Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180388 comments on the www.scientificblogging.com story from Feb 24, 2008, titled Should evolution be taught in high school?. In it, www.scientificblogging.com reports that:

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."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143670 Jul 21, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
All your going to get is some Talkorigins sketch artist bs... They flat out do not have the fossils... I know I've researched endlessly... Goose egg..

ROTFLMFAO.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143671 Jul 21, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
But yet for all your BS you cannot produce the fossils... Billions remember?... Perhaps somebody can find an extra ape jaw bone to place on human remains again huh?

we have more than enough fossils to demonstrate human evolution. At this point we are trying to find out more about the tree branches so we know which species is sequentially related to which other species (and to find more transnationals).


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143672 Jul 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really. It's pretty much passť now. You should take an evotard refresher course.

Sorry, but he is right. Horse evolution is pretty clear.

I know creationist sites lie about everything, which you would know if you ever read any real science.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#143673 Jul 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. The fact is that all of the evidence supports what we claim.
Your side cannot even come up with a scientific hypothesis that predicts what we would see due to creation.
You cannot explain the fossil record.
We can.
You cannot explain the many biological hierarchies that exist.
Such as:
Homology, you can't, we can.
DNA relatedness, you can't, we can.
ERV's, you can't, we can.
Embryology, you can't, we can.
Taxonomy, you can't, we can.
All of biology is tied together through the theory of evolution. Creationism has nothing like that. If you won't look at the evidence, but instead focus on the gaps you will never understand evolution.
Considering that all your side has is nothing I can understand why you only want to look at the "nothing" we have. Our nothings keep growing smaller ever year. Every new find that there is only confirms evolution and adds more informtation to the sicence. Meanwhile your side continually makes claims that are debunked and that is all.
And even when your claims are debunked your side tries to keep that garbage going. Look at pathetic Urb and his worship of John Sanford. Sanford's book was debunked before it was even published. He still won't let that one go.
Pretty much all lies. Pretty much the opposite of everything you said is true. Sanford's book debunked. You'd BETTER keep repeating that lie because his work has totally crushed your whole world to pieces.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143674 Jul 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Whale evolution. FCOL. From a dog-like carnivore to the LARGEST KNOWN ANIMAL TO EVER HAVE EXISTED? Blue whales can be 98 feet long and weigh 170 tons! Whale Evolution! LMFAO!

Okay, name the above fallacy.

I will give credit for either name two very similar fallacies go by.

[Hint: Appeal to _______]

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143675 Jul 21, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Coming from the google cut and paste king...

Thank you for admitting I provide sourced scientific information.

I can understand why a creationist would not like such a thing.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#143676 Jul 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The whole thing is one big gap. All you have is the rare, odd extinct species. But if the evo-fairy story is really true, there should be numerous complete series of transitionals clearly showing the transformations and speciation events yet there aren't any and likely never will be any.
There are numerous living examples of each of the major groups of plants and animals where their equivalent fossil forms appear essentially unchanged from the "Cretaceous" period. These are fossils found right along with the dinosaurs that look similar ones living today.
Pretty much every life form that has not gone extinct is virtually unchanged from its dinosaur-era equivalent. They're essential the same.
Echinoderms, aquatic arthropods, land arthropods, bivalve shellfish, snails, shellfish, worms, sponges, corals, bony fish, cartilaginous fish, jawless fish, amphibians, crocodilians snakes, lizards, turtles, birds (yes, birds!), mammals, cone-bearing plants, spore-forming plants, flowering plants, etc.
All here living today unchanged from the dinosaur era fossil specimens. The only thing that really separates the Cretaceous species from the modern one is the particular name given to it by the inventive evolutionists.
Even your very best fossil examples are highly problematic.(Birds from dinosaurs, whales from mammals, man from apes.) Much of the evidence of these three have turned out to be erroneous. However, the most flagrant errors are in the area of human evolution. This is all clearly one huge gap and one hugely failed hypothesis.
A careful study of all the fossils can only lead to one conclusion: That there has been no transmutation of species - no macroevolution. Darwin's Tree of Life is basically non-existent. If anything, it's more of an orchard. All of the numerous plants and animals began their tenure on earth pretty much the way they are now if they didn't become extinct. There is just no way you could conclude anything else - based on the all the evidence.
Oops, I have to take a break from looking to see if defender ever made a valid point to correct this nonsense.

You could not be more wrong Urb. All of those groups have evolved over time. Paleontologists get paid big money from oil companies because they can recognize the different echinoderms, brachiopods, corals, and other sea life. An expert can tell you exactly what age the strata you are looking at by its fossil assemblage. Why do oil companies pay big bucks? Because the conditions were right to make oil in only a few ages. You may have the right sort of structures that would trap oil, but they are worthless if the rock is not of the right age.

Urb, why do you keep repeating lies?

When you are corrected and shown to be wrong you should remember that and quit making that claim. Your continued repetition of busted claims means that you are either an idiot or a liar.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143677 Jul 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What an idiot.
There was only one example of dishonesty in your list. You probably could not find it. And one mistake in your list.
Chucklehead, who do you think figured out that there was a mistake and a fraud?

An educated person would have known better than to post this list. The dishonesty is just so obvious. But I know defender is not the source of this sort of dishonesty. He just does not know any better than to repeat it.



defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, Piltdown man, Nabraska man, Lucy, Ida (ha ha!!) etc etc... Tell us all about dishonesty now!!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#143678 Jul 21, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what you get when putting the evolutionist to the test... Pathetic... No other word for it... Nothing but a bag of hot air that can prove nothing... " Oh but the mountains of overwhelming evidence"... Yeah right...
Idiot, if you are going to ignore the evidence no one can help you.

I thought you said you "burnt my donkey"?

I could only find posts by an ignorant fool, and nothing more.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143679 Jul 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It is because there is no evidence for horse evolution you idiot.
You go to comic book stores? Figures.

Horse evolution has a lot of evidence and lineages are well known.

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horse...
defender

Somerset, KY

#143680 Jul 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>No, people are stupid because they are stupid. That may be circular, but it is a fact.

You do not know enough to have lucid or rational discussion on any of the subjects discussed here.

You can't even word your objections the way a person informed on the subject would because you don't have enough actual knowledge to do so.

I am not asking you to agree with what science claims. I am just asking you to read enough about it so you don't make yourself look ignorant.

I think it in your best interest to follow my advice on this matter.





Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>Weird rant. We are pointing out the fact that you don't understand what you are talking about.

If you want to LEARN about science and level cogent criticism about it then we would value your input. But you simply say things that indicate you don't even understand what you are arguing against.
Boy you guys get pissed when anyone asks for you to back up claims... Bird fossils in mid wing development? The fossils not the bs sketches... Billions of fossils, mountains of evidence... This shouldn't be a problem but all I've gotten in return is insults...
Anyone who questions the foolishness is met with anger...
Anyone who disagrees with the ToE cult is attacked by the defenders of the faith...
You are a brain washed follower of a broken model...
Your anger shows your colors...
But hey have another glass of that kool aid bud...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143681 Jul 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Sanford's book debunked.

I am glad you finally admit that. It should not take that long for you to accept something that we proved to you on day one.
defender

Somerset, KY

#143682 Jul 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Oops, I have to take a break from looking to see if defender ever made a valid point to correct this nonsense.

You could not be more wrong Urb. All of those groups have evolved over time. Paleontologists get paid big money from oil companies because they can recognize the different echinoderms, brachiopods, corals, and other sea life. An expert can tell you exactly what age the strata you are looking at by its fossil assemblage. Why do oil companies pay big bucks? Because the conditions were right to make oil in only a few ages. You may have the right sort of structures that would trap oil, but they are worthless if the rock is not of the right age.

Urb, why do you keep repeating lies?

When you are corrected and shown to be wrong you should remember that and quit making that claim. Your continued repetition of busted claims means that you are either an idiot or a liar.
Once again... Where's the bones bud?... Oh you don't have em... Sorry I forgot...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#143683 Jul 21, 2013
Okay, for the idiots out there here is a short explanation of the scientific process.

First a problem is identified.

Second, many observations are mad of that problem.

Third, a lot of thinking is done about the problem.

Fourth, a hypothesis is formed from that thought.

Five, the hypothesis is tested.

Six, if it passes the test it is tested again.

And again...

And again....

After several tests, and possible tuning of the hypothesis the beginning of a theory is formed.

A theory explains how an event occurred. It is testable, and it can be used to make predictions.

The theory is presented to the scientific community as a whole.

The whole scientific community tries to debunk the theory. The more powerful and the more correct a theory seems the harder they try to debunk it.

If the theory survives all of this, and not very many do, then it is called a well accepted theory and people believe that it is generally correct.

In general if a theory is correct, the evidence found in the world will always fit in the paradigm made by that theory. If the evidence does not fit, then there is something wrong with the theory. Evidence is king in science. It alone can topple theories.

So if you want to debunk evolution you will have to find some evidence that does not fit in the theory. I don't think you will have any luck if you keep going to sites that openly admit that they will lie or journals that openly admit that they do not do science.
defender

Somerset, KY

#143684 Jul 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Idiot, if you are going to ignore the evidence no one can help you.

I thought you said you "burnt my donkey"?

I could only find posts by an ignorant fool, and nothing more.
I asked you to show me just one... One... Of the millions of fossils you claim support your goofy theory... You could not... Don't whine about it now...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#143685 Jul 21, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Boy you guys get pissed when anyone asks for you to back up claims... Bird fossils in mid wing development? The fossils not the bs sketches... Billions of fossils, mountains of evidence... This shouldn't be a problem but all I've gotten in return is insults...
Anyone who questions the foolishness is met with anger...
Anyone who disagrees with the ToE cult is attacked by the defenders of the faith...
You are a brain washed follower of a broken model...
Your anger shows your colors...
But hey have another glass of that kool aid bud...
Because that is a foolish request. It was explained to you why it was a foolish request. Do you need it explained more thoroughly?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#143686 Jul 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The whole thing is one big gap. All you have is the rare, odd extinct species. But if the evo-fairy story is really true, there should be numerous complete series of transitionals clearly showing the transformations and speciation events yet there aren't any and likely never will be any.
There are numerous living examples of each of the major groups of plants and animals where their equivalent fossil forms appear essentially unchanged from the "Cretaceous" period. These are fossils found right along with the dinosaurs that look similar ones living today.
Pretty much every life form that has not gone extinct is virtually unchanged from its dinosaur-era equivalent. They're essential the same.
Echinoderms, aquatic arthropods, land arthropods, bivalve shellfish, snails, shellfish, worms, sponges, corals, bony fish, cartilaginous fish, jawless fish, amphibians, crocodilians snakes, lizards, turtles, birds (yes, birds!), mammals, cone-bearing plants, spore-forming plants, flowering plants, etc.
All here living today unchanged from the dinosaur era fossil specimens. The only thing that really separates the Cretaceous species from the modern one is the particular name given to it by the inventive evolutionists.
Even your very best fossil examples are highly problematic.(Birds from dinosaurs, whales from mammals, man from apes.) Much of the evidence of these three have turned out to be erroneous. However, the most flagrant errors are in the area of human evolution. This is all clearly one huge gap and one hugely failed hypothesis.
A careful study of all the fossils can only lead to one conclusion: That there has been no transmutation of species - no macroevolution. Darwin's Tree of Life is basically non-existent. If anything, it's more of an orchard. All of the numerous plants and animals began their tenure on earth pretty much the way they are now if they didn't become extinct. There is just no way you could conclude anything else - based on the all the evidence.
Cowboy Don't forget that all the scientific organizations on Earth support evolution. All the little tiffs you have are moot.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#143687 Jul 21, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again... Where's the bones bud?... Oh you don't have em... Sorry I forgot...
Sure we do.

Every fossil every found fits the theory of evolution.

Creatards can't even begin to come up with a hypothesis explaining the fossil record.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#143688 Jul 21, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked you to show me just one... One... Of the millions of fossils you claim support your goofy theory... You could not... Don't whine about it now...
Every fossil supports the theory of evolution.

Try to find one that does not.

Here is the very first image that popped up under a Google search titled "fossils images", it supports the theory of evolution:

http://www.google.com/imgres...
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#143689 Jul 21, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Cowboy Don't forget that all the scientific organizations on Earth support evolution. All the little tiffs you have are moot.
When did relative "popularity" replace the scientific method? LOL!

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
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min Into The Night 75,189
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 10 min Brendatucker 183
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 49 min Genesis Enigma 162,042
Is Creationism and Intelligent Design debunked ... 1 hr THE LONE WORKER 268
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr John 32,052
GOD-guided (Co)Evolution Theory 1 hr BradWatson_Miami 1
How can we prove God exists, or does not? (May '15) 2 hr Science 519
More from around the web