Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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.

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#150694 Sep 8, 2013
One way or another wrote:
If you have something more than the guesswork supplied by science, I'm sure some here would like to hear it.
Observation, facts and evidence is more than just guesswork. Science explains the world abound us better than religious texts.
One way or another

United States

#150695 Sep 8, 2013
Croco_Duck wrote:
<quoted text>
Observation, facts and evidence is more than just guesswork. Science explains the world abound us better than religious texts.
In the following piece of mine, simply use logic to prove science is right and I am wrong,---if you can.

another thought experiment.
Science, by all its claims and innuendo, state that light photons never cease to exist or that they go somewhere science can't explain or that the light changes into some other form of energy, so the question is, how can you prove its a lie or true, depending on the available data.

I claim that light photons are constantly winking out of existence, due to their loss of heat. Natural light is generated through some form of heat and without that heat, that light can no longer sustain its existence.

If I am right, sciences claims of light coming here from galaxies billions of light years away, will be proven ignorant. It will also prove my point that light speed can only last for very short distances, by comparison

What proof is there , that science is correct?

Can any here defend sciences claims?

The answer follows.

If light were to go on forever,--that would mean that the lights intensity would have to go on forever, especially as science claims that the light and galaxies we see from about 13 billion light years ago, is just now getting to us.

But oh my goodness, if that's true, then shouldn't our sunshine and its warmth reach Pluto? Oh gosh, our sun looks like a street lamp from Pluto and only 0.15 of the suns light reaches Pluto.

Isn't it strange how science claims that light goes on forever, or at least, the 13 billion light years from our distant galaxies and yet, as close as our sun is and the temperature of the photons and waves of light are 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit at the suns surface BUT, when those photons and light waves reach earth, they are less than 100 degrees.

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#150696 Sep 8, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
In the following piece of mine, simply use logic to prove science is right and I am wrong,---if you can.
another thought experiment.
Science, by all its claims and innuendo, state that light photons never cease to exist or that they go somewhere science can't explain or that the light changes into some other form of energy, so the question is, how can you prove its a lie or true, depending on the available data.
I claim that light photons are constantly winking out of existence, due to their loss of heat. Natural light is generated through some form of heat and without that heat, that light can no longer sustain its existence.
If I am right, sciences claims of light coming here from galaxies billions of light years away, will be proven ignorant. It will also prove my point that light speed can only last for very short distances, by comparison
What proof is there , that science is correct?
Can any here defend sciences claims?
The answer follows.
If light were to go on forever,--that would mean that the lights intensity would have to go on forever, especially as science claims that the light and galaxies we see from about 13 billion light years ago, is just now getting to us.
But oh my goodness, if that's true, then shouldn't our sunshine and its warmth reach Pluto? Oh gosh, our sun looks like a street lamp from Pluto and only 0.15 of the suns light reaches Pluto.
Isn't it strange how science claims that light goes on forever, or at least, the 13 billion light years from our distant galaxies and yet, as close as our sun is and the temperature of the photons and waves of light are 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit at the suns surface BUT, when those photons and light waves reach earth, they are less than 100 degrees.
Are you suggesting that powerful telescopes cannot see old stars, millions if not more light years away? Why, didn't you know that God created the light in transit only 6000 years ago so that the universe only seems to appear old? lol

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#150697 Sep 8, 2013
... or perhaps the sky is actually a painted disc, the stars being holes in it.

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#150698 Sep 8, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
In the following piece of mine, simply use logic to prove science is right and I am wrong,---if you can.
another thought experiment.
How about you prove that if Abraham was alive today, that he would not be sent to an insane asylum for trying to kill his son because God told him to.
One way or another

United States

#150699 Sep 8, 2013
Croco_Duck wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you suggesting that powerful telescopes cannot see old stars, millions if not more light years away? Why, didn't you know that God created the light in transit only 6000 years ago so that the universe only seems to appear old? lol
So you cannot defend science. Changing the subject must make you feel like you have answered.

I talk strictly science and yet, you are the one to use religion to hide behind. Your reference of 6,000
Years is proof of that.

Show where I claimed our telescopes can't see out to the distant galaxies!

You deceive yourself and your brain, but that's your choice.

Keep deluding yourself, it must be all you have. However, like all the other Evo morons, you can blame me for you ignorant schooling.

No one else here can refute what I have written above. I've challenged them, but they know they can't. Its sad.

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#150700 Sep 8, 2013
One way or another wrote:
So you cannot defend science. Changing the subject must make you feel like you have answered.
I talk strictly science and yet, you are the one to use religion to hide behind. Your reference of 6,000
Years is proof of that.
Show where I claimed our telescopes can't see out to the distant galaxies!
You deceive yourself and your brain, but that's your choice.
Keep deluding yourself, it must be all you have. However, like all the other Evo morons, you can blame me for you ignorant schooling.
No one else here can refute what I have written above. I've challenged them, but they know they can't. Its sad.
I cannot tell you why we see the light of stars. I am not a physicist or astronomer, but I bet my physics teacher could tell you, and I imagine that others have told you but you didn't listen.

Now why do you go and call me names when I haven't done that to you. If you insist upon being a thoroughly unpleasant person, then you will have a hard, miserable life.
One way or another

United States

#150701 Sep 8, 2013
Croco_Duck wrote:
<quoted text>
How about you prove that if Abraham was alive today, that he would not be sent to an insane asylum for trying to kill his son because God told him to.
By what I wrote and your reply, you're too stupid to see that I don't talk religion.

Go home child

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#150702 Sep 8, 2013
One way or another wrote:
By what I wrote and your reply, you're too stupid to see that I don't talk religion.
Go home child
Again with the insults. What is up with you?

Do you kick puppies and kittens in your spare time? lol

Do you not talk religion because you're not educated in it? That is how most Americans are, very religious, but ignorant of what the Bible says or its origins.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#150703 Sep 8, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
All the evidence IS that they are hundreds of millions of years old.
There is no evidence that they are not.
Previously we thought the Ediacara went completely extinct, but we are finding a direct correlation between the Ediacaran and Cambrian
600- 545 mya giving way to the Cambrian Biota 530+ mya.
There simply wasn't any land animals 600 mya.
Good god please educate your hillbilly self, you're an embarrassment to the US.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v393/n66...
Phanerozoic means "visible life," referring to the first appearance of hard-shelled fossils at the beginning of the Cambrian Period. Earlier, during Precambrian time, life consisted entirely of soft-bodied forms that are rarely fossilized. The names of the three eras in the Phanerozoic Eon mean "old life" (Paleozoic), "middle life" (Mesozoic) and "recent life" (Cenozoic).
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/455...
No one on this forum has demonstrated that radiometric dating is legitimate science.
All you do is mindlessly parrot what you are told.
You obviously have no credentials to determine whether or not such a methodology is reproducible or accurate.
You believe it ony because it is consistent with our worldview.
If you want to get into a discussion on radiometric dating, I can demolish it. It is baseless.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#150704 Sep 8, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
All at the same time, then got fossilized in the flood surely - I mean that's what the fossil record shows ?
(See Jimbo THAT is sarcasm)
You fail to understand that your attempted refutation of the global flood in no way validates evolution...
Unless you can logically explain how disproving a religious doctrine provides evidence for a scientific theory....

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#150705 Sep 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No one on this forum has demonstrated that radiometric dating is legitimate science.
All you do is mindlessly parrot what you are told.
You obviously have no credentials to determine whether or not such a methodology is reproducible or accurate.
You believe it ony because it is consistent with our worldview.
If you want to get into a discussion on radiometric dating, I can demolish it. It is baseless.

Actually that how most regard most everything you say "baseless".
Your rejection of science is noted, however it does not negate it's authenticity. Not that it's perfect, but it is the way of finding the truth, no matter how clowns like you try to cloud and distort the truth ..we do discover it. Radiometric dating isn't perfect , but it gives us a reasonable picture of how old something is.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/...

Our understanding of the shape and pattern of the history of life depends on the accuracy of fossils and dating methods. Some critics, particularly religious fundamentalists, argue that neither fossils nor dating can be trusted, and that their interpretations are better. Other critics, perhaps more familiar with the data, question certain aspects of the quality of the fossil record and of its dating. These skeptics do not provide scientific evidence for their views. Current understanding of the history of life is probably close to the truth because it is based on repeated and careful testing and consideration of data.

The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them:
Millions of fossils have been discovered.

They cannot deny that hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world. Perhaps some would argue that these specimens - huge skeletons of dinosaurs, blocks from ancient shell beds containing hundreds of specimens, delicately preserved fern fronds — have been manufactured by scientists to confuse the public. This is clearly ludicrous.

Some skeptics believe that all fossils are the same age.

Otherwise, religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noah’s flood. How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained. Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow ‘drowned’ by the flood.

Rejecting fossil data cannot be supported by proof.

The rejection of dating by religious fundamentalists is easier for them to make, but harder for them to demonstrate. The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ben...
One way or another

United States

#150706 Sep 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You fail to understand that your attempted refutation of the global flood in no way validates evolution...
Unless you can logically explain how disproving a religious doctrine provides evidence for a scientific theory....
Like I said, you have impeccable logic. I'm waiting for you to show how my work is wrong.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150707 Sep 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Radiometric dating as it applies to fossil interpretation is not analogous to quantum mechanics.
Don't confuse peddling snake oil with science.

LOL. We mock what we fear to understand.
One way or another

United States

#150708 Sep 8, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually that how most regard most everything you say "baseless".
Your rejection of science is noted, however it does not negate it's authenticity. Not that it's perfect, but it is the way of finding the truth, no matter how clowns like you try to cloud and distort the truth ..we do discover it. Radiometric dating isn't perfect , but it gives us a reasonable picture of how old something is.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/...
Our understanding of the shape and pattern of the history of life depends on the accuracy of fossils and dating methods. Some critics, particularly religious fundamentalists, argue that neither fossils nor dating can be trusted, and that their interpretations are better. Other critics, perhaps more familiar with the data, question certain aspects of the quality of the fossil record and of its dating. These skeptics do not provide scientific evidence for their views. Current understanding of the history of life is probably close to the truth because it is based on repeated and careful testing and consideration of data.
The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them:
Millions of fossils have been discovered.
They cannot deny that hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world. Perhaps some would argue that these specimens - huge skeletons of dinosaurs, blocks from ancient shell beds containing hundreds of specimens, delicately preserved fern fronds — have been manufactured by scientists to confuse the public. This is clearly ludicrous.
Some skeptics believe that all fossils are the same age.
Otherwise, religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noah’s flood. How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained. Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow ‘drowned’ by the flood.
Rejecting fossil data cannot be supported by proof.
The rejection of dating by religious fundamentalists is easier for them to make, but harder for them to demonstrate. The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ben...
Hey stupid, tell us, why do the Evo scientists date the ground and not the objects?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150709 Sep 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So according to your logic, all scientists living today will be regarded as ignorant fools three hundred years from now.

That is not my logic.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150710 Sep 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Essentially, evo-morons think that not finding a rabbit admixed with entirely marine fossils offers evidence that man evolved from a worm. That's the depth of their logic.

No, that is the depth of your logic. You really "understand" evolution on that level.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150711 Sep 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Cambrian strata is entirely marine.

What evidence do you have that rabbits didn't live during that time period?

Because there were no land based lifeforms.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Given the fact that you have utterly failed to validate the founding assumptions of radiometric dating in the first place, you have no science to back up any of your claims.

What is to back up? Radiometric dating works outstandingly well. All forms of dating (all 40 some of them) confirm and cross validate one another.

That is the beauty in finding multiple ways of verification.

Multiple lines of evidence (for example the 29+ evidences for Macroevolution) are stronger than a single line of evidence.

That is what gives us an extraordinarily high degree of confidence in evolution.

“It Is What It Is”

Level 2

Since: Jul 13

Alberta, Canada

#150712 Sep 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. We mock what we fear to understand.
Yes you do! That is why you mock God and creation for your fear of it!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150713 Sep 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your hate-filled tirades are transparent.
If you truly believe in the atheistic religion that you've chosen, then you would conclude that all people, including me, are robots,...defined only by their genetics and environment.
You yelling at me is, according to your worldview, no less idiotic than someone yelling at his computer when it doesn't do what he wants it to do.

This is not what Mike expressed. You are just making things up and putting them into his mouth.

Isn't that childish in the extreme?

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 24 min replaytime 201,766
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr IB DaMann 16,406
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr IB DaMann 40,836
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 2 hr DanFromSmithville 294
Sun could not have formed as thought 4 hr Creationtruth 1
The conscious God or the inanimate nature 5 hr THE LONE WORKER 68
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... 10 hr MIDutch 24
More from around the web