Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,162

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

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#138210 Jun 23, 2013
Believer wrote:
Motivation may be the bottom line here.
If you are motivated for the knowledge of HOW life began, you will naturally look for a natural scientific answer.
If you are motivated to know WHY life began, you will be looking for answers IN THE SUPERNATURAL.
I think needing to know both is a part of the human experience. To ignore either is a choice and failure to take advantage of what is available to all of us.
ALL the evidence points to the earth's creation and evolution as purely natural....NO supernatural needed or wanted. It is only religions that try to say everything done was magic. This I suspect (Know) is purely for financial reason, you know, keep the priests and ministers employed and expand the church's power and prestige at any cost.

“Lets all play DantheDipshyts”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

game.of annoyance. It's fun.

#138211 Jun 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What? By the way what are the "highest three" and "lowest three" badges that you are talking about?
The badges awarded here mean nothing.
The badges mean nothing is correct but like a true chaser of nothing you are here everyday to get the points to have the crown every week. It is clear you don't just come to debate because you do what it says you have to do get the points. You visit 100 threads but don't debate in 100. You visit other forums just for points, you chase the letters just for points. You beg for props just for points. You read the sidebar ads just for points. All these points only lead to the crown. Topix controls you to a point. You are a mindless troll caught up in the topix game that means nothing because anyone that spends hours a day here can get the badges and crown.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#138212 Jun 23, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The badges mean nothing is correct but like a true chaser of nothing you are here everyday to get the points to have the crown every week. It is clear you don't just come to debate because you do what it says you have to do get the points. You visit 100 threads but don't debate in 100. You visit other forums just for points, you chase the letters just for points. You beg for props just for points. You read the sidebar ads just for points. All these points only lead to the crown. Topix controls you to a point. You are a mindless troll caught up in the topix game that means nothing because anyone that spends hours a day here can get the badges and crown.
Yes tard, I already explained this to you, but like a true idiot you forgot.

The game just passes time while I am waiting for responses. No one can debate on one hundred threads in a day.

So tard, do you have any questions on evolution yet? Or are you only here to waste time?
One way or another

United States

#138213 Jun 23, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I already told you why in my first post. "Science" does not even claim what you say it does.
There are still a few particles even in the space vacuum.
There are also photons.
There is also a sea of virtual particles.
There is also (hypothesised), dark energy.
But even beginning that discussion with you is a waste of time.
You do not even know the most basic of physics. You have no idea what light is, no idea what gravity is, as understood by scientists today. Yet you presume to instruct them. Sorry mate - you are not remotely qualified and you are merely making a fool of yourself.
You cannot even understand simple gravity - you do not even know what g is.
You have no idea what the schwarzschild radius is.
You have no idea why the moon stays in orbit.
See? You are a joke. Go and learn something.
So you say there is a sea of particles. Does light just pass through this sea of dust? If so, use what science claims, to prove what you claim.

“Lets all play DantheDipshyts”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

game.of annoyance. It's fun.

#138214 Jun 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes tard, I already explained this to you, but like a true idiot you forgot.
The game just passes time while I am waiting for responses. No one can debate on one hundred threads in a day.
So tard, do you have any questions on evolution yet? Or are you only here to waste time?
So your life is so lame and meaningless that you set and wait for responses?? That explains why the thread can be dead for hours and when someone makes a post you chime right in because you have been waiting in the shadows for a response. LMMFAO

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#138215 Jun 23, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
So your life is so lame and meaningless that you set and wait for responses?? That explains why the thread can be dead for hours and when someone makes a post you chime right in because you have been waiting in the shadows for a response. LMMFAO
No, I have other activities. But when I do the thread I do it actively. It does not take very long to get all of your points if nothing is happening. I can watch a TV show while doing so and be done in less than an hour. Except for posting for points.

I don't post just for points, that can takes a little time.

I can't help it if you are incompetent.

“Lets all play DantheDipshyts”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

game.of annoyance. It's fun.

#138216 Jun 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I have other activities. But when I do the thread I do it actively. It does not take very long to get all of your points if nothing is happening. I can watch a TV show while doing so and be done in less than an hour. Except for posting for points.
I don't post just for points, that can takes a little time.
I can't help it if you are incompetent.
"I don't post just for points, that can takes a little time."

LOL It only takes 5 posts to get the 100 points possible for posting. Oh yeah that takes time to do that LMAO. You always collect them in mere minutes in "posting for points" LMMFAO

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#138217 Jun 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the article STATED that K-Ar was accurate down to 100,000 years. STATING is not DEMONSTRATING.
I'll tell you what's absurd.
You peddle as science cheap evolutionist BS.

I already gave you the quote you were in error about.

That refutes your thesis.

As you can look up K-Ar dating on a plethora of sites and get the same general range you are not just being stupid; you are being INTENTIONALLY stupid.

Anyhoot, you get the point for the unsupported assertion. Your streak remains.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#138218 Jun 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Kelvin was not the only eminent scientist who claimed that scientific evidence for ID exists. Add to the list Einstein, Newton, and Pasteur.


None of the above supported ID.

ID did not exist as a concept till 1982.

Pasteur was a creationist.

Einstein supported evolution.

Newton cannot be classified by any of those terms as none of them existed at the time. He was a heretic by all accounts but a theistic heretic.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, you've decided that anyone who rejects the evo-fairy is a moron b definition.

Got your unsupported assertion point.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#138219 Jun 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You lying idiot.
Einstein did not believe in ID. He would laugh at your concept of God.
Newton was far too early, he does not count. Newton did not believe that mass could be turned into energy either. Does that give any doubt onto Einstein's theory?
Pasteur was not a creationist either. He had some problems with abiogenesis, but that does not make him a creationist:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA114_2...

I counted Pasteur as a creationist for two reasons. The term was in existence in his lifetime and he was a doubter of Darwin's evolution. Some of it may have been due to professional jealousy, but that is a moot point. So, as a forced choice I place him in that classification.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#138220 Jun 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
I have to laugh at the unlimited bounds of How's That for Stupid's idiocy.
He has repeatedly claimed that Einstein was a creationist even after quotes were given that showed he at best believed in a God that started up the universe and let it run. And yet we have Dogen, a Christian, on these threads that believes the theory of evolution. In other words his religious beliefs are much closer to HST's than Einsteins, who laughed at even the need for a savior,and HST tries to deny his beliefs.
As I have said countless times. It is obvious that HST is a lying hypocrite.

I am insulted that you think my beliefs are anywhere on the same planet as HST's. I consider Einstein's quotes on religion to be profound. As to "Savior", that is a word (concept) that has mutated and evolved since Biblical times. Even the Roman Emperor was considered to be a savior. Obviously something has gone astray in how that word is used today.

As to HST being a "lying hypocrite", I think that is self evident.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#138221 Jun 23, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone making claims like you are, should be able to point directly to the evidence. Pointing to a website means little. Pointing to a web page, that's reasonable.
You should be able to write the proof in your own words if you know it as much as you brag.
Show your evidence, its that easy. You should have done it already, if you understand as you claim.

I stated what I meant "There is NOT one one black hole per galaxy. They do not just happen in the center of galaxies but rather aggregate and merge there."

Supermassive black holes are there because of gravitation and galaxy formation where the largest amount of mass tends toward the center due to (wait for it) GRAVITY! It is estimated that our galaxy has about 100 million black holes.

Since you actually may be interested here is an interesting looking site:
http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black...

The nearest known stellar mass black hole is 1600 light years away from Earth.

Most, if not all, large galaxies have supermassive black holes at their center. Supermassive black holes are the result (as implied above) of galaxy formation followed by accretion of stars, other black holes, random matter, planets,.... whatever gets too close.


“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#138222 Jun 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I am insulted that you think my beliefs are anywhere on the same planet as HST's. I consider Einstein's quotes on religion to be profound. As to "Savior", that is a word (concept) that has mutated and evolved since Biblical times. Even the Roman Emperor was considered to be a savior. Obviously something has gone astray in how that word is used today.
As to HST being a "lying hypocrite", I think that is self evident.
Maybe not on the same wavelength , but if not on Earth then where?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#138223 Jun 23, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
People making the claims you do, should be able to say them right off the top of your head.

Why wouldn't you want to learn more than I can type in 4,000 characters or less?

Why would I want to write what has already been written better by professionals?

I know (most) of the driving laws in the state in which I live, but that does not mean I want to regurgitate them on Topix, especially when I could simply link you to the state license bureau.

So, I don't think your request is either reasonable or in anyone's best interest.

The point is what I know, is it? I am offering you an opportunity to learn.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#138224 Jun 23, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Then by all means, tell us why, but, show proof, its that easy. This is your second chance.

For about the 10,000th time, Proof is not in the realm of science.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#138225 Jun 23, 2013
the dark lord wrote:
<quoted text>
i could say that about all of the regulars on here
there no one who takes on the dark lord and wins.

That's swell.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#138226 Jun 23, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
So you say there is a sea of particles. Does light just pass through this sea of dust? If so, use what science claims, to prove what you claim.

Why don't you research this if you are interested. It seems that giving you the answer just makes you mad (as in Hatter, not Max).

There is information in the post that you ignored just for the opportunity to repeat your nonsense. That is not how rational people respond to information.


Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I already told you why in my first post. "Science" does not even claim what you say it does.
There are still a few particles even in the space vacuum.
There are also photons.
There is also a sea of virtual particles.
There is also (hypothesised), dark energy.
But even beginning that discussion with you is a waste of time.
You do not even know the most basic of physics. You have no idea what light is, no idea what gravity is, as understood by scientists today. Yet you presume to instruct them. Sorry mate - you are not remotely qualified and you are merely making a fool of yourself.
You cannot even understand simple gravity - you do not even know what g is.
You have no idea what the schwarzschild radius is.
You have no idea why the moon stays in orbit.
See? You are a joke. Go and learn something.
One way or another

United States

#138227 Jun 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I stated what I meant "There is NOT one one black hole per galaxy. They do not just happen in the center of galaxies but rather aggregate and merge there."
Supermassive black holes are there because of gravitation and galaxy formation where the largest amount of mass tends toward the center due to (wait for it) GRAVITY! It is estimated that our galaxy has about 100 million black holes.
Since you actually may be interested here is an interesting looking site:
http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black...
The nearest known stellar mass black hole is 1600 light years away from Earth.
Most, if not all, large galaxies have supermassive black holes at their center. Supermassive black holes are the result (as implied above) of galaxy formation followed by accretion of stars, other black holes, random matter, planets,.... whatever gets too close.
Lmao
The filling from that site says it all, thanks for yhe laughs.

Can I safely
orbit a black hole?
Can black holes bend light rays?
What happens when black holes collide?
What is inside a black hole?

What happens when I drop
a clock into a black hole?

What happens when I fall
into a black hole?
Do black holes live forever?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#138228 Jun 23, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Lmao
The filling from that site says it all, thanks for yhe laughs.
Can I safely
orbit a black hole?
Can black holes bend light rays?
What happens when black holes collide?
What is inside a black hole?
What happens when I drop
a clock into a black hole?
What happens when I fall
into a black hole?
Do black holes live forever?

I know it makes you angry that nearly everyone knows more than you do. The site is appropriate for your level of education to get you started learning.

It is more than enough to show you what is wrong with your ideas.

Remember, you thought that black holes pop into existence and that there was only one per galaxy. At that level I am not going to refer you to APJ (the Astrophysical Journal) or IJASS (International Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science) now am I. I don't understand that stuff and physics was my first major in college.




Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I stated what I meant "There is NOT one one black hole per galaxy. They do not just happen in the center of galaxies but rather aggregate and merge there."
Supermassive black holes are there because of gravitation and galaxy formation where the largest amount of mass tends toward the center due to (wait for it) GRAVITY! It is estimated that our galaxy has about 100 million black holes.
Since you actually may be interested here is an interesting looking site:
http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black ...
The nearest known stellar mass black hole is 1600 light years away from Earth.
Most, if not all, large galaxies have supermassive black holes at their center. Supermassive black holes are the result (as implied above) of galaxy formation followed by accretion of stars, other black holes, random matter, planets,.... whatever gets too close.
One way or another

United States

#138229 Jun 23, 2013
I offer evidence for my hypothesis, science offers no evidence, nothing but lip service.

Earths vast influence

Make the following claim and offer evidence.

Type into your browser, pics of space junk. The pics will be first up on the page.

Scroll through the pics to see the real shots.

Black holes spin into existence and position!

Black holes are not due to exploding stars.

From what science claims, black holes are created by massive stars exploding or imploding. i see it as the spinning motion of our galaxy at approx 600,000 mph and the spin of each celestial body that spins and rotates around each other inside the galaxy, setting up the spinning vortex we call black holes, at least that's how I see it. Science has claimed black holes are due to massive stars exploding or imploding and these largest of stars all just happen to be in the exact middle of each galaxy? How funny.

I say all the celestial bodies and their spheres of influence, create the black holes.

The rotation of each galaxy is a huge contributing factor. The influence of each celestial body extends far out into space, as seen in the first and third pics on the above website.

If black holes were created by exploding or imploding stars, why is there only one black hole for each galaxy and why do they always just happen to be at the very center of each galaxy?

Are scientists just too ignorant to understand such?

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) 5 min Dogen 134,676
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 2 hr The Dude 13,639
Intelligent Design: Still Dead [EvolutionBlog] 3 hr geezerjock 1
How would creationists explain... 3 hr The Dude 446
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 3 hr The Dude 514
Evolutionists staes that white people are more ... (Jun '06) 6 hr spiderlover 77
Science News (Sep '13) 22 hr Hatti_Hollerand 2,948
More from around the web