creation.com is anything other than horseshit? Isn't that a wild coincidence? Somehow, religion affects their understanding of reality. Almost as if they're biased. But, that can't possibly be, right? They're not biased. They're the only ones doing REAL science, right?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#128633 Apr 29, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
When your reasons include such gems as "magical properties of water," I have no idea why those "reasons" should hold any weight compared to actual legitimate science.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#128634 Apr 29, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I probably have since I've listened to that album. I'll look it up.


http://www.eric-clapton.co.uk/tablature/eric/...

The recording kind of takes away from the beautiful melody of the fingerstyle part. The lead, solo, and chorus parts kind of drown out the melody. It is just perfect. Sounds great without the lead. This instrumental is at a very high level and kind of gives you that feeling of refrain and reflection; sort of how you feel after a long, tiring chore or party. Play it when everyone is going home at 4:30 AM and all you can hear is a dog barking and the garbage trucks making their rounds. Very cool song.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#128635 Apr 29, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
When your reasons include such gems as "magical properties of water," I have no idea why those "reasons" should hold any weight compared to actual legitimate science.
Of course the word "magical" is not on my list (even though you imply it is even knowing that it isn't) but the properties of water is. This shows fine tuning and is evidence of design. Which I guess, is not direct evidence against macroevolution per se, but rather evidence against the ideology and theory in general.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#128636 Apr 29, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =mFH-sxtpkJ4XX
http://www.eric-clapton.co.uk/tablature/eric/...
The recording kind of takes away from the beautiful melody of the fingerstyle part. The lead, solo, and chorus parts kind of drown out the melody. It is just perfect. Sounds great without the lead. This instrumental is at a very high level and kind of gives you that feeling of refrain and reflection; sort of how you feel after a long, tiring chore or party. Play it when everyone is going home at 4:30 AM and all you can hear is a dog barking and the garbage trucks making their rounds. Very cool song.
I'll check it out.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3031/304290013...

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min JM_Brazil 127,831
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 54 min The Dude 88
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Chimney1 139,509
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 5 hr Chimney1 13,577
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) 19 hr MikeF 1,902
More Theories to Disprove Creation Wed The Dude 64
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) Tue The Dude 996

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE