Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 175,471

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." Full Story

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#163595 Jan 31, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Not with his fundie-tard blinders on, he can't.
And you're too much of a dumbass evotard to realize we both have bias. I admit and even proudly pronounce mine. So where does that leave you?........Exactly!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#163596 Jan 31, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
But you don't believe in evolution so you cannot use that argument.
BINGO!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#163597 Jan 31, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You should have learned from my posts that its a crock.
The vast majority of your non-music related posts have always been a crock.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#163598 Jan 31, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You should have learned from my posts that its a crock.

What we have learned is that you personally have no argument against evolution, try as you might.

But we will patiently wait to see if anyone else, or even yourself, may eventually come up with some supporting evidence for creationism. I will not hold my breath but in science all is possible. Though some things are nearly infinitely unlikely.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#163599 Jan 31, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And you're too much of a dumbass evotard to realize we both have bias. I admit and even proudly pronounce mine. So where does that leave you?........Exactly!
If you mean by my bias that I examine the evidence before coming to a conclusion, then yes, I'll freely admit that I'm biased to logical deductions.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#163600 Jan 31, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course there's bias. But you do it MUCH worse. Everything that you believe starts with evolution. Which is the same type of bias. However, there is one difference: You won't admit it!

No. everything that is supported in science is so based on the evidence. That IS a bias. It is a bias in favor of the scientific method which has a long history of favorable results. As opposed to creationism which explains nothing and has no supporting evidence.

Can you really not see the difference?

For myself, I will continue to have a bias for the things that work, explain, make predictions, over the things that do not.

Call me biased cause thats what I am.

But there is reasonable, intelligent, discerning bias and there is just plain bias, bias.

I will take the former.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#163601 Jan 31, 2014
Has anyone figured out why Urb can't respond to this? I just refuted his whole world view and he gots nothing? Inconceivable.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
If the "we" wishes to disagree that is their prerogative. As I happen to know most of the posters here pretty well (not that I could pick most of them out of a line-up) I am well acquainted with their positions. We take the position of real science and defend it. Are their misunderstandings and disagreements at times. Of course. Then we examine the data an move on. But it is that fundamental agreement with the method of science and acknowledgment of what science has demonstrated, so far, that does unite us. You creationists have a similar unity but it is a bit thin. KAB believes the universe is about 50k years old (his cult tells him so) and Jimbo,.... well jimbo is sort of all over the map and is only a weak creationist so you could reject him out of hand and would be wise to do so.
The complete lack of consensus on your side should be troubling to you. And by "your side" I mean "professionals" that are creationists or IDers. You can't even come to a conclusion between those too. Then there are IDers who also accept evolution.... ie original forms were designed but everything since then has been evolution. You have old earthers and young earthers. You have people who try to throw in the flood to explain the fossil record and others that say there has been a long period of ongoing creation. Consensus is not everything, but it is something and it is generally positive. More important is the reason that science has that consensus: because all of the information from all of the sciences add up to one coherent picture of the natural world.
Creationists also have problems with their criticisms of evolution. Some creationists admit that some arguments against evolution are poor. Others will use any argument so long as it is a good soundbite against evolution and progressive science. Creationist arguments simply do not add up. Take the age of the earth. Some creationists accept c-14 dating but not other dating methods. That gives them a universe of about 60k years old. Others say c-14 is bunk and they may claim a Biblical 6,000 years (for which there is no support). Some may say all fossils formed during the flood, but not all fossils were fossilized under those conditions.
Look at your own "proofs that evolution isn't real". The arguments just don't work together. Science arguments build on one another.
Take a look:
Comets - some have a period of 3 years, some with a period of 3 million years. The last one died on its very first trip around the sun. Most frequent comets have periods and orbits that indicate they had a gravitational interaction with Jupiter in the recent past (maybe 100,000 years). And new comets come buy with reasonable frequency.
Pick a few of your arguments for me and I will show you how they are MORE inconsistent with each other than with the ToE or at 13.7 billion y/o universe.
And I bet WE will help ME in this. If I am wrong then I will cease with the WE.
Still nothing.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#163602 Jan 31, 2014
Sorry for the double post. I hit post and got zapped out to the topic main screen.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#163603 Jan 31, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Beats being a fundie-tard.
How's that? How can it possibly be satisfying to believe in a theory that has no supporting evidence? That is based on "Nothing plus Nobody equals Everything"? How can you enjoy not knowing why you are here or what your purpose is or where you are going? How could it possibly be satisfying believing you are simply the result of random accidents? How could you possibly enjoy rejecting your own creator? How could it be satisfying when appreciating all the beauty in the world and having nobody to thank? What an empty existence. To me it sounds like a hellish nightmare. And you think being an Evolutionist beats being a young earth Creationist? You must have no idea what you're missing out on.

Go ahead. Defend yourself. What is so enjoyable about being an Evolutionist? I would love to hear your answer.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#163604 Jan 31, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
If you mean by my bias that I examine the evidence before coming to a conclusion, then yes, I'll freely admit that I'm biased to logical deductions.
If that were true, then show me your evidence for a young earth creation.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#163605 Jan 31, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
The vast majority of your non-music related posts have always been a crock.
Ditto.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#163606 Jan 31, 2014
Dogen wrote:
Has anyone figured out why Urb can't respond to this? I just refuted his whole world view and he gots nothing? Inconceivable.
<quoted text>
Dogen, it's all nonsense. If you want to ask me normal, sane question, I will try to answer but you are completely unreasonable.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#163607 Jan 31, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
How's that? How can it possibly be satisfying to believe in a theory that has no supporting evidence? That is based on "Nothing plus Nobody equals Everything"?
Pure Urb-ish bullshit.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
How can you enjoy not knowing why you are here or what your purpose is or where you are going? How could it possibly be satisfying believing you are simply the result of random accidents? How could you possibly enjoy rejecting your own creator? How could it be satisfying when appreciating all the beauty in the world and having nobody to thank? What an empty existence. To me it sounds like a hellish nightmare. And you think being an Evolutionist beats being a young earth Creationist? You must have no idea what you're missing out on.
Go ahead. Defend yourself. What is so enjoyable about being an Evolutionist? I would love to hear your answer.
You forget, fundie-face, that I grew up a Christian. I have been where you are. Well, almost where you are. I never as rabid about it as you seem to be.

Why would you ask why it is so enjoyable? What sense does that make? Is accepting gravity enjoyable? Chemistry? Physics?

No, I don't know if I have a purpose (other than yanking your chain from time to time). I accept that. Would I like to think there's an afterlife? Sure I would. I would be great to see my mom and my grandparents again. But I hold out no hope that it will happen. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

Yes, I think being an 'evolutionist' beats being a young earth creationist. To be a young earth creationist means you have to deny your god's universe and the evidence left. No, I am not willing to do that. I may not know if there is a god but, if there is, I doubt he is a liar.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#163608 Jan 31, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
If that were true, then show me your evidence for a young earth creation.
There isn't any.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#163609 Jan 31, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ditto.
Great. Why didn't you use rubber/glue?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#163610 Jan 31, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Pure Urb-ish bullshit.
<quoted text>
You forget, fundie-face, that I grew up a Christian. I have been where you are. Well, almost where you are. I never as rabid about it as you seem to be.
Why would you ask why it is so enjoyable? What sense does that make? Is accepting gravity enjoyable? Chemistry? Physics?
No, I don't know if I have a purpose (other than yanking your chain from time to time). I accept that. Would I like to think there's an afterlife? Sure I would. I would be great to see my mom and my grandparents again. But I hold out no hope that it will happen. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
Yes, I think being an 'evolutionist' beats being a young earth creationist. To be a young earth creationist means you have to deny your god's universe and the evidence left. No, I am not willing to do that. I may not know if there is a god but, if there is, I doubt he is a liar.
What evidence do you think I am denying?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#163611 Jan 31, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
How's that? How can it possibly be satisfying to believe in a theory that has no supporting evidence?

Are you talking to yourself?
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> That is based on "Nothing plus Nobody equals Everything"?

creationism is what it is. What can be done about it.

[QUOTE who="Urban Cowboy"]<quoted text> How can you enjoy not knowing why you are here or what your purpose is or where you are going?

What has that to do with science. You are getting into philosophy and religion here.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> How could it possibly be satisfying believing you are simply the result of random accidents?

This sounds like the creotard version of evolution (straw-man). No theory of science believes such a thing. Where would you get such a notion except from a creotard site?
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> How could you possibly enjoy rejecting your own creator?

Who does that?
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> How could it be satisfying when appreciating all the beauty in the world and having nobody to thank?

??? Statement cannot be evaluated as it makes no sense.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> What an empty existence. To me it sounds like a hellish nightmare.

Shows what you know and how indoctrinated you are into your belief system that you think you have to reject what you believe to accept the observability, testability, etc.... of modern science. Why do you believe such a preposterous notion?
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> And you think being an Evolutionist beats being a young earth Creationist? You must have no idea what you're missing out on.

Believing a delusion is fun? Rejecting the whole of modern science is fun? Rationalizing the Bible as a literal document is fun. Sounds like mental hell to me.

Go ahead. Defend yourself. What is so enjoyable about being an Creationist? I would love to hear your answer.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#163612 Jan 31, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What evidence do you think I am denying?

All of it.

You have rejected nearly every major field of science and all the supporting evidence for them.

Do you need me to post the list of all the fields of science you have to reject to be a creationist?

Starts with Physics, Chemistry, Biology........

It was a long list.

You hate (real) science. I suspect you always have to some degree and are lying you you say you were once a evolutionist. The proof is that no science supporter would ever call themselves an "evolutionist". What we support is science and the utility of the scientific method. Not one theory.

Ask around.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#163613 Jan 31, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I think being an 'evolutionist' beats being a young earth creationist. To be a young earth creationist means you have to deny your god's universe and the evidence left. No, I am not willing to do that. I may not know if there is a god but, if there is, I doubt he is a liar.

Crack! Mr. Spalding has left the park!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#163614 Jan 31, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Dogen, it's all nonsense. If you want to ask me normal, sane question, I will try to answer but you are completely unreasonable.

everything I stated was true and evidence based. Maybe you need to work on your reading comprehension issue.

Try again, and read for comprehension. If you can't handle it I will understand.


Dogen wrote:

If the "we" wishes to disagree that is their prerogative. As I happen to know most of the posters here pretty well (not that I could pick most of them out of a line-up) I am well acquainted with their positions. We take the position of real science and defend it. Are their misunderstandings and disagreements at times. Of course. Then we examine the data an move on. But it is that fundamental agreement with the method of science and acknowledgment of what science has demonstrated, so far, that does unite us. You creationists have a similar unity but it is a bit thin. KAB believes the universe is about 50k years old (his cult tells him so) and Jimbo,.... well jimbo is sort of all over the map and is only a weak creationist so you could reject him out of hand and would be wise to do so.

The complete lack of consensus on your side should be troubling to you. And by "your side" I mean "professionals" that are creationists or IDers. You can't even come to a conclusion between those too. Then there are IDers who also accept evolution.... ie original forms were designed but everything since then has been evolution. You have old earthers and young earthers. You have people who try to throw in the flood to explain the fossil record and others that say there has been a long period of ongoing creation. Consensus is not everything, but it is something and it is generally positive. More important is the reason that science has that consensus: because all of the information from all of the sciences add up to one coherent picture of the natural world.

Creationists also have problems with their criticisms of evolution. Some creationists admit that some arguments against evolution are poor. Others will use any argument so long as it is a good soundbite against evolution and progressive science. Creationist arguments simply do not add up. Take the age of the earth. Some creationists accept c-14 dating but not other dating methods. That gives them a universe of about 60k years old. Others say c-14 is bunk and they may claim a Biblical 6,000 years (for which there is no support). Some may say all fossils formed during the flood, but not all fossils were fossilized under those conditions.

Look at your own "proofs that evolution isn't real". The arguments just don't work together. Science arguments build on one another.

Take a look:

Comets - some have a period of 3 years, some with a period of 3 million years. The last one died on its very first trip around the sun. Most frequent comets have periods and orbits that indicate they had a gravitational interaction with Jupiter in the recent past (maybe 100,000 years). And new comets come buy with reasonable frequency.

Pick a few of your arguments for me and I will show you how they are MORE inconsistent with each other than with the ToE or at 13.7 billion y/o universe.

And I bet WE will help ME in this. If I am wrong then I will cease with the WE.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min The Dude 127,949
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 41 min Chimney1 139,609
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 1 hr Charles Idemi 100
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 19 hr Ooogah Boogah 13,578
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) Wed MikeF 1,902
More Theories to Disprove Creation Wed The Dude 64
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) Nov 25 The Dude 996

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE