Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New...

Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy

There are 3459 comments on the www.nytimes.com story from Jun 4, 2008, titled Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy. In it, www.nytimes.com reports that:

Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.nytimes.com.

Thomas Robertson

Beijing, China

#3480 Jul 20, 2012
----If the slope proves slippery, so much the better.

As I showed two posts ago, some Evolutionists are afraid that allowing Creationism in the schools would lead to allowing countless other claims.

Dementia abounds in the student's environment, so the student needs to learn how to deal with it. The astrology columns tell us that we are Ares, Cancers, Leos, and Pisces.
So let the students run tests on their classmates to see if they really are ovine, cancrine, leonine, or piscine.

Who knows, the students may even perform an experiment which will add to the total body of knowledge.
Some of you may remember Emily Rosa, who was an 11-year-oild fourth-grader in 1998. At that time, she performed an experiment which invalidated a pseudo-scientific healing practice known as Therapeutic Touch.
With the help of a few adults, she got the experiment written up and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
If this sort of research is encouraged in the schools, there is no telling how many more Emily Rosas we can discover.

----Classifying human knowledge is difficult and not that important anyway.

No matter how you compartmentalize human knowledge, there are going to be cusps. Should an art history book go under art or history? Should a music education book go under music or education?

Or, for present purposes, should Creationism go under religion or science? Instead of pondering over what goes in what classroom, I would rather remove the walls between the classrooms.

----Teaching Creationism in the public schools is not much different from teaching Creationism in the university.

Two posts ago, I mentioned some university professors who teach both sides. I do not understand why Saladin, who is one of those professors whom I mentioned, opposes teaching Creationism in the public schools.

According to Piagetian theory, the highest cognitive level is usually reached at about the age of 11. That is when the child learns to think in the abstract. So I would draw the line at the upper elementary level, not the university level.

----The art of discernment is a skill which is sorely neglected in a student's education.

What should you do when a cult member approaches you on the street?
What should you do when a friend pressures you to join a multi-level marketing scheme?
What should you do when a stranger sends you a message promising to deposit millions of dollars in your bank account?

Schools don't prepare us for such occasions, and those who prey upon our weaknesses know that they don't. That is why religious cults set up their recruitment centers close to university campuses.

Nor is it only the below average students who get snookered. When I was in high school, I had a classmate who was a brilliant music student and an academic honor student. I expected him to become famous in the music field. Instead, he is now working for a ridiculously unscientific religious cult.

I wonder where he would be if he had taken Dr. Zindler's course.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#3481 Jul 21, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
I once knew a Creationist who had an Evolutionist science teacher in high school. She spoke of having to write Evolutionist answers on her exam papers.
I have also taken classes in which I have had to write answers contrary to my own opinion, so I can sympathize with her plight.
Students in science classes aren't being asked for their opinion. They are being asked to demonstrate that they understand the best available science (which is *not* creationism).

So if a high school science teacher expects students to write answers involving evolution on their exam papers, it's because the science teacher is doing his or her job.

There are no "evolutionist" science teachers. There are just *science* teachers. If they are teaching creationism, then they aren't teaching science.
Psychology

United States

#3482 Jul 21, 2012
Students in America are being taught what to say, how to say it and when to say it, they are never taught to think for themselves and they are so afraid of ridicule, that they have become sheep, that will never think for thselves.

Where's my Nobel for science? ;-)

If you look at what I've been saying all along, I've said spin rate creates atmosphere.

The following is from a website for Venus.

The atmosphere is in a state of vigorous circulation and super-rotation.[3] The whole atmosphere circles the planet in just four Earth days, much faster than the planet's sidereal day of 243 days. The winds supporting super-rotation blow as fast as 100 m/s (~220 mph or 360 km/h).[3] Winds move at up to 60 times the speed of the planet's rotation, while Earth's fastest winds are only 10% to 20% rotation speed.[4]

I have also said that you cannot have gravity without spin. For example, the moon spins at 13 mph and it's gravity is very low. The moon also is helped in its tiny atmosphere and gravity, because of its rotation of earth.

There are probably different celestial bodies that may help to prove these things further.

It's never too late to learn to think for yourselves, even if you will not be allowed the credit you deserve.

Jim Ryan
Psychology

United States

#3483 Jul 21, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
----If the slope proves slippery, so much the better.
As I showed two posts ago, some Evolutionists are afraid that allowing Creationism in the schools would lead to allowing countless other claims.
Dementia abounds in the student's environment, so the student needs to learn how to deal with it. The astrology columns tell us that we are Ares, Cancers, Leos, and Pisces.
So let the students run tests on their classmates to see if they really are ovine, cancrine, leonine, or piscine.
Who knows, the students may even perform an experiment which will add to the total body of knowledge.
Some of you may remember Emily Rosa, who was an 11-year-oild fourth-grader in 1998. At that time, she performed an experiment which invalidated a pseudo-scientific healing practice known as Therapeutic Touch.
With the help of a few adults, she got the experiment written up and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
If this sort of research is encouraged in the schools, there is no telling how many more Emily Rosas we can discover.
----Classifying human knowledge is difficult and not that important anyway.
No matter how you compartmentalize human knowledge, there are going to be cusps. Should an art history book go under art or history? Should a music education book go under music or education?
Or, for present purposes, should Creationism go under religion or science? Instead of pondering over what goes in what classroom, I would rather remove the walls between the classrooms.
----Teaching Creationism in the public schools is not much different from teaching Creationism in the university.
Two posts ago, I mentioned some university professors who teach both sides. I do not understand why Saladin, who is one of those professors whom I mentioned, opposes teaching Creationism in the public schools.
According to Piagetian theory, the highest cognitive level is usually reached at about the age of 11. That is when the child learns to think in the abstract. So I would draw the line at the upper elementary level, not the university level.
----The art of discernment is a skill which is sorely neglected in a student's education.
What should you do when a cult member approaches you on the street?
What should you do when a friend pressures you to join a multi-level marketing scheme?
What should you do when a stranger sends you a message promising to deposit millions of dollars in your bank account?
Schools don't prepare us for such occasions, and those who prey upon our weaknesses know that they don't. That is why religious cults set up their recruitment centers close to university campuses.
Nor is it only the below average students who get snookered. When I was in high school, I had a classmate who was a brilliant music student and an academic honor student. I expected him to become famous in the music field. Instead, he is now working for a ridiculously unscientific religious cult.
I wonder where he would be if he had taken Dr. Zindler's course.
So you're saying that brain washing students is a bad thing?
Psychology

United States

#3484 Jul 21, 2012
American students are falling further and further behind, because the school and work places have been dumbed down, in the name of an easily manipulated society.

Are all kids and adults not taught to write their resume's in the exact same fashion across the country? Does that alone not teach us that they want obedient, mindless automatons? Don't worry children, we will tell you what to say and how to say it, after all, we at car lot 101 can't have just anyone thinking differently, now can we?

Now we've given you books and taught you to read and write, now thank a teacher for making your lives so easy, you never have to have a thought all your own, we do that for you.

Read my post titled, " Where's my Nobel".

Why had no scientist to date ever thought of such, when it stared them in the face everyday?

Thinking for ones self is remarkably easy if you have someone that cares and understands.
Psychology

United States

#3485 Jul 21, 2012
By the way, college doesn't make you smart or able to think for yourself, necessarily. It may make you smart enough to be confident inside your cubicle, but that's as far as most get, even if you are paid well and if that's good enough for you, that's great, but if you want to think for yourself, you must be exposed to a great many ways of thinking and actions. Many times children will not understand what you say in one way, but they will likely understand if you say the same thing in several different ways, but tell us, how many teachers bother to do such?

Behavior is locked into what each child feels about themselves.
Psychology

United States

#3486 Jul 21, 2012
Colleges are little more than fraternities where you are matched to your cubicle.
Psychology

United States

#3487 Jul 21, 2012
You're doin a hell of a job Brownie!
Psychology

United States

#3488 Jul 21, 2012
How did supposedly the smartest people in america, deliver the middle class into economic slavery, as it worsens everyday?

The stock market and housing are touted as going up, yea, if you don't mind the debt doubling in 3 years. America is bankrupt, economically and morally.

Congress stands in the open, taking bribes and calling them campaign contributions.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#3489 Jul 21, 2012
Psychology wrote:
I have also said that you cannot have gravity without spin.
That's categorically wrong.

Gravity is a result of mass not rotation.

You can measure the effective change in gravity with objects which are not spinning.

A plane gravitometer will record a different amount of gravity passing over a mountain than passing over a field.

Both objects are spinning at the same speed as the Earth.

Mercury is barely spinning at all. It's a spheroid, having taken that shape because of the force of gravity.
Psychology

United States

#3490 Jul 22, 2012
Did you know that like our moon, mercury has almost no spin? Did you also know that like our moon, mercury has almost no atmosphere?

Did you know that mercury is 2/5ths the size of earth, but it's gravity is only 38% as that of the earth, while it is only 36 million miles from the sun?

Did you know that the closer a planet is to the sun, the stronger the gravitational forces are? If mercury is approx 40% the size of earth, but it has only 38% of earths gravity, while being so very close to the sun, that makes no sense at all, if just mass accounts for gravity, unless one considers spin rate.

Mercury only has the gravity it does, because of its very fast rotation. That also leads me to speculate that while axis spin rate is responsible for atmosphere, rotational rate does not.
Psychology

United States

#3491 Jul 22, 2012
By the way, I tried to send in a paper for peer review, but because I didn't have a phd behind my name, they would not recognize me and my work, but they stole part of my work for themselves.

The work stolen from me was in medicine, it was in dyslexia.
Psychology

United States

#3492 Jul 22, 2012
My name is Jim Ryan and the above work is mine, dealing with spin and rotation rates, dealing with gravity and atmosphere.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#3493 Jul 22, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Students in America are being taught what to say, how to say it and when to say it, they are never taught to think for themselves and they are so afraid of ridicule, that they have become sheep, that will never think for thselves.
Where's my Nobel for science? ;-)
If you look at what I've been saying all along, I've said spin rate creates atmosphere.
The following is from a website for Venus.
The atmosphere is in a state of vigorous circulation and super-rotation.[3] The whole atmosphere circles the planet in just four Earth days, much faster than the planet's sidereal day of 243 days. The winds supporting super-rotation blow as fast as 100 m/s (~220 mph or 360 km/h).[3] Winds move at up to 60 times the speed of the planet's rotation, while Earth's fastest winds are only 10% to 20% rotation speed.[4]
I have also said that you cannot have gravity without spin. For example, the moon spins at 13 mph and it's gravity is very low. The moon also is helped in its tiny atmosphere and gravity, because of its rotation of earth.
There are probably different celestial bodies that may help to prove these things further.
It's never too late to learn to think for yourselves, even if you will not be allowed the credit you deserve.
Jim Ryan
http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/PHOTO/LARG...

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#3494 Jul 22, 2012
Psychology wrote:
My name is Jim Ryan and the above work is mine, dealing with spin and rotation rates, dealing with gravity and atmosphere.
As if anybody else would try to lay claim to it.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#3495 Jul 22, 2012
Psychology wrote:
By the way, college doesn't make you smart or able to think for yourself, necessarily. It may make you smart enough to be confident inside your cubicle, but that's as far as most get, even if you are paid well and if that's good enough for you, that's great, but if you want to think for yourself, you must be exposed to a great many ways of thinking and actions. Many times children will not understand what you say in one way, but they will likely understand if you say the same thing in several different ways, but tell us, how many teachers bother to do such?
Behavior is locked into what each child feels about themselves.
People with the least education tend to think the least of education. Mainly because they don't know enough to know how little they know, thus they think higher education is nonsense. It's a byproduct of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Thank you for demonstrating the value of education.

Are these brilliant or insane?
http://www.drbronner.com/pdf/drbronner_32oz_P...
http://www.drbronner.com/pdf/drbronner_32oz_A...
http://www.drbronner.com/pdf/drbronner_32oz_B...
http://www.drbronner.com/pdf/drbronner_32oz_T...
http://www.drbronner.com/pdf/drbronner_32oz_L...
http://www.drbronner.com/pdf/drbronner_32oz_E...
http://www.drbronner.com/pdf/32oz_Citrus_Oran...
http://www.drbronner.com/pdf/32oz_Rose.pdf

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#3496 Jul 22, 2012
Psychology wrote:
By the way, I tried to send in a paper for peer review, but because I didn't have a phd behind my name, they would not recognize me and my work, but they stole part of my work for themselves.
The work stolen from me was in medicine, it was in dyslexia.
Uh, yeah...that's complete bullshit. If a class of grade school children could get published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (which they DID), certainly a grown adult without letters after his name could do so.

Here's an idea: you're a wackadoodle nutbag insane moron. Nah, that couldn't possibly be.

Have you ever been hospitalized against your will?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#3497 Jul 22, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Did you know that like our moon, mercury has almost no spin? Did you also know that like our moon, mercury has almost no atmosphere?
Did you know that mercury is 2/5ths the size of earth, but it's gravity is only 38% as that of the earth, while it is only 36 million miles from the sun?
Did you know that the closer a planet is to the sun, the stronger the gravitational forces are? If mercury is approx 40% the size of earth, but it has only 38% of earths gravity, while being so very close to the sun, that makes no sense at all, if just mass accounts for gravity, unless one considers spin rate.
Mercury only has the gravity it does, because of its very fast rotation. That also leads me to speculate that while axis spin rate is responsible for atmosphere, rotational rate does not.
Did you know that the existing equations for gravity, which depend on mass and distance from centre of mass, account for the surface gravity of Mercury, Venus, and the Earth just fine? That you are trying to solve a problem that has already been solved for 350 years, and worse, introducing irrelevant new variables while doing so?

It just because you HATE any established scientific authority on ANY subject, don't you PW. You are DESPERATE to prove scientists wrong about anything and everything. How DARE they know more than you do!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#3498 Jul 22, 2012
Psychology wrote:
My name is Jim Ryan and the above work is mine, dealing with spin and rotation rates, dealing with gravity and atmosphere.
The following work is from Isaac Newton, and explains with high accuracy the expected force of gravity between any two objects:

F = G (M1xM2)/r^2

G Force = G x (mass1 x mass2 )/ radius squared.

No rotation variable necessary.
Gravity does not vary with rotation.

If anything, the only time rotation will confuse the issue is if an object sitting on the equatorial surface of a rapidly spinning body.

This is of course explained by Newton's other work on Centripetal Force, as:

F = mv^2 / r

Centripetal Force = mass x velocity x velocity / radius

This centripetal force can appear to COUNTER gravity making it look weaker, for an object on the equatorial surface of a rapidly spinning planet. Exactly the opposite of what your alternative theory predicts, Jim Ryan.

Thanks Isaac.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#3500 Jul 22, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The following work is from Isaac Newton, and explains with high accuracy the expected force of gravity between any two objects:
Thanks Isaac.
In addition, the creation of the atmosphere (on earth or on other planets) is not the result of rotation or orbit of that planet.

The dynamics of the planet's orbit (proximity to its sun, etc), and the rotation of that planet will affect how the atmosphere operates on that planet.

But the rotation and orbit of that planet will not "create" that atmosphere.

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
Is Creationism and Intelligent Design debunked ... 1 min Dogen 227
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min Subduction Zone 74,877
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 12 min Dogen 4,059
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 16 min John 32,041
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 20 min Dogen 300
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 23 min John 138
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 38 min Subduction Zone 162,001
More from around the web