Should we really be teaching Evolution in schools??

[CanadianLove]

Hey,

I,ve been away a while, but am back to stir the pot.

I came across this video and need some of the stronger minded members of the forum to debunk it - if they can. I don't mean that they should make remarks about religion and their beliefs, as that will likely lead the thread off topic. But rather to prove statements in the video wrong. I'm having a lot of trouble with it as I am sharp as some others or as I used to be.

Thank You So Much.

Remember - Don't let strangers play with your ORGONE!!!!

100 Reasons Why Evolution is So Stupid - YouTube

 

[Cliffy]

I think there is far more validity to evolution than there is in the bible story of creation, which isn't really saying much. I think the evolution of Earth and most of its life forms is about as good an explanation as it gonna get for a while, but I think there are serious holes in human evolution.

1) the bible is not the infallible word of god. It was written by men and therefore subject to their idiosyncrasies. This guy starts out from a leap of faith and goes down hill from there.

2) Human evolution seems to have been quite choppy with giant leaps in development over short periods of time. We go from Homo erectus to homo sapien in too short a period to be anything other than some type of genetic mutation or manipulation. Mutations can happen overnight (in geological terms), but an entire species mutating would take thousands of years to fully take hold. I lean more toward genetic manipulation because it would explain the sudden quantum leap in intelligence and physical changes.

Although I think science has its shortcomings, I think the fundamentalist religious explanation requires a giant leap of faith that really doesn't make any sense without suspending some part of your brain that is evolution in reverse..

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

He certainly is a good orator and entertaining. As to the Big Bang Theory, nobody knows. But if his alternative is to believe the bible literally, well, I doubt that is true as written. First off, there are 2 versions each different. Second off, what we do know about the past contradicts the literal interpretation.

I think creation works fine as a metaphor and as a Christian I believe that however the universe was created (and it may or may not have been a big bang), God was behind it. But much like everyday life, science will also explain it. I don`t view them as mutually exclusive but I don`t take the bible literally either.

But he is using scientific knowledge and the way its happening as a counter-argument. Obviously the first theories of big bang would not have precise measurements but as time goes on and other scientists refine, the estimates will change. It still doesn't mean its right or wrong but not in itself a true argument against.

Also, the time scales of star creation is much too long to see in our lifetime. We may see a part of one and would not know. To be lucky to see one (well see one several million years ago since its coming at us at only the speed of light) would be too lucky.

Thats about as far as I got. I don't really have 2 hours to watch.

 

[Tonington]

That's far too long for me to watch, but before he even gets to biology he's wrong. Organic evolution is certainly not a lie. There were experiments which provided laboratory evidence of the synthesis of organic compounds from what would have been abundant inorganic reactants in the early Earth environment. In the 1950's experiments were conducted in a closed system, consisting of sterilized glass tubing and flasks. Inside the loop were electrodes, water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. The water would be heated to evaporation, the electrodes would spark simulating lightning in the atmosphere, and as the gas moved through the system it would condense back into liquid, and trickle back into the original flask where the heating process would happen again.

This experiment was ground-breaking work. After a few weeks, a small fraction of the carbon had been reacted enough to produce amino acids as products of the chemistry. They also found lipids and sugars.

That work was conducted by Miller and Urey, and is a teaching subject in many university level classes. I can remember it in three classes for certain. Since the Miller-Urey experiment in the 1950's, further experiments have been performed including more elements and compounds that would be common in the early Earth environment. These experiments have yielded the full set of essential amino acids and even more, as well as the nucleotide bases (aka nucleobases) needed to produce DNA and RNA.

The problem with stuff like Hovind's, is that he zips through stuff as if it were a given. I imagine it would take many times more hours to thoroughly debunk and provide the missing context he no doubt does not provide for many of his statements.

 

[lone wolf]

The great thing for creationists is there are no survivors suing when the story's proven wrong

 

[Tonington]

Oh, and an answer for the thread title, yes.

 

[SLM]

I don't really have 2 hours to watch.

2 hours??? Are there no Coles Notes?

The great thing for creationists is there are no survivors suing when the story's proven wrong

That's what the kool aid is for.

 

[taxslave]

Of course we should be teaching evolution in school. What we should not permit is teaching mythology as fact unless ALL mythology is taught in the same course.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Should we be teaching evolution in schools? Isn't that like asking whether or not we should be teaching chemistry, physics, English, history, biology, and so on? What we should not be teaching is Christian mythology unless it is taught as part of a course in comparative religions or as Taxslave suggests as part of a mythology course.

 

[The Old Medic]

The largest Church in the world teaches that evolution is valid.

Unless you want to avoid science completely, you have to teach evolution in the schools. Only the utterly ignorant believe the Bible's creation story is absolutely correct.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I watched the first few minutes of that Kent Hovind video, until I couldn't stand any more of the man's folly. I quit when he said dinosaur bones discovered in Montana were from a creature that died in the great flood and were only 4400 years old. Up to that point he hadn't made a single statement about science that science would recognize as correct, and several times he was just blatantly untruthful, like when he said there's no evidence for the Big Bang in that ludicrous exposition of what the word evolution means. And this bozo taught science for over a decade in public schools? That's a little scary.

It's just standard creationist BS. He criticizes science for claims it doesn't make, grotesquely misrepresents claims it does make so that he can mock them, denies or ignores data he doesn't like, cites outdated sources so he can criticize science for old ideas science has rejected too, and otherwise just makes stuff up, and lies. The video would be better titled, 100 Reasons Why Kent Hovind Is So Stupid. He hasn't the slightest comprehension of what he's talking about, and he's not intellectually honest enough to know what an ignorant idiot he is. If my memory is correct, he's also currently serving 10 years for tax evasion.

 

[spaminator]

humanity was created by genetic engineering when ancient aliens needed a labour workforce to mine elements.

actually, I have no idea how we got here. all I know is we're s h i t ting up the place.

 

[Kreskin]

Kent Hovind vs Molecular Geneticist Nice Beat Down! - YouTube

 

[Machjo]

Whether you believe the Bible to be the word of God or not is one debate. But even if you do believe it to be the word of God, just consider that the Book of Genesis was written about 3,000 years ago to be read by literate people with a limited knowledge of science to illiterates.

Now, do you honestly believe a wise God would not have considered his audience and so simplify the story a bit by using symbols so they can understand rather than getting into the nitty gritty details of genetics?

 

[Kreskin]

Whether you believe the Bible to be the word of God or not is one debate. But even if you do believe it to be the word of God, just consider that the Book of Genesis was written about 3,000 years ago to be read by literate people with a limited knowledge of science to illiterates.

Now, do you honestly believe a wise God would not have considered his audience and so simplify the story a bit by using symbols so they can understand rather than getting into the nitty gritty details of genetics?

A wise God could have created within everyone the ability to understand everything.

 

[damngrumpy]

The problem with the Bible is, it was written by people who converted to an idea
from a spiritual focus instead of a scientific one. Had people of science written
the Bible there would be some proven facts and not just hints that these truths are
real.
Where did the Old Testament come from? There is a Great Flood Story, but there
was one already in ancient history. Then there is a Fire Story but that too has its
roots in other cultures. Those stories were handed down a few thousand years
before the Jewish culture stumbled upon it.
The Biblical versions of things have been distorted to fit the politics of the day not
in a large way but in small ways. For example many theologians believe the Mary
was in fact one of the leaders from a woman's standpoint and in the twelfth century
Pope Gregory made her a prostitute in order to secure a male dominated society.
We have all kinds of theories, and views, and interpretations when it comes to
creation and religious origins of the world. The first huge mistake was the sun
revolves around the earth. The religious folks also believed the earth was flat.
Should we still be teaching those theories? The difference is Carbon Dating.
One simple test gives a pretty good indication of age of something. No testaments,
no ministers giving divine opinions just a scientific test. Which theory would you
like to bet on? I'll take carbon dating thank you. I am not saying God is not real or
mistaken or anything else. I do however believe the religious community spent
centuries conniving and manipulating the teachings of a great leader to fit their own
ends.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Now, do you honestly believe a wise God would not have considered his audience and so simplify the story a bit ...

Possibly, though the deity as usually characterized could have created his audience capable of understanding all the details on the first pass, or created them already knowing all the details for that matter, but that's not really relevant. A wise god who simplified the story to match the limited understanding of his audience would at least have got right what he *did* say. If the Bible is indeed his direct word, as Kent Hovind and his ilk maintain, then he manifestly did not get it right. If he had, there wouldn't be people like Kent Hovind.

 

[Spade]

Of course, along with gravity, relativity, genetics, etc.

 

[CanadianLove]

That's far too long for me to watch, but before he even gets to biology he's wrong. Organic evolution is certainly not a lie. There were experiments which provided laboratory evidence of the synthesis of organic compounds from what would have been abundant inorganic reactants in the early Earth environment. In the 1950's experiments were conducted in a closed system, consisting of sterilized glass tubing and flasks. Inside the loop were electrodes, water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. The water would be heated to evaporation, the electrodes would spark simulating lightning in the atmosphere, and as the gas moved through the system it would condense back into liquid, and trickle back into the original flask where the heating process would happen again.

This experiment was ground-breaking work. After a few weeks, a small fraction of the carbon had been reacted enough to produce amino acids as products of the chemistry. They also found lipids and sugars.

That work was conducted by Miller and Urey, and is a teaching subject in many university level classes. I can remember it in three classes for certain. Since the Miller-Urey experiment in the 1950's, further experiments have been performed including more elements and compounds that would be common in the early Earth environment. These experiments have yielded the full set of essential amino acids and even more, as well as the nucleotide bases (aka nucleobases) needed to produce DNA and RNA.

The problem with stuff like Hovind's, is that he zips through stuff as if it were a given. I imagine it would take many times more hours to thoroughly debunk and provide the missing context he no doubt does not provide for many of his statements.

He speaks of this experiment in the video. Also that the two acids that where created where only two of the eight needed and the combined too readily with the other elements. At the 1 hour make he starts to talk of the carbon dating process and other tests.

I watched the first few minutes of that Kent Hovind video, until I couldn't stand any more of the man's folly. I quit when he said dinosaur bones discovered in Montana were from a creature that died in the great flood and were only 4400 years old. Up to that point he hadn't made a single statement about science that science would recognize as correct, and several times he was just blatantly untruthful, like when he said there's no evidence for the Big Bang in that ludicrous exposition of what the word evolution means. And this bozo taught science for over a decade in public schools? That's a little scary.

It's just standard creationist BS. He criticizes science for claims it doesn't make, grotesquely misrepresents claims it does make so that he can mock them, denies or ignores data he doesn't like, cites outdated sources so he can criticize science for old ideas science has rejected too, and otherwise just makes stuff up, and lies. The video would be better titled, 100 Reasons Why Kent Hovind Is So Stupid. He hasn't the slightest comprehension of what he's talking about, and he's not intellectually honest enough to know what an ignorant idiot he is. If my memory is correct, he's also currently serving 10 years for tax evasion.

15 years

 

[wulfie68]

Yes evolution should be taught in schools. Much of our scientific knowledge uses theories as the foundation, and these theories can be amended as new evidence comes to life, to make respective the theory better fit with what we know to be true. Conversely, creationism tends to discard fact or modify it to fit the "theory".