Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 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.

HTS

Williston, 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....

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#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?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150714 Sep 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Repeatable?
What a joke...
If that were true, what would be the purpose of biostratigraphy?

If bowling were true what would be the purpose of hang-gliding?

You are so illogical and random. Do you have schizophrenia?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150715 Sep 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlike you, I am not a mindless go-with-the-flow stooge.
I look at facts and judge for myself.
If you'd lived 600 years ago, you'd have called anyone who didn't believe in a geocentric universe as an ignorant fool.


You really don't understand. Scientific evidence is scientific evidence.

If you understood how science works you would know when to place credence in what is understood and why.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150716 Sep 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>There is no evidence that the Cambrian strata is hundreds of millions of years old in the first place.
There is guessing...and that's not science.

LOL. Not at all. There is no guessing involved. It is scientific dating. There are a lot of ways to date things. Radiometric dating has been shown to be consistently reliable.
One way or another

United States

#150717 Sep 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not my logic.
Keep playing stupid, it looks good on you. By your words, you did claim that stupidity, but since deceit is all you have, thank your schooling.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150718 Sep 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So you DEMAND to see mammals admixed with marine fossils, insisting that their absence proves that they didn't exist during that time period...
Why, then, do you so readily ignore the absence of all transitional fossils during the Cambian?

You just make things up as you go. There are a lot of transitional fossils in the Cambrian. Go look at trilobite fossils for a few hours.


The duplicity of your logic is embarrassing.
You believe only what you want to believe.
Whereas science believes what the evidence lead to.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150719 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.

No one on this forum has demonstrated that radiometric dating is not 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 your worldview.
If you want to get into a discussion on radiometric dating, I can defend it. Creotardism is baseless.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150720 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....

Only people who believe nonsense like global floods are dumb enough to believe in things like creationism. Once one cleans up ones mind then science follows.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150721 Sep 8, 2013
DarkBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you do! That is why you mock God and creation for your fear of it!

I believe in God. I don't believe in nonsense.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#150722 Sep 8, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey stupid, tell us, why do the Evo scientists date the ground and not the objects?

That depends on what the object is and how old it is.
One way or another

Sarasota, FL

#150723 Sep 8, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
That depends on what the object is and how old it is.
So science cherry pics, because its too stupid to prove its claims.
Stupid looks good on you and science. And the piece of shit school system.

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) 3 min Blitzking 169,188
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 3 hr Zog Has-fallen 203
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 5 hr GTID62 29
Create your own Forum 17 hr MikeF 6
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 17 hr ChromiuMan 141,877
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 22 hr USaWarringIDIOTSo... 6,224
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Mon MikeF 19,806
More from around the web