Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 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.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#150795 Sep 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Example: If I find an arrowhead, and I submit a rock next to it for Rubidium-strontium dating.
The result is 50 million years.
I submit the same rock to another lab for K-argon dating.
The result is 50 million years.
That does not EVEN SUGGEST that the arrowhead was made 50 million years ago.
You whine about inclisusions. How do you know that a 100 million year old sample isn't contaminated by inclusions?
Show me a blind study that documents the accuracy and reproducibility of radiometric dating of volcanic lava flows of KNOWN DATES.
The first thing we know about arrowheads is...
None of them are going to be 50 million years old.
You can't date their manufacture by dating rocks.
You have to use other means.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#150797 Sep 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its pretty obvious that an arrowhead "next to" some rocks does not represent a sample free of contamination, disruption, or inclusion.
Its also pretty obvious that the vast majority of radio dating methods are applicable over massive timescales compared to any recent eruption. So once again you are trying to measure a microbe with a carpenter s tape. Good luck with that.
As for ancient inclusons etc, the whole point is thay its up to the field geologist to report any formation that could throw the dating off. And he will of course do that because he will be interested in getting an accurate result.
Lets say you went for some medical tests, BP, triglycerides, cholesterol etcand concealed the fact that you had been on a bender the night before. Would it susurprise you if the tests came back with inaccurate results compared to normal? No, because you are interested in your health, you would provide all info that could skew the results.
You cannot blind test field conditions. You have to report them. You are deliberately misapplying the rules of blind testing to add variables that cannot be gleaned from looking at sample rocks separated from their milieu.
A carpenters tape isn't going to measure E.coli to be one inch in length.
Why do paleontologists think they can give a date of 1.7 million years to a pre human fossil by radiometric dating?
At the same time, they get a date of 1.7 million years from a 200 year old volcano and they say that say the methodology isn't accurate for short timespans.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#150798 Sep 9, 2013
Here is the recording of Jack Horner refusing a $20,000 grant to test T. Rex bones by radiometric C-14 dating. His excuse was that it was prompted by creationists, and that "...the spin that they could get off of this...isn't going to help us"
Why are evolutionists afraid of a scientific test that could collapse Darwinism?

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#150799 Sep 9, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
Jack Van Impe knows his Bible better than anyone I have seen yet. You could learn a lot from him! You obviously did not read the scripture I gave you.
You are obviously confused about many things, and my heart goes out to you. But, only you can decide what you choose to believe.
He goes on and on about new world order. The Illuminati, the Bilderberg's. He goes on about what he knows people fear and makes a very good living doing so. Just because one has studied the bible and knows it well does not mean he is God's messenger.

Here he thinks Obama is the Antichrist.


Here he thinks Royal Baby Prince George could be the Antichrist?
http://jackvanimpe.ca/

Here he thinks George W. is destined for this final hour in prophetic history of Armageddon.
http://rense.com/general31/arma.htm

If you blame everyone that comes along you will get it right sooner or later.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#150800 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol, you're just like a little spoiled child that throws a tantrum, using so many capitalized words, as you have no defense. The subject is radiocarbon dating and dating bones.
If Dino's are 75 million years old, it should be no problem to test them with that and then test them with carbon dating.
Keep pretending to be a complete, deceitful, lying, moron, it works for you. Laughing in your deceitful face, you moron.
Thanks.:-)
Hey, stupid! You can't date something '75 millions years old' with radiocarbon dating.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#150801 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol, you're just like a little spoiled child that throws a tantrum, using so many capitalized words, as you have no defense. The subject is radiocarbon dating and dating bones.
If Dino's are 75 million years old, it should be no problem to test them with that and then test them with carbon dating.
Keep pretending to be a complete, deceitful, lying, moron, it works for you. Laughing in your deceitful face, you moron.
Thanks.:-)
Absolutely correct.
I listened to Horner's stammering and babbling about the test not being "scientific".
He said the results would be "all over the place"
If T.Rex is 70 million years old, there would be no carbon 14 in the sample...end of discussion.
However, Horner is an atheist stooge dressed up as a scientist.
He is afraid of the truth.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#150802 Sep 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
Here is the recording of Jack Horner refusing a $20,000 grant to test T. Rex bones by radiometric C-14 dating. His excuse was that it was prompted by creationists, and that "...the spin that they could get off of this...isn't going to help us"
Why are evolutionists afraid of a scientific test that could collapse Darwinism?
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
The joke is on you. A recent trex would not collapse darwinism anyway. Evolution does not put an expiry date on species. There could be dinos living in the Congo today and it still would not falsify evolution. Not sure how many times it has to be explained to you but one distant day you might get it. A recent highly derived species that is found predating its possible evolutionary antecedents. That is what you need to find. And I am prety confident, never will.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#150803 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol, you're just like a little spoiled child that throws a tantrum, using so many capitalized words, as you have no defense. The subject is radiocarbon dating and dating bones.
If Dino's are 75 million years old, it should be no problem to test them with that and then test them with carbon dating.
Keep pretending to be a complete, deceitful, lying, moron, it works for you. Laughing in your deceitful face, you moron.
Thanks.:-)
You asked a question. I answered it honestly. You are too stupid to understand the simple phrase "apart from radiocarbon dating".

End of story as always. Always trying to show I am lying and always failing. You might as well go jump off a high cliff for all the use you are around here.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#150804 Sep 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
Here is the recording of Jack Horner refusing a $20,000 grant to test T. Rex bones by radiometric C-14 dating. His excuse was that it was prompted by creationists, and that "...the spin that they could get off of this...isn't going to help us"
Why are evolutionists afraid of a scientific test that could collapse Darwinism?
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
He refuses to do a test that will give a skewed result, it is known it will give a skewed result. So how do you think this will prove anything other than dating a 65 million year old bone with C14 will lead to a skewed result? Willful stupidity?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#150805 Sep 9, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, stupid! You can't date something '75 millions years old' with radiocarbon dating.
If it IS 75 million years old, the NO CARBON-14 will be detected.
Carbon-14 dating could DISPROVE that the bone is 75 million years old.
It's obvious that Horner is afraid of a scientific test that could debunk his religion.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#150807 Sep 9, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
Read SZs most recent comment above and you can make that our argument to this question. You have a double standard when it comes to evidence. Sometimes the absence of natural evidence in science is an argument for supernatural evidence of creation.
We believe intelligence transcends the natural evidence!
I have no problem understanding SZ's post. It's obvious. I could elaborate on it, which you wouldn't comprehend any better, or I can say*:

There is zero evidence of Noah's flood. Zero evidence that there were 4 breeding pairs of humans following it. Zero evidence that there was one breeding pair of humans preceding it. Zero evidence of NT miracles. The abject lack of evidence is no indication that a deity has intervened to create the planet, life on the planet or even a test of faith for a culture. Yet you perceive quibbling about "gaps" in the fossil record over the span of hundreds of millions of years as a coup. Even a generation by generation fossil record would not be "intelligent" enough to overcome the towering babble of double standards erected through religious bigotry.

THAT delusional wall of ego is the "intelligence" that trumps evidence (whether is is missing or not)- and proves to you that the metaphysical, theological and supernatural is at work. You aver that believers operate from a higher plane of knowledge and wisdom - the pinnacle of hubris. Bravo, Sherlock. Your Special Powers have deduced that evidence is illusion, absence is presence and reality is dictated by markings on clay tablets and sheeps' skins. Do you even >care< how erroneous and nonsensical that is?

*Which I seriously doubt you can comprehend, either.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#150808 Sep 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The joke is on you. A recent trex would not collapse darwinism anyway. Evolution does not put an expiry date on species. There could be dinos living in the Congo today and it still would not falsify evolution. Not sure how many times it has to be explained to you but one distant day you might get it. A recent highly derived species that is found predating its possible evolutionary antecedents. That is what you need to find. And I am prety confident, never will.
A recent T. Rex would demolish the validity of radiometric dating as it applies to the fossil record.
You claim that T. rex has been scientifically documented to be 67 million years old.
What is Horner afraid of?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#150809 Sep 9, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
He refuses to do a test that will give a skewed result, it is known it will give a skewed result. So how do you think this will prove anything other than dating a 65 million year old bone with C14 will lead to a skewed result? Willful stupidity?
What sort of "skewed result" do you have in mind?
If the fossil is 67 million years old, then no carbon-14 will be detected.
I'm not impressed by your evo-babbling.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#150811 Sep 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The joke is on you. A recent trex would not collapse darwinism anyway. Evolution does not put an expiry date on species. There could be dinos living in the Congo today and it still would not falsify evolution. Not sure how many times it has to be explained to you but one distant day you might get it. A recent highly derived species that is found predating its possible evolutionary antecedents. That is what you need to find. And I am prety confident, never will.
Of course I won't.
If I found the proverbial arrowhead in 50 million year old strata, you would say..."We know it's not 50 million years old because we know that man hasn't been on the earth that long."
HTS

Englewood, CO

#150812 Sep 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The joke is on you. A recent trex would not collapse darwinism anyway. Evolution does not put an expiry date on species. There could be dinos living in the Congo today and it still would not falsify evolution. Not sure how many times it has to be explained to you but one distant day you might get it. A recent highly derived species that is found predating its possible evolutionary antecedents. That is what you need to find. And I am prety confident, never will.
Explain, then, why you rely on index fossils to date newly found fossils.
What guarantee do you have that any fossil is confined to any geologic time period.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#150814 Sep 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely correct.
I listened to Horner's stammering and babbling about the test not being "scientific".
He said the results would be "all over the place"
If T.Rex is 70 million years old, there would be no carbon 14 in the sample...end of discussion.
However, Horner is an atheist stooge dressed up as a scientist.
He is afraid of the truth.
Not if the sample had been contaminated. Was the fossil subject to groundwater? That could easily contaminate it. Remember, the least bit of contamination of C14 would give a false date. It takes very little contaminate to give a false date.
Mugwump

UK

#150815 Sep 9, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, stupid! You can't date something '75 millions years old' with radiocarbon dating.
Moron - you can if you do the test a million times and sum up the results

:-)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#150816 Sep 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If it IS 75 million years old, the NO CARBON-14 will be detected.
Carbon-14 dating could DISPROVE that the bone is 75 million years old.
It's obvious that Horner is afraid of a scientific test that could debunk his religion.
It is obvious that you don't know a damn thing about radiometric dating, noise floors or the limitations of the equipment used. If you try to measure something out of the range of the instruments you get bullshit answers. So STFU, you ignorant buffoon.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#150817 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya got one, hey everybody, Mikey the moron got one.
I should have said, radioactive dating.
Doesn't matter. You're still wrong and still an idiot.
One way or another

United States

#150818 Sep 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain, then, why you rely on index fossils to date newly found fossils.
What guarantee do you have that any fossil is confined to any geologic time period.
I keep saying your logic is impeccable, one day ya gotta use it against my work or else how can I get any smarter?

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) 13 min IB DaMann 58,094
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 34 min Endofdays 159,306
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Eagle 12 27,275
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 5 hr Dogen 1,904
News Intelligent Design Education Day Feb 19 replaytime 2
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Feb 19 replaytime 219,597
News Betsy DeVos' Code Words for Creationism Offshoo... Feb 16 scientia potentia... 1
More from around the web