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 6,301)

Showing posts 126,001 - 126,020 of171,209
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129236
May 7, 2013
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Now, if you have a point, please share it.
Evo-babbling is not science.
Show scientific evidence that a single step of gradualistic evolutionary transmutation is possible.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129237
May 7, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> If you believe in evolution, you believe that man evolved from a microbe and passed through a worm-like stage. You need to honestly acknowledge what your religion teaches.
So, now you move the goalposts. Good for you. You're a liar.

Are you a mammal? Yes or no.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129238
May 7, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Animal testing in medical research has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.
Answer the question: why do we do animal testing?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129239
May 7, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Chimney, you obviously know nothing about science if you imagine that geology validates evolution. The predicatble gradualistic sequences that you imagine do not exist. You can tell stories ad nauseum... no amount of evo-babbling will change facts.
Please tell us what YOU think the theory of evolution says, in your own words. No copy/paste. No plagiarism by leaving out the source of your copy/paste. Just tell us what the theory of evolution is.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129240
May 7, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no absolute foundation for morality. Hence, you are amoral. Your morality is "whatever feels good".
If you were absolutely convinced that your God had commanded you to kidnap, rape, torture, and kill an infant, would you do it?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129241
May 7, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical atheist BS
You have a naturalistic explanation for DNA... you just can't tell me what it is. You don't have an answer. You have blind faith.
Give me one logical reason for believing that a genetic code can evolve into existence. I'm not interested in your philosophy. I want the science behind your beliefs.
Since when is "God did it" ever a valid means of explaining the unknown?

Was it a valid means of explaining lightning until we actually understood how it happens?

Was it a valid means of explaining earthquakes until we actually understood how they happen?

Was it a valid means of explaining disease until we actually understood how it happens?

Was it a valid means of explaining weather patterns until we actually understood how they happen?

Why is "I don't know" worse than sticking God into the gap of our understanding of the universe, and what useful purpose (other than satisfying your need to feel like you have an explanation regardless of whether it's correct or not) does that serve?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129242
May 7, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It requires faith for you to believe that DNA can form from random molecular interactions... unless you can invoke some law of science that allows for spontaneous assembly of a genetic code.
This is not some minor detail, SZ... no life is possible without DNA, and you have no naturalistic explanation for its existence. You have FAITH that it was assembled without intelligence.
So, you're saying chemistry is random?
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129243
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Answer the question: why do we do animal testing?
Humans and rats share homologous features. If you think that is compelling evidence of evolution, you have a very weak theory indeed. Why does the use of animal testing require a belief in common descent?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129244
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, if you have a point, please share it.
Evo-babbling is not science.
Show scientific evidence that a single step of gradualistic evolutionary transmutation is possible.
Your DNA is not identical to the DNA in either of your parents.

Done.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129245
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, now you move the goalposts. Good for you. You're a liar.
Are you a mammal? Yes or no.
Humans are mammals. How does that prove evolution?
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129246
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when is "God did it" ever a valid means of explaining the unknown?
Was it a valid means of explaining lightning until we actually understood how it happens?
Was it a valid means of explaining earthquakes until we actually understood how they happen?
Was it a valid means of explaining disease until we actually understood how it happens?
Was it a valid means of explaining weather patterns until we actually understood how they happen?
Why is "I don't know" worse than sticking God into the gap of our understanding of the universe, and what useful purpose (other than satisfying your need to feel like you have an explanation regardless of whether it's correct or not) does that serve?
Why do you blindly assume that evolutiondidit?
Why do you arbitrarily fill in all the gaps of man's knowledge with evolutionary assumptions?
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129247
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you're saying chemistry is random?
Chemistry is not totally random.
That observation in no way justifies the assumption that it can make a meaningful genetic code. Dr. Charles Thaxton, a physical chemist, wrote,

"No one to date has published data indicating that bonding preferences could have had any role in coding the DNA molecules."

So what you're parroting is dogma, not science. You IMAGINE that the non-random properties of chemistry justify a belief in abiogenesis. There is no science whatsoever behind the faith that random molecular interactions could ever result in a genetic code.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129248
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Your DNA is not identical to the DNA in either of your parents.
Done.
What a load of BS.
You have no concept of what the theory of evolution is.
Genetic variability is not evolution.
You think that because my DNA is not identical to the DNA of my parents, that you have proven that I evolved from a worm? Does that constitute the depth of your knowledge of biology?
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129249
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when is "God did it" ever a valid means of explaining the unknown?
?
Since when is "Evolution did it" ever a valid means of explaining the unknown?

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129250
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
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.
Decent sized oil fields with drilling operations have paleo labs. I got to visit one on a large Shell Oil claim. One of the scientists working there showed how identifying different fossils could identify and age strata to help find oil bearing formations.

Contrary to what Wingnuts like Urb like to claim, it was staffed with oil company people looking for oil and not Liberal Atheist Professors looking for grants.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129251
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Decent sized oil fields with drilling operations have paleo labs. I got to visit one on a large Shell Oil claim. One of the scientists working there showed how identifying different fossils could identify and age strata to help find oil bearing formations.
Contrary to what Wingnuts like Urb like to claim, it was staffed with oil company people looking for oil and not Liberal Atheist Professors looking for grants.
None of that circular logic proves the ages of the earth's strata. Fossils identify different strata. So what? How does that observation prove that a given stratum is millions of years old?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129252
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Decent sized oil fields with drilling operations have paleo labs. I got to visit one on a large Shell Oil claim. One of the scientists working there showed how identifying different fossils could identify and age strata to help find oil bearing formations.
Contrary to what Wingnuts like Urb like to claim, it was staffed with oil company people looking for oil and not Liberal Atheist Professors looking for grants.
Of course Urb and company will simply deny this fact. There must be some sort of conspiracy not to hire creationist geologists.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129253
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>None of that circular logic proves the ages of the earth's strata. Fossils identify different strata. So what? How does that observation prove that a given stratum is millions of years old?
The age of the strata was derived by other means. The fossils are simply markers. It is not circular reasoning. Even before radiometric dating was discovered it was a well known fact that various sedimentary rocks were hundreds of millions of years old.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129254
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The age of the strata was derived by other means. The fossils are simply markers. It is not circular reasoning. Even before radiometric dating was discovered it was a well known fact that various sedimentary rocks were hundreds of millions of years old.
That's 100% BS, SZ.
It was 100% BELIEVED that strata was hundreds of millions of years old. Radiometric dating has been selectively used to validate what was assumed. Cherry picked data is scientific fraud. It is a universal characteristic of quackery.
I've already debunked your millions-of-year old strata argument by demonstrating that T.rex and allosaurus fossils are not their purported ages. So why do you persist in clinging to dogma that has been scientifically proven false? Your anti-science sentiment is obvious. Your religion takes priority over everything in your life... and you're willing to lie and distort truth to justify your amoral lifestyle.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129255
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
That's 100% BS, SZ.
It was 100% BELIEVED that strata was hundreds of millions of years old. Radiometric dating has been selectively used to validate what was assumed. Cherry picked data is scientific fraud. It is a universal characteristic of quackery.
I've already debunked your millions-of-year old strata argument by demonstrating that T.rex and allosaurus fossils are not their purported ages. So why do you persist in clinging to dogma that has been scientifically proven false? Your anti-science sentiment is obvious. Your religion takes priority over everything in your life... and you're willing to lie and distort truth to justify your amoral lifestyle.
Nope, you have no idea of the history of geology.

Nor has radiometric data been cherry picked. There are a few exceptions and the reason why they were exceptions has been found. The idea holds up extremely well.

All you have are lies HST, why do creatards lie all of the time?

Because without lies they have nothing.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 126,001 - 126,020 of171,209
|
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••