Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178616 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 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#176267 Jul 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. You always claim that same stupid shyt. But you are the WIKI queen. LMAO
Moron, Wiki is not a dictionary. Wiki articles usually have links to the peer reviewed science that they are based upon.

Wiki is a valid tool if used correctly. A dictionary practically never is a proper tool for debate.

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#176268 Jul 26, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Moron, Wiki is not a dictionary. Wiki articles usually have links to the peer reviewed science that they are based upon.
Wiki is a valid tool if used correctly. A dictionary practically never is a proper tool for debate.
Where in the heII do you think WIKI gets their definitions from? A cracker Jack Box or a dictionary? What an idiot. LMFAO

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#176269 Jul 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Where in the heII do you think WIKI gets their definitions from? A cracker Jack Box or a dictionary? What an idiot. LMFAO
I don't use Wiki for definitions you moron. You are trying to use straight dictionary definitions to support your claims. A sin a thousand times as great as going to Wiki. Remember, if you doubt a Wiki link I give you can always follow the links to the peer review articles and standardized texts that were used to write the article. What can someone follow if they doubt the idiocy that you provide?

What a Maroon!

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#176270 Jul 26, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't use Wiki for definitions you moron. You are trying to use straight dictionary definitions to support your claims. A sin a thousand times as great as going to Wiki. Remember, if you doubt a Wiki link I give you can always follow the links to the peer review articles and standardized texts that were used to write the article. What can someone follow if they doubt the idiocy that you provide?
What a Maroon!
99.9% of every WIKI article starts off with a definition your retard. ROTFLMFAO

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#176271 Jul 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I showed you a spirit exists.
Now can you show me that the spirit does not leave the body when we die but only dies with us as you say?
Calling bio-electrochemical reactions within the brain and body a spirit is stretching it.
But that is a somewhat allowable interpretation, just know that a battery and generator or any
electrical generating device does not work without it's parts. What we are and our essence us information stored in the brain cells, when the body dies this information degrades very quickly.

Cooling the brain can help if the person can be revived within a short time limit, after which brain damage, due to loss of this information, destroys the essence of our being, our life and memory. This is shown IRL cases where people have been revived after death.

There simply is no essence beyond our physical being, all that we are us in the flesh and when the flesh dies we only live on in others memories, and perhaps if we were video or audio recorded or have written books etc.

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#176272 Jul 26, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't use Wiki for definitions you moron. You are trying to use straight dictionary definitions to support your claims. A sin a thousand times as great as going to Wiki. Remember, if you doubt a Wiki link I give you can always follow the links to the peer review articles and standardized texts that were used to write the article. What can someone follow if they doubt the idiocy that you provide?
What a Maroon!
99.9% of every WIKI article starts off with a definition your retard.

Since we discussed this earlier lets use this one for an example.

Abiogenesis (/&#716;e&#618;ba& #618;.&#629;&#712;d &#658;&#603;n&#616 ;s&#618;s/ AY-by-oh-JEN-&#601;-siss[1 ]) or biopoiesis[2] is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.[3][4][5][6]<< << that is called a definition you retard! LMMFAO

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#176273 Jul 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
99.9% of every WIKI article starts off with a definition your retard. ROTFLMFAO
Boy the stupid is strong with you tonight. The fact that Wiki articles start with a definition has nothing to do with this discussion. What was your definition based on you worthless dirt eating idiot?

What science articles did it link?

Most science based Wiki articles link to the articles that they are based upon.

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#176274 Jul 26, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Boy the stupid is strong with you tonight. The fact that Wiki articles start with a definition has nothing to do with this discussion. What was your definition based on you worthless dirt eating idiot?
What science articles did it link?
Most science based Wiki articles link to the articles that they are based upon.
We are/were discussing definitions you tard. You even brought up/talked about definitions yourself more than once. Where did you get lost at? LMFAO

I think your mommy is calling you for milk and cookies.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#176275 Jul 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
We are/were discussing definitions you tard. You even brought up/talked about definitions yourself more than once. Where did you get lost at? LMFAO
I think your mommy is calling you for milk and cookies.
No we weren't you idiot.

You tried to incorrectly use a definition as evidence.

That idiocy was pointed out to you. You then tried to wiggle away from your moronic attempt by attacking Wikipedia. You failed there too. The fact that many Wiki articles start with a definition does not make them definitions. They go much deeper than that. But then you have always been a shallow brain dead ass hat that only reads what he wants to read.

You do have a creatard's typical poor reading comprehension, I will give you that.

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#176276 Jul 26, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No we weren't you idiot.
You tried to incorrectly use a definition as evidence.
That idiocy was pointed out to you. You then tried to wiggle away from your moronic attempt by attacking Wikipedia. You failed there too. The fact that many Wiki articles start with a definition does not make them definitions. They go much deeper than that. But then you have always been a shallow brain dead ass hat that only reads what he wants to read.
You do have a creatard's typical poor reading comprehension, I will give you that.
the last 14 posts are about definitions retard. LMMFAO

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#176277 Jul 26, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No we weren't you idiot.
You tried to incorrectly use a definition as evidence.
That idiocy was pointed out to you. You then tried to wiggle away from your moronic attempt by attacking Wikipedia. You failed there too. The fact that many Wiki articles start with a definition does not make them definitions. They go much deeper than that. But then you have always been a shallow brain dead ass hat that only reads what he wants to read.
You do have a creatard's typical poor reading comprehension, I will give you that.
Right from your go to source WIKI which is not a dictionary:
The English word spirit (from Latin spiritus "breath") has many differing meanings and connotations, most of them relating to a non-corporeal substance contrasted with the material body. The word spirit is often used metaphysically to refer to the consciousness or personality. The notions of a person's spirit and soul often also overlap, as both contrast with body and both are understood as surviving the bodily death in religion and occultism,[1] and "spirit" can also have the sense of "ghost", i.e. a manifestation of the spirit of a deceased person.

Note pretty darn near the exact same thin the dictionary said, but in more detail.

As I said you are a fcking tard. Now I know you will find a problem with this because it does not agree with what you say. LMMFAO

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#176278 Jul 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
the last 14 posts are about definitions retard. LMMFAO
Get rid of the mirror.

The reason is that you incorrectly tried to use a definition as evidence.

Do I have to go back and get the first post where you f#cked up?

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#176279 Jul 26, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No we weren't you idiot.
You tried to incorrectly use a definition as evidence.
That idiocy was pointed out to you. You then tried to wiggle away from your moronic attempt by attacking Wikipedia. You failed there too. The fact that many Wiki articles start with a definition does not make them definitions. They go much deeper than that. But then you have always been a shallow brain dead ass hat that only reads what he wants to read.
You do have a creatard's typical poor reading comprehension, I will give you that.
Oh I forgot the link>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit

Right from your go to source WIKI which is not a dictionary:
The English word spirit (from Latin spiritus "breath") has many differing meanings and connotations, most of them relating to a non-corporeal substance contrasted with the material body. The word spirit is often used metaphysically to refer to the consciousness or personality. The notions of a person's spirit and soul often also overlap, as both contrast with body and both are understood as surviving the bodily death in religion and occultism,[1] and "spirit" can also have the sense of "ghost", i.e. a manifestation of the spirit of a deceased person.

Note pretty darn near the exact same thin the dictionary said, but in more detail.

As I said you are a fcking tard. Now I know you will find a problem with this because it does not agree with what you say. LMMFAO

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#176280 Jul 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you here? Are you alive?
There ya go. That proves that a/your spirit exists.
spir-it: noun; the force within a person that is believed to give the body life, energy, and power.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spi...
spir·it: noun; the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spirit
The question is what happens to our spirit when we die? Does it continue on or die with us?
Here you go idiot. This is where you tried to use a definition to support your claim that spirits exist.

Do we need to start counting failures of yours on this topic too?

If that is the case I am sure that we are already up to failure number 6.

Try again.

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#176281 Jul 26, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you go idiot. This is where you tried to use a definition to support your claim that spirits exist.
Do we need to start counting failures of yours on this topic too?
If that is the case I am sure that we are already up to failure number 6.
Try again.
Yes and that was over 14 posts ago. since then we have talked about definitions.

and again;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit

Right from your go to source WIKI which is not a dictionary:
The English word spirit (from Latin spiritus "breath") has many differing meanings and connotations, most of them relating to a non-corporeal substance contrasted with the material body. The word spirit is often used metaphysically to refer to the consciousness or personality. The notions of a person's spirit and soul often also overlap, as both contrast with body and both are understood as surviving the bodily death in religion and occultism,[1] and "spirit" can also have the sense of "ghost", i.e. a manifestation of the spirit of a deceased person.

Note pretty darn near the exact same thin the dictionary said, but in more detail.

As I said you are a fcking tard. Now I know you will find a problem with this because it does not agree with what you say. LMMFAO

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#176282 Jul 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes and that was over 14 posts ago. since then we have talked about definitions.
and again;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit
Right from your go to source WIKI which is not a dictionary:
The English word spirit (from Latin spiritus "breath") has many differing meanings and connotations, most of them relating to a non-corporeal substance contrasted with the material body. The word spirit is often used metaphysically to refer to the consciousness or personality. The notions of a person's spirit and soul often also overlap, as both contrast with body and both are understood as surviving the bodily death in religion and occultism,[1] and "spirit" can also have the sense of "ghost", i.e. a manifestation of the spirit of a deceased person.
Note pretty darn near the exact same thin the dictionary said, but in more detail.
As I said you are a fcking tard. Now I know you will find a problem with this because it does not agree with what you say. LMMFAO
So that was at least 7 failures on your part. Thank you for the correction.

Does that Wiki article have peer reviewed articles that support it? How about links to standard texts? No? All posted was the dictionary definition. You posted nothing that supported your idiocy.

The problem I have with this is that you are trying to use bullshit in a scientific debate. How many times do you have to have your nose rubbed in your own errors before you recognize your own idiocy?

This is number failure number 8 of yours in this thread.

If this keeps going on I will have to invest in some score cards.

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#176283 Jul 26, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
So that was at least 7 failures on your part. Thank you for the correction.
Does that Wiki article have peer reviewed articles that support it? How about links to standard texts? No? All posted was the dictionary definition. You posted nothing that supported your idiocy.
The problem I have with this is that you are trying to use bullshit in a scientific debate. How many times do you have to have your nose rubbed in your own errors before you recognize your own idiocy?
This is number failure number 8 of yours in this thread.
If this keeps going on I will have to invest in some score cards.
To quote you just a few short posts ago "Wiki. Remember, if you doubt a Wiki link I give you can always follow the links to the peer review articles and standardized texts that were used to write the article". Follow what you say. Again what a fcking retard.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#176284 Jul 26, 2014
Christian wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't know what your intellectual credentials are, but knowledge does not equal wisdom. We all have a certain amount of both. Some more than others.
I'm not surprised that anything in the spiritual realm "sounds stupid to you." Spiritual discernment and spiritual wisdom have nothing to do with scientific evidence and theory about the physical world.
I believe there are some things we don't get because won't seek them. Spiritual wisdom and discernment among them.
Just as god didn't cause us to be born with great scientific knowledge. Curious, intellectually gifted, and ambitious men and woman had to seek answers.
I don't have the knowledge some have that have worked to attain that knowledge.
Fortunate is the man who has both. IMHO
You've got nothing. The fact you can not prove anything spiritual exists proves that.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#176285 Jul 26, 2014
Christian wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually your response(s) only prove my point. You don't know because you don't want to know. To you a belief in a creator is stupid. You have made that perfectly clear.
That is your opinion and a part of your worldview. Again, freedom of choice in how we perceive these lives we live.
In a sense, our paths have crossed in this life. We haven't changed the way the other thinks about life, but we can use this to better understand one another.
I understand that you can be very disrespectful in your responses. I don't understand why that is necessary in a discussion about science and faith. There is no conflict between science and faith, but you continue to show disrespect where none is warranted.
Religion is for frightened infantile minds who prefer absurdity to uncertainty.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#176286 Jul 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Love can be seen in brain waves/activity.
Research studies using MRI pictures have shown that love can activate some areas of the brain while deactivating others.
http://www.invigorate360.com/reviews/study-lo...
That would be evidence in the physical realm which was eschewed by the prior commentator. And you still have no evidence anything spiritual exists.

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 NoahLovesU 163,831
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Chimney1 141,339
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 17 hr UncommonSense2015 10
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) Sun Chimney1 1,871
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Sat Kong_ 80
News British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... (Jul '14) Sat Swedenforever 159
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) May 19 Kathleen 19,031
More from around the web