Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."

Comments (Page 6,300)

Showing posts 125,981 - 126,000 of168,470
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129202
May 6, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You are nothing less than a spineless go-with-the-flow atheist.
Its always funny hearing an accusation of spinelessness from someone who is so afraid of death that he will deny all of biology, geology, cosmology, and physics in order to maintain the fairy tale that if he promises to be a good boy, God will let him live forever.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129203
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell this rubbish to a geologist. No levels? The "levels" were recognised long before anyone had any idea how old they were, and long before the theory of evolution. Ever seen pictures of the Grand Canyon? See those horizontal stratifications?
As for your claim that fossils are found "anywhere", it's utterly ridiculous. There are no mammal or bird fossils at all in the lowest 2/3rds of the post cambrian layering. Anywhere. In. The. World. Ever. But there are plenty of other creatures - all more primitive.
And, you do not even know the meaning of the word "uniformitarian", since you misuse the term continually. It is the assumption that the same physical principles applied in the past as they do today. That is not incompatible with periods of extreme vulcanism, asteroid strikes, and ice ages. Nor, of course with corresponding periods of evolutionary change and relative stability, as evolution is adaptation to environment and rapid changes in the environment correspond to more rapid changes in living populations.
Now you're really showing your ignorance of reality. I didn't say there weren't stratas of different types of rock as like the Grand Canyon; I said they don't represent layers of time in flood geology. And rejected uniformatarianism DOES preclude preclude evolution all together. What I point out is that in flood geology from a young earth perspective, there is nothing data-sensitive related to the type of rock layers you find. And that is what we find, trilobites found right along with dinosaur bones. Well, any type of fossil is found right along side any other fossil. That is the reality. With evolution, you can label a trilobite late "Cambrian" and then walk a few yards and strike your pick axe to uncover a dinosaur bone and magically you've hit "Cretaceaous" rock. If you don't believe me, go to Utah in Dinosaur National Monument in Utah where this happens all the time. And the behavior of the animals in response to rising flood waters is just one of the possible explanations. There are at least three others. SO your ignorance of flood geology. And finally, please, there are no lower or upper or middle or any depth-related layers! They just declare the dates based on the fossil findings and explain it away. The layers, the depths, the dates....it's all subject to interpretation to make the theory work.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129204
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its always funny hearing an accusation of spinelessness from someone who is so afraid of death that he will deny all of biology, geology, cosmology, and physics in order to maintain the fairy tale that if he promises to be a good boy, God will let him live forever.
You sure have skewed view of things. First of all, Christians are no more scared of death than anyone else. People in general tend to deny their own mortality and rarely think about their death until it comes knocking on the door. Dying saved Christians do tend to leave this world in peace with a smile on their face while atheists tend to die in terror and agony. And denying science is the last thing a Christian would do - it's inseparable. Finally, Christains don't get to Heaven through "good works". It is by faith alone. Man, you were wrong on all accounts.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129205
May 7, 2013
 
Urb, the problem with flood geology is that it does not work.

It cannot explain the fossil record. It cannot explain the geologic column. There are so many claims of it that are laughably ridiculous that you cannot find anything that supports it in the world of science.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129206
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its always funny hearing an accusation of spinelessness from someone who is so afraid of death that he will deny all of biology, geology, cosmology, and physics in order to maintain the fairy tale that if he promises to be a good boy, God will let him live forever.
Why do you presume to know anything about my religious beliefs? There is no observable fact of biology, cosmology geology or physics that indicates that mindless forces can produce complexity. You're the one mired in religious dogma.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129207
May 7, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you presume to know anything about my religious beliefs? There is no observable fact of biology, cosmology geology or physics that indicates that mindless forces can produce complexity. You're the one mired in religious dogma.
When you constantly lie to protect your silly beliefs they give us a pretty good indication what they are.

Your last statement has been blown out of the water so many times that you can no longer claim ignorance. It is a flat out lie.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129208
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
Urb, the problem with flood geology is that it does not work.
It cannot explain the fossil record. It cannot explain the geologic column. There are so many claims of it that are laughably ridiculous that you cannot find anything that supports it in the world of science.
Sure it does. It explains what we observe. PS - there is no geologic column. We laugh at you too by the way. Evolution is ridiculous.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129209
May 7, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it does. It explains what we observe. PS - there is no geologic column. We laugh at you too by the way. Evolution is ridiculous.
No, the failures of flood geology have been gone over many times before. You cannot explain why we see a "sorting" of the fossils. None of the flood geology explanations are consistent with observation. That is a polite way of saying they are full of crap.

And yes, there is a geologic column. Lies by creatards do not change observable facts.

And yes, you hypocrites can laugh at us but you still drive cars that are fueled by oil found with real geology, not with flood geology. You use computers and TV's that rely on science that says the Earth is billions of years old not thousands.

You use modern medicine that relies on evolutionary theory to develop new antibiotics. And I can link you with videos telling you how evolutionary biology is used in analysis of many diseases.

You will of course continue to be a hypocrite while using modern technology while denying the science behind it.

Most people don't like lying hypocrites. Is it any wonder that very few people like creatards?
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129210
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the failures of flood geology have been gone over many times before. You cannot explain why we see a "sorting" of the fossils. None of the flood geology explanations are consistent with observation. That is a polite way of saying they are full of crap.
And yes, there is a geologic column. Lies by creatards do not change observable facts.
And yes, you hypocrites can laugh at us but you still drive cars that are fueled by oil found with real geology, not with flood geology. You use computers and TV's that rely on science that says the Earth is billions of years old not thousands.
You use modern medicine that relies on evolutionary theory to develop new antibiotics. And I can link you with videos telling you how evolutionary biology is used in analysis of many diseases.
You will of course continue to be a hypocrite while using modern technology while denying the science behind it.
Most people don't like lying hypocrites. Is it any wonder that very few people like creatards?
The geologic column to whioh you refer is nothing more than a bedtime story. The predictable sequences that you imagine do not exist.
Your references to modern medicine relying of evolutionary theory are likewise asinine. No research in any area of modern medicine takes evolution into account... it is IRRELEVANT.

SZ, you only reveal your abject stupidity when you make such absurd statements that do not bear any semblance of credibility.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129211
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
When you constantly lie to protect your silly beliefs they give us a pretty good indication what they are.
Your last statement has been blown out of the water so many times that you can no longer claim ignorance. It is a flat out lie.
My "silly beliefs"?
You think that man evolved from a worm... and you call my beliefs "silly"?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129212
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the failures of flood geology have been gone over many times before. You cannot explain why we see a "sorting" of the fossils. None of the flood geology explanations are consistent with observation. That is a polite way of saying they are full of crap.
And yes, there is a geologic column. Lies by creatards do not change observable facts.
And yes, you hypocrites can laugh at us but you still drive cars that are fueled by oil found with real geology, not with flood geology. You use computers and TV's that rely on science that says the Earth is billions of years old not thousands.
You use modern medicine that relies on evolutionary theory to develop new antibiotics. And I can link you with videos telling you how evolutionary biology is used in analysis of many diseases.
You will of course continue to be a hypocrite while using modern technology while denying the science behind it.
Most people don't like lying hypocrites. Is it any wonder that very few people like creatards?
The sorting going on is the mind of the evolutionist. They are not at progressively deeper layers underground as you go back in "evoltuionary" time. If you don't know this, you really are clueless. Fossils are rarely, if ever found in core samples. They are just found at the surface in various places and the location is indexed according to the fossil/evolution date. It's all contrived.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129213
May 7, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no idea what "peer review" is.
The perfunctory rubber-stamping of unsubstantiated conjectures by atheist stooges is not "peer review".
And that's not what peer-review is, and thus you demonstrate your complete ignorance of what it is, how it works, and why it's critical to the scientific method.

Do you care if the things you believe are true?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129214
May 7, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The geologic column to whioh you refer is nothing more than a bedtime story. The predictable sequences that you imagine do not exist.
Your references to modern medicine relying of evolutionary theory are likewise asinine. No research in any area of modern medicine takes evolution into account... it is IRRELEVANT.
SZ, you only reveal your abject stupidity when you make such absurd statements that do not bear any semblance of credibility.
No, the geologic column is observed all around the world. Not all of it at the surfaces in any one location. Nor even all of it at one place. But at places you can observe over 90% of it.

Let's compare the geologic column to a book that was printed at various publishers ( corresponding to different environments ) all around the world. The book is printed and the pages are laid down loosely at first. In some places a wind comes through occasionally and blows off some of the pages of the books. New pages are put on top of old pages whether the wind blows them or not. In some places two copies of the books are squished so hard together that first the pages bend and fold. In some places whole layers are pushed on top of others ( corresponding to orogeny or mountain building ). With all of those books throughout the world. All written about the same subject, even though they are done in different type faces, and even languages at times, do you think an expert could figure out the order that the book came in?

That is the geologic column. It is a book that is written about the history of the Earth. A trained geologist can read it like a book. He can compare one part of the world to another and show what pieces go where.

A trained idiot like Urb or How's That for Stupid can only deny the history of the book. They have no facts to back up their denial, only the knowledge that their invisible friend will disappear the truth is taught.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129215
May 7, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The sorting going on is the mind of the evolutionist. They are not at progressively deeper layers underground as you go back in "evoltuionary" time. If you don't know this, you really are clueless. Fossils are rarely, if ever found in core samples. They are just found at the surface in various places and the location is indexed according to the fossil/evolution date. It's all contrived.
Fossils are most often found in the places in which they are most easily found, which is where layers of the Earth's crust have been upheaved and folded up, revealing lower layers that would otherwise be incredibly difficult to access. And, even then, most fossils are found only when erosion has occurred to such an extent that there are exposed fossils of some sort to indicate their presence.

HOWEVER...just because those layers have been exposed doesn't mean they are recent. If I dig up my yard and leave the soil turned upside-down on the turf, is the stuff that is revealed from it being dug up newer than that which is found elsewhere on the surface? For instance, if I find Victorian relics (or Victorian trash) 5 feet deep, and that layer is then up-ended so it's on top and the grass is on the bottom, is the grass older than the Victorian trash?

The fact that most discovered fossils are relatively easily accessible near the surface isn't an indication of their age. And, the fact that most discovered fossils are relatively easily accessible near the surface isn't an indication that most fossils are at the surface. The fact is, it's expensive to run an excavation, both in materials and time. Just like oil companies didn't start drilling in the ocean first when there was cheaper, easier oil to be found on land, research organizations aren't going to start where the most fossils exist when there are cheaper, easier fossils to be discovered.

Now, if you have a point, please share it.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129216
May 7, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
My "silly beliefs"?
You think that man evolved from a worm... and you call my beliefs "silly"?
Nobody who accepts the theory of evolution and understands what it is would ever suggest that man evolved from a worm. And, because you neither accept nor understand it, you don't know why.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129217
May 7, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The sorting going on is the mind of the evolutionist. They are not at progressively deeper layers underground as you go back in "evoltuionary" time. If you don't know this, you really are clueless. Fossils are rarely, if ever found in core samples. They are just found at the surface in various places and the location is indexed according to the fossil/evolution date. It's all contrived.
What a maroon. What an ignoranimus!

Who told you that fossils are not found in core samples? They are found all of the time. Especially microscopic fossils or even worse for creatards microscopic index fossils.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129218
May 7, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The geologic column to whioh you refer is nothing more than a bedtime story. The predictable sequences that you imagine do not exist.
Your references to modern medicine relying of evolutionary theory are likewise asinine. No research in any area of modern medicine takes evolution into account... it is IRRELEVANT.
SZ, you only reveal your abject stupidity when you make such absurd statements that do not bear any semblance of credibility.
Why do we do animal testing?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129219
May 7, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
My "silly beliefs"?
You think that man evolved from a worm... and you call my beliefs "silly"?
Yes, we have evidence for our beliefs. And logic, facts, experiments, in fact all of science supports the theory of evolution.

You on the other hand have a book where it was necessary to tell the people not to have sex with animals. Seriously, if you have to tell someone that they should not do that isn't there something seriously wrong with that person? A book that has been shown to have countless flaws.

It seems that the only reason you believe that nonsense is because you are afraid of deatn.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129220
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we have evidence for our beliefs. And logic, facts, experiments, in fact all of science supports the theory of evolution.
You on the other hand have a book where it was necessary to tell the people not to have sex with animals. Seriously, if you have to tell someone that they should not do that isn't there something seriously wrong with that person? A book that has been shown to have countless flaws.
It seems that the only reason you believe that nonsense is because you are afraid of deatn.
It's laughable to watch you robotically parrot the same atheistic garbage over and over again. If it makes you feel good to bash others' religion to justify your amoral lifestyle, you're truly desperate.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129221
May 7, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You sure have skewed view of things. First of all, Christians are no more scared of death than anyone else. People in general tend to deny their own mortality and rarely think about their death until it comes knocking on the door. Dying saved Christians do tend to leave this world in peace with a smile on their face while atheists tend to die in terror and agony.
Evidence?

Please, show us the evidence that a majority Bible-believing Christians die with smiles on their faces, while a majority of atheists die in terror and agony.

Or, admit that you're just MAKING SHIT UP.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
And denying science is the last thing a Christian would do - it's inseparable.
So, you accept that Noah's global year-long miles-deep flood never occurred. Great! A baby step forward.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Finally, Christains don't get to Heaven through "good works". It is by faith alone. Man, you were wrong on all accounts.
Well, that depends on your sect of Christianity.

But, to be clear: it doesn't matter how evil you are in life. You can rape children, torture them, kill them, steal the life savings of the elderly in their hour of need, mock the terminally ill, and advocate the genocide of entire countries, but still end up being eternally rewarded by your God. Meanwhile, another person can spend a lifetime doing charitable works for others, raising foster children in a loving home, working as teachers to educate others to become better people, bringing comfort to the terminally ill, feeding the hungry, and giving all their excess funds to the needy, and they will be punished for eternity by your God.

This...THIS...is your "ultimate morality." Which, ultimately, means that the evil are not accountable in any way for their deeds, because they can be rewarded eternally despite their evil, and the good non-believers are punished. You advocate a morality that punishes good people and rewards bad people. You accept that as a just and wise standard. That is YOUR God's rule, according to you. If you disagree, then you don't accept that faith, not deeds, is the criterion for Heaven. But, I don't expect reasonability out of you. You're too far gone at this point to suddenly stop being completely batshit ridiculous. You can't back out, so you have to push all the way through instead, going beyond ridiculous to absurd, and you have to defend the absurd to avoid changing your position.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 125,981 - 126,000 of168,470
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••