Should Evolution be taught in schools?

kevin_burke

@calebsica ;
I couldn't have said it better myself

BenShapirosCousin

@Dee In response to your last comment, I would like to point out that that was a five year old method of personal attacking someone. Secondly, I'm not going to go watch a video and read some documents, if I were wanting to do that I could've done that myself. This is a debating platform, for debaters, not for people who send a million documents that were written and done by other people besides themselves. So please, if you will, list some evidence. thank you very much. 

BenShapirosCousin

@ZeusAres42 And that does what for which the case of Evolution being taught in schools as a "fact" how? 

BenShapirosCousin

@Ampersand I have a medical condition for which I am impaired, and cannot watch videos at this time. If you would like to supply with evidence, which you are clearly showing you have none of or you wouldn't be sending countless videos, I would appreciate it dearly. 

BenShapirosCousin

@Plaffelvohfen That a dog cannot produce something for which it isn't? I understand it, and by the way you said what he said in the way you said it, I don't believe that you do. 

BenShapirosCousin

@billbatard What evidence was used to prove it?! I'd like to see that, especially since it's a bunch of lies. 

kevin_burke

@BenShapirosCousin
You do realize that Evolution in its entirety isn't a lie. Rather the socialistic and macro-evolution aspects of it are theories waiting to be dis/proven. The one thing we can take from it as fact is that evolution takes place within a species (Micro Evolution as long as it is through the eyes of intelligent design). if you don't believe this I can supply sources at which you can look.

BenShapirosCousin

@billbatard You say that, and than provide no evidence >facepalm< like what?!

kevin_burke

@BenShapirosCousin
billboard hasn't really been a part of this who was your last post aimed at

BenShapirosCousin

@Dee Excuse me, but as I have said before, this a debating website. Not a sight for you to state your *beliefs* and then send me to some other website to debate. Why are you even here if you're not going to debate? Isn't that the whole purpose of this website? I mean, it just makes sense. (P.S. I would also really enjoy some evidence for your case to be listed, thanks so much, *God* bless.) 

Dee

@BenShapirosCousin

You say ......

 In response to your last comment, I would like to point out that that was a five year old method of personal attacking someone.

My reply .....I didn’t “personally attack “ you I merely pointed out that I’m hardly to blame for your ignorance regarding what is accepted as fact in most the civilized world as in Evolution 


You say ......Secondly, I'm not going to go watch a video and read some documents,

My reply .....I know you’re not which is why you remain in a continuous state of ignorance on mostly everything if this is your attitude 

You say .....if I were wanting to do that I could've done that myself.

My reply ....You could ,at least you now know why you remain in ignorance 

You say ......This is a debating platform, for debaters, not for people who send a million documents that were written and done by other people besides themselves.

My reply ......You’re not debating you’re trolling , no one has sent you a “million documents “ you asked for information you refuse to even read or look at it because you’re a troll

You say .....So please, if you will, list some evidence. thank you very much. 

My reply .....I’ve done so in twenty easy bullet points you’re failure to comprehend this is your fault not mine 

Ampersand

@kevin_burke

They are all examples of animals evolving into new species. It specifically talks about this in the articles e.g. just as one of many examples: " This new family, characterized by an unexpected combination of primitive and derived characters, is bridging the missing link between suborders of Archidermaptera and Eodermaptera. "

If you are going to demand evidence then not even look at it, you aren't engaging honestly with the debate and are just here to mindlessly spout ideology.

Even the specific examples you request are well known - Archaeopteryx is one of the most famous transitional fossils and represents a step between dinosaurs and avian birds, having the wings and flight feathers of the latter but the teeth and tail of the former. For sea creatures to land you can see this in fossils like Panderichthys, Tiktaalik and Acanthostega. Your monkey to man is a bit nonsensical and vague seeing as there wasn't a single step between monkeys and men but a great many, but it's still easily providable if you make a sensible request (e.g. divergence of Homo from the other apes) seeing as Homo Sapiens is relatively new and came from other similar homos like Homo Erectus which came from other great apes like Nakalipithecus which came from the more monkey-like primates like Nacholapithecus. There's a whole long chain of fossils showing the gradual evolution from monkey to man.

Ampersand

@calebsica

None of them discuss micro-evolution, please don't lie just to cover up the fact you didn't read the articles.

For the title of the study you quote, if you'd actually read it you'd see the two possible intepretations of the data backed up by science present it as a transitional fossil or is still a transitional fossil but one with a slightly different relationship to the other similar fossils. Under no interpretation backed by scientific analysis and evidence is it anything but a transitional fossil.

If you feel there is an interpretation where it is not a transitional fossil and you feel you can back this up with evidence. Until you do so, your own personal interpretation based off of ideology rather than evidence is irrelevant.

Ampersand

BenShapirosCousin said:

@Ampersand I have a medical condition for which I am impaired, and cannot watch videos at this time. If you would like to supply with evidence, which you are clearly showing you have none of or you wouldn't be sending countless videos, I would appreciate it dearly. 

I haven't linked to a single video, indicating you didn't even bother to look at the evidence that you were specifically asking for.

1) Why would I bother to provide you with more evidence when you refuse to even look at what's been provided?

2) Those were peer reviewed scientific studies back up by existing scientific literature as shown in their sources. It's the gold standard of evidence and if you are refusing to look at it, the issue is with you.

3) I note you still haven't provided even an iota of evidence to support your claims.

Dee

You say .....Excuse me,

My reply ....You’re excused 

You say ......but as I have said before, this a debating website

My reply ......It is , maybe you should quit trolling and attempt debating?

You say .....Not a sight for you to state your *beliefs* and then send me to some other website to debate.

My reply .... I know it’s not a “sight “ it is a site though . I didnt state my “beliefs”,  I stated Evolution is accepted as fact by rational beings. I also didn’t send you off to debate on some other website , I sent you off so you might receive that which you lack as in a basic education on Evolution 

You say ....Why are you even here if you're not going to debate?

My reply ....I’m here to debate , I do so frequently, I’m not here to amuse trolls like you 

You say .....Isn't that the whole purpose of this website?

My reply .....It is , but you’re a troll I realized this when I spotted that you called Evolution “Evilpolution “ ....that’s trolling 

You say .....I mean, it just makes sense.

My reply ....That’s something you totally lack ....sense 

You say ..... (P.S. I would also really enjoy some evidence for your case to be listed, thanks so much, *God* bless.) 

My reply .....( P.S. I’ve listed loads get someone to read it out to you , thanks so much , you sent me blessings , great ,you prayed for me I will think for you ) 

kevin_burke

@BenShapirosCousin
I'm more on your side more than I am Dee's and Ampersand's. But they are giving you sources that are excepted by "popular" science. They give these references because it is a debating site and the references voices are more reliable then their own. So, take the time to read. If you don't then you are walking in the darkness, and you need light in the darkness so you don't "dash your foot against a stone." 

kevin_burke

 @ Ampersand
http://www.firstdallas.org/icampus/blog/the-myth-of-macroevolution/
The evidence you give isn't transitional evidence it is merely micro-evolution. Different species with similar features doesn't prove evolution it is in fact evidence for intelligent design. I'm not saying evolution shouldn't be taught in schools I'm saying it shouldn't be the only thing taught in schools they should include other theories as well. And remember just because something is widely excepted as fact doesn't mean it is fact. "Slaves aren't human and deserve no rights" that was once widely excepted as fact and in some parts of the world it still is. 

kevin_burke

@Ampersand ;
And I read every example you gave me.

Plaffelvohfen

@kevin_burke

Intelligent Design is many things, but one thing it isn't, is a valid scientific theory... The fact that ID uncritically combines new arguments from biological and mathematical research with a who’s who of old creationist canards points to larger methodological flaws. As Judge William Overton pointed out in his landmark pro-evolution ruling in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, it is “contrived dualism” to reason that “all scientific evidence which fails to support the theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in support of” a preferred alternative notion, in this case intelligent design.

This, however, is precisely how ID proponents argue their cause. They claim that a loose combination of intelligent design arguments can stand toe-to-toe with evolution as a competing theory, even though it doesn’t meet technical definitions and standards set by science.

In order to be valid, a scientific theory must unite a broad range of observations, inferences, and facts under a detailed explanation which makes predictions about the outcomes of future experiments and observations. All theories have gaps which invite further investigation and testing, and through this process some theories are discarded, while others are strengthened. But when a well-supported theory falls by the wayside, it is almost always because an alternative has been proposed which accounts for more facts and makes better predictions (for example, the replacement of Newtonian Physics with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity).

In contrast, intelligent design is a less comprehensive alternative to evolutionary theory. While evolution relies upon detailed, well-defined processes such as mutation and natural selection, ID offers no descriptions of the design process or the designer. In fact, proponents do not even agree among themselves as to which biological phenomena were designed and which were not. Ultimately, this “theory” amounts to nothing more than pointing to holes in evolution and responding with a one-word, unceasingly repeated mantra: “design.” But unless ID advocates fill in the details, there is no way to scientifically test intelligent design or make predictions from it for future research. In short, it is not valid science.

kevin_burke

@Plaffelvohfen
https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/
The theory of intelligent design is very specific and very comprehensive and  goes right along with the scientific method. It has been discarded by the popular science committee only because it isn't considered to be politically correct or socially acceptable.  

Plaffelvohfen

@kevin_burke

That site you're citing is not a valid scientific source and neither is answersingenesis.org and other apologetics parachurch organization.... 

If you're not willing to work with corroborated facts, there's no point in arguing... 

calebsica

Plaffelvohfen said:

@kevin_burke

That site you're citing is not a valid scientific source and neither is answersingenesis.org and other apologetics parachurch organization.... 

If you're not willing to work with corroborated facts, there's no point in arguing... 

Did you just say creationists can't be scientists? Did you know the scientist that invented the MRI scanner was a young earth creationist?

kevin_burke

@Plaffelvohfen
You discard sites because they are religious when in fact religious sites should be trusted because they look into to science to try and explain the beauty of Gods work. I could just as easily by basis in my work by saying any non-religious sites have invalid science but I don't because unlike you I don't shade my eyes from the light of truth and find it wherever I can.

calebsica

Everybody has the same evidence but everyone interrets them. none of us were there when the world was created or when the fossil lived. Fact: Grand Canyon exists. You believe that it was a little water and lots of time while I believe a lot of water and little time. We can't test it the same way. That is historical science. 

Plaffelvohfen

kevin_burke said:
@Plaffelvohfen You discard sites because they are religious when in fact religious sites should be trusted because they look into to science to try and explain the beauty of Gods work. I could just as easily by basis in my work by saying any non-religious sites have invalid science but I don't because unlike you I don't shade my eyes from the light of truth and find it wherever I can.

Of course I'm discarding religious sites from discussions about science... Like I would completely disregard the opinion of an astrologer from discussions about bridge engineering...  

Ampersand

calebsica said:

Plaffelvohfen said:

@kevin_burke

That site you're citing is not a valid scientific source and neither is answersingenesis.org and other apologetics parachurch organization.... 

If you're not willing to work with corroborated facts, there's no point in arguing... 

Did you just say creationists can't be scientists? Did you know the scientist that invented the MRI scanner was a young earth creationist?

No, he said:

"That site you're citing is not a valid scientific source and neither is answersingenesis.org and other apologetics parachurch organization....  

If you're not willing to work with corroborated facts, there's no point in arguing... "

Kevin Burk posted a link to a webpage full of random claims. There was no actual evidence to support the ideology Kevin was pushing, unlike the evidence in support of evolution that has been provided.

ZeusAres42

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/all/?term=evolution

calebsica

Answers in Genesis is apologetics  and science research. They have many scientists working for them to try prove Evolution wrong

Plaffelvohfen

calebsica said:

Answers in Genesis is apologetics  and science research. They have many scientists working for them to try prove Evolution wrong

There you go, they're not interested in truth or facts, they already have their conclusion (evolution is wrong) and are trying to find evidence to support their claim... Since it's not forthcoming, they often try to distort facts to fit their narrative... 

In 2019, denying evolution is like denying the earth is spherical... In this age of information, ignorance is a choice, own it!

kevin_burke

Im done talking if you want to know the truth listen to Kenneth Miller a biologist 

Plaffelvohfen

@kevin_burke

K. Miller??? He supports evolution...  In the video you linked, he just rips "creationist science" apart piece by piece...  At the 27:00 mark, he answers the question of this thread, he summarizes in 3 minutes why ID / Creationism has absolutely no place in science classes, because : It's NOT science!! 

Ampersand

kevin_burke said:

Im done talking if you want to know the truth listen to Kenneth Miller a biologist 

Glad to see you've changed your mind and admit the evidence clearly proves evolution is real and intelligent design is nonsense.

kevin_burke

The point he had which is been the point I've been trying to make if you go back to my first post is that all theories should be taught and not one theory should be singled out for special treatment.

kevin_burke

I never once said that evolution is false I have only said macro-evolution lacks evidence

kevin_burke

I would never say that any of them are incorrect. I'm not a biologist. I don't like darwin based evolution. And I know if evolution is real it is because of an intelligent design because god is real. Don't argue on that point we will go extremely off topic. 
All theories should be taught to an equal extent so we can give the younger generations the freedom to chose which one they believe to be the most accurate.

Ampersand

kevin_burke said:

The point he had which is been the point I've been trying to make if you go back to my first post is that all theories should be taught and not one theory should be singled out for special treatment.

He literally talks about how he campaigned to stop intelligent design being taught in school. Did you actually watch the video? Are you delusional?

kevin_burke said:

I never once said that evolution is false I have only said macro-evolution lacks evidence

Your claim has been proven false. Your own evidence you just posted shows it is false! That's not even mentioning the scientific studies posted earlier in this debate showing evolution is real and evidence supports it.

kevin_burke said:

I would never say that any of them are incorrect. I'm not a biologist. I don't like darwin based evolution. And I know if evolution is real it is because of an intelligent design because god is real. Don't argue on that point we will go extremely off topic. 
All theories should be taught to an equal extent so we can give the younger generations the freedom to chose which one they believe to be the most accurate.

Intelligent design isn't a scientific theory, it's a pseudoscience with no evidence to back it up. We shouldn't teach children garbage and lies.

Plaffelvohfen

kevin_burke said:

The point he had which is been the point I've been trying to make if you go back to my first post is that all theories should be taught and not one theory should be singled out for special treatment.

You either did not watch the video, or did not understand it at all... He completely destroys the notion that both should be taught in school. In the Q&A section at the end, he is very specific on the catastrophic repercussions of teaching Intelligent Design in schools...

You should watch it... Multiple times if needed...

Plaffelvohfen

@kevin_burke

I don't like darwin based evolution.

And I don't like gravity, what am I to do?

And I know if evolution is real it is because of an intelligent design because god is real. Don't argue on that point we will go extremely off topic. 

You know, Evolution, or Science for that matter, doesn't make it impossible for god to exist, but it does make it possible to exist without god... Just sayin...

Dee

@calebsica

You say ......Answers in Genesis is apologetics  and science research. They have many scientists working for them to try prove Evolution wrong

My reply ......Answers in Genesis is a a really pitiful site as grown men and women waste their days trying to deny reality by appealing to a book of nonsense written by bronzeage goatherds .

You say ......Why would anyone spend their entire life trying to disprove what is accepted as fact?

My reply .......Even if Evolution was proven as false it still doesn’t prove there’s a god does it?

Dee

@kevin_burke

Thank you for asking him to at least read the sources 

Dee

@kevin_burke

You say ......The point he had which is been the point I've been trying to make if you go back to my first post is that all theories should be taught and not one theory should be singled out for special treatment.

My reply .....I D is not a “theory” it’s mere speculation based on a deeply flawed contradictory book of mainly nonsense , I D is a faith based claim and like all faith based claims is based on spiritual conviction and absolutely nothing else 

piloteer

@BenShapirosCousin

I'm not sure what you mean in your comment to me. I never claimed to have a right to do anything. All I said was that there's no justifiable reason to not teach evolution in schools. 

ZeusAres42

Whether or not evolution is fact or not isn't really up for debate. There's not a single reputable scientific body that rejects evolution as being fact whatsoever.

BenShapirosCousin

@piloteern It hasn't been proven, therefore, it should not be taught as fact. 

BenShapirosCousin

@kevin_burke I would like them to present facts, not ones that have been listed by others. This is the debating website I chose, why would I want to go to another one? That would be illogical. 

BenShapirosCousin

@Dee You want me to list my reasons I will, I thought it was people who disagree with the topic at hand first but whatever. And by the way you attacked me again and called me ignorant multiple many of times. 


1) You say that Evolution has been proven as "fact" then why is still The *Theory* of Evolution. 


2) Secondly, the public school system is indoctrinating students and forcing Evolution down their throats. 


3) This is gonna take a while for you to refute so I won't add to much more, go ahead, do. your. worst. 

BenShapirosCousin

@kevin_burke I understood this after a given amount of comments. Thanks for telling me though for clarification. 

BenShapirosCousin

@Ampersand This ***THEORY*** The *Theory* of Evolution, is being taught as fact to our society of children. They are telling them what to believe, not how to believe. Indoctrinating, not educating. This is wrong. Therefore it should not be taught in schools. 

Zombieguy1987

BenShapirosCousin said:

@piloteern It hasn't been proven, therefore, it should not be taught as fact. 

Creationism hasn't been proven either, therefore, it should not be taught as fact, or even not be taught at all.

BenShapirosCousin

@Ampersand ;


1) Evolution remains a *THEORY* because it has NOT been proven, therefore it should not be taught in schools as FACT. 


2) The public school system is shoving information down our society of children's throats, this is indoctrination, not education. When they are telling them what to believe not how to form their own system of knowing what to believe. 


3) Like I said to @Dee, I will not press any further for I would like you to have a chance at *actually* stating some facts now that you cannot cry over me not providing information. so there you go, give it a whirl.