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 7,000)

Showing posts 139,981 - 140,000 of171,199
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143578
Jul 21, 2013
 
Well, I am headed out the door to go look at examples of evolution and the wonders described by science. Last week I went to a large cave, but oddly I didn't see any fundamentalists hiding there. Perhaps it was because the tour guide was describing the cave formation with science and not fantasy.

See you all later.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143579
Jul 21, 2013
 
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if ... Even if ToE held true it could not have came forth without a design... Random processes cannot bring forth complex working systems dependent on other complex systems to survive... And you call this a dishonest argument?... It's common logic... Design is self evident yet you wish to dance around the nine hundred pound gorilla in the room... The only one being dishonest is you to yourself...
Why are all creatards such idiots that they look at only half of the driving force of evolution.

Yes defender, if evolution was purely random it could not give arise to "complex forms".

Lucky for us that is not the case.

So do you know what part of evolution is NOT random, or do you need a hint?
defender

Wessington Springs, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143580
Jul 21, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Why are all creatards such idiots that they look at only half of the driving force of evolution.

Yes defender, if evolution was purely random it could not give arise to "complex forms".

Lucky for us that is not the case.

So do you know what part of evolution is NOT random, or do you need a hint?
I'm begging you to tell me... Please!!!
Mugwump

Huddersfield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143581
Jul 21, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are all creatards such idiots that they look at only half of the driving force of evolution.
Yes defender, if evolution was purely random it could not give arise to "complex forms".
Lucky for us that is not the case.
So do you know what part of evolution is NOT random, or do you need a hint?
This has been pointed out to defender by everyone many many times.

The fact that he keeps repeating this strawman suggests he is either dishonest or an idiot.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143582
Jul 21, 2013
 
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm begging you to tell me... Please!!!
Since you are begging:

Natural selection.

Natural selection is NOT a random process. Combine a random process and a non-random process and the results will not be random.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143583
Jul 21, 2013
 
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
This has been pointed out to defender by everyone many many times.
The fact that he keeps repeating this strawman suggests he is either dishonest or an idiot.
I think I will choose C, all of the above.
Mugwump

Huddersfield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143584
Jul 21, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you are begging:
Natural selection.
Natural selection is NOT a random process. Combine a random process and a non-random process and the results will not be random.
Crazy athesist pyschobabble dressed up as fact.

:-)
Mugwump

Huddersfield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143585
Jul 21, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I will choose C, all of the above.
Actually I would disagree - a lot of creationists aren't idiots as such - but have to deny evidence and invent strawman (such as defender's random can't create complexity nonsense) in order to support their faith.

The fact that the regurgitate even the most simple misrepresentations that have been explained so many times by so many people makes the dial swing more towards the dishonest.

So not exactly idiots - but certainly scientifically illiterate.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143586
Jul 21, 2013
 
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I would disagree - a lot of creationists aren't idiots as such - but have to deny evidence and invent strawman (such as defender's random can't create complexity nonsense) in order to support their faith.
The fact that the regurgitate even the most simple misrepresentations that have been explained so many times by so many people makes the dial swing more towards the dishonest.
So not exactly idiots - but certainly scientifically illiterate.
I agree, I thought the topic was defender. In his case I will go with all of the above.
defender

Wessington Springs, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143587
Jul 21, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Since you are begging:

Natural selection.

Natural selection is NOT a random process. Combine a random process and a non-random process and the results will not be random.
Lol.... It's the (Drum Roll) great evolution god Natural Selection everybody!!! Anything.. Anything but God for the evolutionist!!!... Must we really go down this road with your magical pixy dust spreading again? Information origin, complexity and dependency need a real answer otherwise my point is proven... Evolution is religion
defender

Wessington Springs, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143588
Jul 21, 2013
 
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>This has been pointed out to defender by everyone many many times.

The fact that he keeps repeating this strawman suggests he is either dishonest or an idiot.
You couldn't point out horse shit from apple butter... You have never made one valid point on anything... Please let the big boys talk...
defender

Wessington Springs, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143589
Jul 21, 2013
 
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>Actually I would disagree - a lot of creationists aren't idiots as such - but have to deny evidence and invent strawman (such as defender's random can't create complexity nonsense) in order to support their faith.

The fact that the regurgitate even the most simple misrepresentations that have been explained so many times by so many people makes the dial swing more towards the dishonest.

So not exactly idiots - but certainly scientifically illiterate.
If one does not agree with your view point than they are stupid, evil and dishonest... If one asked what you cannot answer than it's a strawman.. Yada yada yada.... Heard it all... Got it..

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143590
Jul 21, 2013
 
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol.... It's the (Drum Roll) great evolution god Natural Selection everybody!!! Anything.. Anything but God for the evolutionist!!!... Must we really go down this road with your magical pixy dust spreading again? Information origin, complexity and dependency need a real answer otherwise my point is proven... Evolution is religion
I know, to an ignorant deist Natural Selection may seem like a god, but it is just a natural process. We see it everyday. It is not only the strongest that get selected. There are all sorts of possible good outcomes that natural selection accounts for.

Combining the two was a strokes of genius, though it seems obvious after Darwin did his work.

In fact Natural Selection, along with Variation ( I have only capitalized the words for convenience, I might as well have written "natural selection and variation" ) are two such powerful tools when they work together that creatards constantly try to ignore the fact that there are two forces, not one. They will constantly list just one or the other claiming that "Natural selection does not create new traits" or "Random variation will not form complex structures" both statements true on their own. Both shown to be false when it is pointed out that they left off half of the forces of evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143591
Jul 21, 2013
 
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
If one does not agree with your view point than they are stupid, evil and dishonest... If one asked what you cannot answer than it's a strawman.. Yada yada yada.... Heard it all... Got it..
No, your use of a straw man argument was correctly pointed out.

You can't mention only variation in a debate on evolution, since the evolution side does not claim only variation is needed your attempt to make it seem like we do is a strawman argument.
defender

Wessington Springs, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143592
Jul 21, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>I know, to an ignorant deist Natural Selection may seem like a god, but it is just a natural process. We see it everyday. It is not only the strongest that get selected. There are all sorts of possible good outcomes that natural selection accounts for.

Combining the two was a strokes of genius, though it seems obvious after Darwin did his work.

In fact Natural Selection, along with Variation ( I have only capitalized the words for convenience, I might as well have written "natural selection and variation" ) are two such powerful tools when they work together that creatards constantly try to ignore the fact that there are two forces, not one. They will constantly list just one or the other claiming that "Natural selection does not create new traits" or "Random variation will not form complex structures" both statements true on their own. Both shown to be false when it is pointed out that they left off half of the forces of evolution.
Has natural selection or mutation ever been observed to create a species to change into a different one??? Never.... This is a scientific fact...
How do account for information (foresight) for the benefit of survival? I guess Natural selection just decided one day " Hey these little guys here could really use some wings!!" could you please show me the fossils of birds in mid wing development? The bones not the sketches of left wing nut jobs please... After all this process had to take millions of years and you have millions of fossils and mountains of evidence right?... Shouldn't be a problem then... Thanks in advance!!
Mugwump

Huddersfield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143593
Jul 21, 2013
 
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
If one does not agree with your view point than they are stupid, evil and dishonest... If one asked what you cannot answer than it's a strawman.. Yada yada yada.... Heard it all... Got it..
<sigh>

Nope

if you misrepresent what the theory of evolution says (or in this particular case omit a crucial part of it) then THAT is a strawman argument.

You asked how random mutation can produce complexity, but missed out the effect of natural selection (not random)

Hence you were beating seven shades of shit out of a strawman.

That makes you dishonest as it was pointed out to you a few months ago.

Can't make it any simpler

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143594
Jul 21, 2013
 
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Has natural selection or mutation ever been observed to create a species to change into a different one??? Never.... This is a scientific fact...
How do account for information (foresight) for the benefit of survival? I guess Natural selection just decided one day " Hey these little guys here could really use some wings!!" could you please show me the fossils of birds in mid wing development? The bones not the sketches of left wing nut jobs please... After all this process had to take millions of years and you have millions of fossils and mountains of evidence right?... Shouldn't be a problem then... Thanks in advance!!
Sure it has.

You simply don't like the ways that we can observe it.

There is not foresight. Why do you think it is needed?

Now please, try to come up with questions that make a bit of sense.

You do realize that we don't need every single step fossilized to make our case. We know that there will be many many "gaps" especially of smaller land based animals. All we need to do is to show that all fossils found fit the evolutionary model and that creationists cannot even begin to come up with a model that is not easily debunked. Until you find some serious flaw in evolution it is the best and only explanation in existence.
defender

Wessington Springs, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143595
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text><sigh>

Nope

if you misrepresent what the theory of evolution says (or in this particular case omit a crucial part of it) then THAT is a strawman argument.

You asked how random mutation can produce complexity, but missed out the effect of natural selection (not random)

Hence you were beating seven shades of shit out of a strawman.

That makes you dishonest as it was pointed out to you a few months ago.

Can't make it any simpler
It is your side of the fence that claims that evolution is a scientific fact... Religion is faith and I concede that... I merely ask you a question and get called dishonest... You can't answer it dude... It's ok nobody can... I'm sorry if I don't play by your little rules and you don't like it...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143596
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

defender wrote:
<quoted text>
It is your side of the fence that claims that evolution is a scientific fact... Religion is faith and I concede that... I merely ask you a question and get called dishonest... You can't answer it dude... It's ok nobody can... I'm sorry if I don't play by your little rules and you don't like it...
No, you tried to post an argument in the form of a question. Now you are being dishonest about being caught.

Do you need your post that started all of this quoted back to you with an analysis?

We can answer questions. When the question is dishonest we will point it out to you.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143597
Jul 21, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>SZ, I have looked at Barnes and Noble and all the local comic shops and I can't find any of these "creation science" journals. Any idea how you can find them? Perhaps I wasn't looking in the right section of B&N. Maybe they weren't in Humor but instead in the Juvenile section.
http://www.musite.org/shop/media/catalog/prod...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 139,981 - 140,000 of171,199
|
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
•••
•••