Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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.

defender

United States

#150436 Sep 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>What smut? That was a very accurate description of HST. No matter what evidence is brought up the idiot rejects it. He has no evidence for his own beliefs.

And now you are lying too. I have never been "called out" or "exposed". Your side cannot deal with the fact that evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution explains that fact.

Now if you have anything at all that supports your claims I will truly be shocked. But if you continually lie then the results won't be pretty.

So here are a few questions for you.

Do you understand the scientific method?

Is there any scientific evidence at all that supports your beliefs?

What are your beliefs? Being anti-evolution is not good enough.

I would be more than happy to help any of you understand evolution.

Yet all that any of you can do is to post lies and idiocy and run away.

HST's latest garbage was too much. He asked for evidence and then rejected it. He is a tard who deserves no pity.
HST has owned your ass!! Anyone can read back and see for themselves... Nuff said..
defender

United States

#150437 Sep 7, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>Just want to know how they are lying for Jesus in your opinion as you claim.
Anyone who disagrees with the foolishness is lying!! It's their only defense...

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#150438 Sep 7, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
HST has owned your ass!! Anyone can read back and see for themselves... Nuff said..
There is a reason he is called "How's That for Stupid".

The fool can't even own his own ass.

I notice that whenever I challenge you idiots that you all run away.

So, do you idiots have anything?

Or are you going to run away again?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#150439 Sep 7, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone who disagrees with the foolishness is lying!! It's their only defense...
No, you and yours have openly lied many times.

HST lied yesterday when he claimed to have debunked evolution. The fool does not even understand evolution. He would have won a Nobel Prize if he could have debunked it.

He is a mountain of fail.
defender

United States

#150440 Sep 7, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>You are SO right!!!- and the stupid Evo-morons won't even admit that the last 7 POTUS have been aliens from the Pleiades.(Except Reagan, of course. He was from the Orion Galaxy.)
We could sure use another one like Reagan... He knew how to deal with thugs from the middle east... The chicken shit in office now has backed us in a corner... Yep change we can believe in...
defender

United States

#150441 Sep 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>There is a reason he is called "How's That for Stupid".

The fool can't even own his own ass.

I notice that whenever I challenge you idiots that you all run away.

So, do you idiots have anything?

Or are you going to run away again?
We went through this dance before and your pathetic arse was kicked clean to the moon... All I ever got out of you was some goofy wiki pics remember?
I simply asked you to show me one bird fossil in mid-wing development ( the fossils not the bs sketches form Talkorigins )...And what did I get from all of your mountains of overwhelming evidence and millions of fossils?
A pic of a dragonfly and Ida...
So save it honey bun we already know what hole to talk out of...
HTS

Mandan, ND

#150442 Sep 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its true that you do not need another theory to debunk evolution, if you can actually falsify it.
However, evolution is a theory generally accepted to explain the fossil record and the attributes of creatures living today. You have not debunked it one iota in spite of your claims.
So I am asking, can you think of a better alternative that explains the life's development and diversity as brilliantly as evolution does, makes valid predictions that have not been falsified in 150 years as evolution has, and can offer predictions that differ in some testable way from evolution?
Because in failing to actually debunk evolution, that is your only remaining avenue of success.
Why do you keep parroting the same thing...that ToE makes predictions?
I have provided quotes by prominent paleontologists who acknowledge that the fossil record does not fulfill logical predictions of evolution... That there is NO EVIDENCE OF GRADUALISM in the fossil record.
If evolution is so obviously true, why do you continually misrepresent the facts by overstatements?
A scientific "prediction" is not made by observing reality and then explaining it in Darwinian terms.

A better alternative?
Intelligent design is the only proven force in the universe capable of creating complexity. Why is it illogical to conclude that DNA, the most complex assembly of matter known, was created by an intelligent force?
You expect me to discard observation and simply accept the evo-fairy on faith.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#150443 Sep 7, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
We could sure use another one like Reagan... He knew how to deal with thugs from the middle east... The chicken shit in office now has backed us in a corner... Yep change we can believe in...
I will agree that Reagan's cowboy politics did tend to work against the mindset of petty Muslim dictators.

Obama has never been too "presidential" in my opinion.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#150445 Sep 7, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
I see others have corrected most of your points whilst I was getting my beauty sleep (need about 12 hours a day) so wont go over them again.
However, a few points that I suspect got missed
A) You say you don't know how ID could be falsified - what you mean is that ID CAN NOT be falsified (and you know what that means don't you)- this is perfectly fine as an omnipotent being could use any method of creation (including ToE) and leave ANY evidence - as I say fine , but useless scientifically.
B) following on from A), you say that :-
<quoted text>
How the F*(k does that work if ID doesn't qualify as science - unless you can give an example of evidence of ID being examined scientifically of course.
Oh, and on the gravity / ToE == Atheism - I specifically said not to just provide quotes (I am not interested in opinions)- so if you can provided specific examples of the latter theory that REJECT ID / Creationism (rather than simply not considering it as isn't science)?
I mean anyone can misrepresent science for a particular aim, you yourself insist Hitler used Evolution as justification for genocide.
To be fair you also say that Hitler ordered the destruction of Darwin's work so he (Hitler) could claim Darwin's work as his own ... so maybe we shouldn't set to much store by your opinion.
(The above is COMEDY GOLD bought to you by "How's That For Stupid Entertainment Media Services")
So fancy addressing any of these points ..... thought not
Nice dodge, Mugwump.
Yet again you failed miserably to address my point, because you have no answer.
You say ID cannot be examined scientifically.
Why, then, do leading evolutionary biologists from Darwin to now present as evidence for evolution arguments that life is poorly designed?

I don't expect a straight answer from you, given your past refusal to confront the fallacies of your logic.

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

London, UK

#150446 Sep 7, 2013
science is vastly becoming hyper complex.
and the algebraic systems used are becoming hyper complex too.
that means that the technology produced by
all those scientific equations
will gradually become hyper complex.

that means as scientists we must respond
to the market forces of international science
with science creation that is of
an hyper complexity.

in the world of science
there is a severe problem
in that there are two many dumb asses,
sadly this means that all the easy kinds of science
have already been contemplated
and reams have been written in
scientific journals about them too.

so lets gets booted and ready for some serious science guys.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#150447 Sep 7, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
We went through this dance before and your pathetic arse was kicked clean to the moon... All I ever got out of you was some goofy wiki pics remember?
I simply asked you to show me one bird fossil in mid-wing development ( the fossils not the bs sketches form Talkorigins )...And what did I get from all of your mountains of overwhelming evidence and millions of fossils?
A pic of a dragonfly and Ida...
So save it honey bun we already know what hole to talk out of...
Now you are lying for Jesus again.

And you have shown yourself to be an idiot once again. Who told you that you would find a bird fossil "mid-wing"? That is the way that creatards think.

Now if you asked a proper question I could answer it for you. Otherwise I will simply point out that you are an idiot and why.

Lastly, Wiki is fine as a source for settled science. And like it or not evolution is settled science.

And I have given you much more than just pictures of Ida and dragonflies. Those were probably given when you asked for specific fossils.

So tard, do you have any valid questions or are you just going to lie for Jesus again?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#150448 Sep 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice dodge, Mugwump.
Yet again you failed miserably to address my point, because you have no answer.
You say ID cannot be examined scientifically.
Why, then, do leading evolutionary biologists from Darwin to now present as evidence for evolution arguments that life is poorly designed?
I don't expect a straight answer from you, given your past refusal to confront the fallacies of your logic.
Idiot, I have seen you claim IDiocy cannot be tested scientifically. That means you have admitted that it is not science.

And no, you misunderstand the arguments. What biologists can show is that if life was designed it was designed poorly. There are flaws that result from evolution. You have seen them before but they can be repeated if necessary. A designer could have avoided those flaws.
defender

United States

#150449 Sep 7, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>"It's obvious" isn't evidence of anything other than your ignorance of how science works.
It cannot get any more obvious McFly!!
Complex living systems dependent on other complex systems to sustain life can in no way arise from random natural processes...
So here is where your magical fix it all god named natural selection comes in right? Or will you state that NS is merely a random mechanism that creates order without any intelligence at all? Please explain... Thanks in advance...
Mugwump

Sunderland, UK

#150450 Sep 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice dodge, Mugwump.
Yet again you failed miserably to address my point, because you have no answer.
You say ID cannot be examined scientifically.
Why, then, do leading evolutionary biologists from Darwin to now present as evidence for evolution arguments that life is poorly designed?
I don't expect a straight answer from you, given your past refusal to confront the fallacies of your logic.
Who's dodging ?

Darwin didn't mention ID - ID wasn't around in Darwin's time.
And you are the one whom insists on scientific evidence rather than quotes.

So present your an example of ID being measured scientifically ...

Unless

Maybe

Just going out on a limb here

You were lying

Your claim, your duty to back it up

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#150451 Sep 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you keep parroting the same thing...that ToE makes predictions?
I have provided quotes by prominent paleontologists who acknowledge that the fossil record does not fulfill logical predictions of evolution... That there is NO EVIDENCE OF GRADUALISM in the fossil record.
If evolution is so obviously true, why do you continually misrepresent the facts by overstatements?
A scientific "prediction" is not made by observing reality and then explaining it in Darwinian terms.
A better alternative?
Intelligent design is the only proven force in the universe capable of creating complexity. Why is it illogical to conclude that DNA, the most complex assembly of matter known, was created by an intelligent force?
You expect me to discard observation and simply accept the evo-fairy on faith.
Of course there is evidence of gradualism in the fossil record. You don't have the education to have noticed it. Here is a hint, since land based fossils are extremely rare that is not the best place to look.

“It Is What It Is”

Since: Jul 13

Alberta, Canada

#150452 Sep 7, 2013
Evolution meaning.

Evidence
Validated
On
Lies
Used
To
Introduce
Only
Nonsense

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#150453 Sep 7, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
It cannot get any more obvious McFly!!
Complex living systems dependent on other complex systems to sustain life can in no way arise from random natural processes...
And your evidence that supports this claim is...? Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
So here is where your magical fix it all god named natural selection comes in right? Or will you state that NS is merely a random mechanism that creates order without any intelligence at all? Please explain... Thanks in advance...
Natural selection is clearly not random. Do you even know how it works? It is almost tautological in its obviousness.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#150454 Sep 7, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's dodging ?
Darwin didn't mention ID - ID wasn't around in Darwin's time.
And you are the one whom insists on scientific evidence rather than quotes.
So present your an example of ID being measured scientifically ...
Unless
Maybe
Just going out on a limb here
You were lying
Your claim, your duty to back it up
And Replay Time has to ask how they are lying for Jesus.

Actually he is bright enough to see that these tards are lying. He won't accept it until his nose is rubbed in the facts.
Mugwump

Sunderland, UK

#150455 Sep 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot, I have seen you claim IDiocy cannot be tested scientifically. That means you have admitted that it is not science.
Actually have to defend How's That For Turbo-stupid here.

He HAS claimed design can be measured scientifically (but refuses to say how)

Oh, but actually has also said he agrees ID isn't science.

You are correct - he is clueless
HTS

Mandan, ND

#150456 Sep 7, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's dodging ?
Darwin didn't mention ID - ID wasn't around in Darwin's time.
And you are the one whom insists on scientific evidence rather than quotes.
So present your an example of ID being measured scientifically ...
Unless
Maybe
Just going out on a limb here
You were lying
Your claim, your duty to back it up
Wrong, Mugwump.
Darwin REPEATEDLY contrasted his theory with a model of independent acts of creation, ie, ID.

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.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 48 min Science 83,229
News Roy Moore accuser says she was not paid to tell... Wed Trump is a joke 28
How to Play Spotify music songs on VLC player Tue simones 1
200-125 Dumps / Real Cisco 200-125 Exam Questions Nov 21 MaryADavis 1
200-105 Dumps / Real Cisco 200-105 Exam Questions Nov 21 MaryADavis 1
1Z0-327 Dumps / Real Oracle 1Z0-327 Exam Questi... Nov 21 MaryADavis 1
News Wow! 1st Interstellar Asteroid Is a Spinning Sp... Nov 21 The Way I See It 1
More from around the web