Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 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.

Mtum

United States

#113115 Jan 1, 2013
Right, that's why all of science is too stupid to see that gravity is a push, pull, effect, proven by our space junk in high orbit, moron.

Gravity by Jim Ryan

Look to the space junk that NASA wants to possibly incinerate in space. It must be in a high orbit not to fall back to earth. That suggests that gravity is keeping it there, unlike space junk that is in lower orbits. There are two forces in gravity, one is attraction and one is repulsion. I will explain. The planets must sit in the suns high orbits, considering their mass, keeping them from falling into the sun, just as the space junk does not fall back to earth from its high orbit around the earth.

The same applies to all planets orbiting suns , with respect to their mass and size, as the rocky worlds settled into their orbits, while the much larger planets settled further out, because they don't need as much gravity to hold their places. The suns repulsion gets stronger the closer a planet gets to it. That's why the smaller rocky planets with less mass in many cases, get closer to the sun. Pluton size and mass leave Pluto where it belongs.

Try also to consider not only how all but one of our planets align, according to mass and size, but how each one, supposedly blasted into existence during the Big Bang, but how each so easily slipped into its orbit. Don't you think we'd have at least a few crushed worlds hanging around somewhere?

Looking at mercury, for it's size and mass, it fits my hypothesis.

Venus fits, it is 10% smaller than earth.

Earth fits correctly.

Mars is one sixth the mass. While its diameter is half of earths., so that is questionable

Jupiter's diameter is over ten times greater than the Earth's, but
It has over 300 times the mass.

The question becomes, does circumference trump mass in my gravities repulsion theory. Looking at the gas giants, I'd say yes, but I have more to consider.

Saturn's diameter is about nine times greater than the Earth's
It has 95 times the mass, which means it falls in place behind Jupiter, correctly.

Uranus' diameter is four times that of the Earth's and
It has 15 times the mass.
That falls in line with my theory

Neptune's diameter is slightly less than four times that of the Earth's
It has 17 times the mass.

Neptune seems out of place and I don't know why

Pluto's diameter less than 20 percent that of the Earth's (smaller than the Earth's Moon)
It has less than one percent the mass.
That falls in line with my hypothesis.

There are easy ways to test whether a planet sits in a higher or lower orbit, by comparing the fields to earths. All it would take is releasing space junk in each planets orbits, according to earths orbits. If objects spin away in a comparable high orbit, then that planet is sitting in a lower orbit, than earth.

If junk is released in what our orbits show as low, but the junk stays there, that planet is sitting in a higher orbit.

It is likely that the height of each planets high and low orbits will differ.

Each planets orbits will likely be influenced not only by its higher or lower orbit, but also by mass and circumference, so testing would not be so easy.

Theory by ,--

Jim Ryan
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#113116 Jan 1, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not according to this Gallup poll:
A small minority of Americans hold the "secular evolution" view that humans evolved with no influence from God -- but the number has risen from 9% in 1982 to 16% today. At the same time, the 40% of Americans who hold the "creationist" view that God created humans as is 10,000 years ago is the lowest in Gallup's history of asking this question, and down from a high point of 47% in 1993 and 1999. There has been little change over the years in the percentage holding the "theistic evolution" view that humans evolved under God's guidance.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americ...
Hey Utter, FYI 40% of Americans who believe in a strict "creationism" only translates into 1.8% of the world's population. Considering that the only other people who believe the same "creationist" BS are radical "fundamentalist muslim creationists" who have a propensity for blowing things up and killing people, at most you would have somewhere between 5% and 10% of the world's population who believe in your "fundamentalist christian and muslim creationism".

Which leaves the VAST MAJORITY of the rest of the world who think you guys are nuts. IOW my response of "by "nobody" you mean "a small and dying minority cult of christians and muslims who think their bronze age, goat herder FAIRY TALES are literally and inerrantly true", don't you?" to Mtum was correct.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#113117 Jan 1, 2013
Mtum wrote:
The morons need ta jerk each other, because they have nothing of their own.
Yeah, nothing but BILLIONS and BILLIONS of bits of information, data and empirical evidence, collected over the past 200 years, studied and researched by TENS OF MILLIONS of scientists and technicians and students, from EVERY scientific discipline, form EVERY religious denomination, in TENS OF THOUSANDS of museums, universities, research laboratories, excavation sites, observatories, research hospitals, etc. all around the world, including, but not limited to, the following:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/

http://www.nature.com/

http://www.popsci.com/

http://scienceblogs.com/

http://www.physorg.com/

http://www.newscientist.com/

http://www.livescience.com/

http://www.nasa.gov/

http://www.noaa.gov/

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/

http://www.dmns.org/

http://www.ansp.org/

http://www.carnegiemnh.org/

http://www.fieldmuseum.org/

http://www.si.edu/

http://www.amnh.org/

http://www.museumoftherockies.org/

http://www.nhm.org/site/

http://www.nps.gov/dino/index.htm

http://www.tarpits.org/

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/

http://www.naturalsciences.be/

http://www.kahaku.go.jp/english/

http://www.lsa.umich.edu/biology/

http://biology.nd.edu/

http://golgi.harvard.edu/biolinks.html

http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/

http://biology.stanford.edu/

http://www.colorado.edu/eeb/

http://www.biology4all.com/biosci_depts.asp

http://www.bio.cam.ac.uk/

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/lifesciences

http://dps.plants.ox.ac.uk/plants/

http://www.gla.ac.uk/faculties/fbls/eeb/

http://www.studeren.uva.nl/msc_general_biolog...

http://www.biol.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/english/index...

http://www.bio.pku.edu.cn/english/

List of Biology Organizations: http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Biology/Organizat...

List of Biology Systems Research Groups: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_systems_...

List of Natural History Museums: http://www.lib.washington.edu/sla/natmus.html

List of universities, colleges and junior colleges in the United States: http://www.utexas.edu/world/univ/state/

List of Biotechnology Companies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biotechn...

--------

What have YOU got ... other than your bronze age, goat herder FAIRY TALES?
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#113118 Jan 1, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Much better to hide behind a VAST amount of logic, reason, observation, experimentation, scientific research and empirical evidence than to HIDE behind ridiculous bronze age, goat herder FAIRY TALES because you're to scared and ignorant to deal with reality here in the 21st century.
BTW SCIENCE has known that the Earth is round for MILLENNIA. It was you bronze age FAIRY TALE types who thought you would fall off the face of the Earth if you sailed too far.
HOW DARE YOU cast aspersions on Jimbos achievements?

Are our pets not more mentally balanced because of his earth shattering revalations about tack strips???

Are we not FINALLY able to send probes to other planets safely, now he has worked out how gravity works (a feat that was beyond newton and Einstein)???

Are we not at last free of the oppressive yoke of Jewish carpet layers that have for decades conspired with a fully corrupt congress to control us??

Really you have no gratitude - moron!!!
Mtum

United States

#113119 Jan 1, 2013
Science hates the truth!!!

Mtum | 19 min ago
Right, that's why all of science is too stupid to see that gravity is a push, pull, effect, proven by our space junk in high orbit, moron.

Gravity by Jim Ryan

Look to the space junk that NASA wants to possibly incinerate in space. It must be in a high orbit not to fall back to earth. That suggests that gravity is keeping it there, unlike space junk that is in lower orbits. There are two forces in gravity, one is attraction and one is repulsion. I will explain. The planets must sit in the suns high orbits, considering their mass, keeping them from falling into the sun, just as the space junk does not fall back to earth from its high orbit around the earth.

The same applies to all planets orbiting suns , with respect to their mass and size, as the rocky worlds settled into their orbits, while the much larger planets settled further out, because they don't need as much gravity to hold their places. The suns repulsion gets stronger the closer a planet gets to it. That's why the smaller rocky planets with less mass in many cases, get closer to the sun. Pluton size and mass leave Pluto where it belongs.

Try also to consider not only how all but one of our planets align, according to mass and size, but how each one, supposedly blasted into existence during the Big Bang, but how each so easily slipped into its orbit. Don't you think we'd have at least a few crushed worlds hanging around somewhere?

Looking at mercury, for it's size and mass, it fits my hypothesis.

Venus fits, it is 10% smaller than earth.

Earth fits correctly.

Mars is one sixth the mass. While its diameter is half of earths., so that is questionable

Jupiter's diameter is over ten times greater than the Earth's, but
It has over 300 times the mass.

The question becomes, does circumference trump mass in my gravities repulsion theory. Looking at the gas giants, I'd say yes, but I have more to consider.

Saturn's diameter is about nine times greater than the Earth's
It has 95 times the mass, which means it falls in place behind Jupiter, correctly.

Uranus' diameter is four times that of the Earth's and
It has 15 times the mass.
That falls in line with my theory

Neptune's diameter is slightly less than four times that of the Earth's
It has 17 times the mass.

Neptune seems out of place and I don't know why

Pluto's diameter less than 20 percent that of the Earth's (smaller than the Earth's Moon)
It has less than one percent the mass.
That falls in line with my hypothesis.

There are easy ways to test whether a planet sits in a higher or lower orbit, by comparing the fields to earths. All it would take is releasing space junk in each planets orbits, according to earths orbits. If objects spin away in a comparable high orbit, then that planet is sitting in a lower orbit, than earth.

If junk is released in what our orbits show as low, but the junk stays there, that planet is sitting in a higher orbit.

It is likely that the height of each planets high and low orbits will differ.

Each planets orbits will likely be influenced not only by its higher or lower orbit, but also by mass and circumference, so testing would not be so easy.

Theory by ,--

Jim Ryan

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113120 Jan 1, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not according to this Gallup poll:
A small minority of Americans hold the "secular evolution" view that humans evolved with no influence from God -- but the number has risen from 9% in 1982 to 16% today. At the same time, the 40% of Americans who hold the "creationist" view that God created humans as is 10,000 years ago is the lowest in Gallup's history of asking this question, and down from a high point of 47% in 1993 and 1999. There has been little change over the years in the percentage holding the "theistic evolution" view that humans evolved under God's guidance.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americ...
Two things, first what the other poster did not do:

The US is not the vast majority of the world, we're actually a small portion of it. So a US centered poll means nothing as to the actual consensus.

Now you both pulled an appeal to popularity, and what's popular is most often wrong. That's why scientific minds do no go with what's popular, the scientific method weeds out such fallacies. It's also why the majority of biologists, geneticists, archeologists, anthropologists, and other life sciences know, and understand, evolution and contribute to the theory of evolution. So a more accurate wording would be to state that the vast majority of scientists working in fields dealing with living organisms know that evolution happens and agree with the theory of evolution.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#113121 Jan 1, 2013
Mtum wrote:
Science hates the truth!!!
Mostly it just hates people who are so clueless that they post the same posting twice within 30 minutes.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#113122 Jan 1, 2013
Mtum wrote:
Science hates the truth!!!
Mtum | 19 min ago
Right, that's why all of science is too stupid to see that gravity is a push, pull, effect, proven by our space junk in high orbit, moron.
Gravity by Jim Ryan
Look to the space junk that NASA wants to possibly incinerate in space. It must be in a high orbit not to fall back to earth. That suggests that gravity is keeping it there, unlike space junk that is in lower orbits. There are two forces in gravity, one is attraction and one is repulsion. I will explain. The planets must sit in the suns high orbits, considering their mass, keeping them from falling into the sun, just as the space junk does not fall back to earth from its high orbit around the earth.
The same applies to all planets orbiting suns , with respect to their mass and size, as the rocky worlds settled into their orbits, while the much larger planets settled further out, because they don't need as much gravity to hold their places. The suns repulsion gets stronger the closer a planet gets to it. That's why the smaller rocky planets with less mass in many cases, get closer to the sun. Pluton size and mass leave Pluto where it belongs.
Try also to consider not only how all but one of our planets align, according to mass and size, but how each one, supposedly blasted into existence during the Big Bang, but how each so easily slipped into its orbit. Don't you think we'd have at least a few crushed worlds hanging around somewhere?
Looking at mercury, for it's size and mass, it fits my hypothesis.
Venus fits, it is 10% smaller than earth.
Earth fits correctly.
Mars is one sixth the mass. While its diameter is half of earths., so that is questionable
Jupiter's diameter is over ten times greater than the Earth's, but
It has over 300 times the mass.
The question becomes, does circumference trump mass in my gravities repulsion theory. Looking at the gas giants, I'd say yes, but I have more to consider.
Saturn's diameter is about nine times greater than the Earth's
It has 95 times the mass, which means it falls in place behind Jupiter, correctly.
Uranus' diameter is four times that of the Earth's and
It has 15 times the mass.
That falls in line with my theory
Neptune's diameter is slightly less than four times that of the Earth's
It has 17 times the mass.
Neptune seems out of place and I don't know why
Pluto's diameter less than 20 percent that of the Earth's (smaller than the Earth's Moon)
It has less than one percent the mass.
That falls in line with my hypothesis.
There are easy ways to test whether a planet sits in a higher or lower orbit, by comparing the fields to earths. All it would take is releasing space junk in each planets orbits, according to earths orbits. If objects spin away in a comparable high orbit, then that planet is sitting in a lower orbit, than earth.
If junk is released in what our orbits show as low, but the junk stays there, that planet is sitting in a higher orbit.
It is likely that the height of each planets high and low orbits will differ.
Each planets orbits will likely be influenced not only by its higher or lower orbit, but also by mass and circumference, so testing would not be so easy.
Theory by ,--
Jim Ryan
Hey Jim. You finally move out of your mothers Jacksonville house? Are the prospects for incompetent carpet layers with a fetish for cat pee any better in South Carolina?
Mtum

United States

#113123 Jan 1, 2013
The flat earth science of today, hates the truth and proof, even when it is proverbially, suspended, right in front of all scientists.

All of science is too stupid to see that gravity is a push, pull, effect, proven by our space junk in high orbit, you morons.

Gravity by Jim Ryan

Look to the space junk that NASA wants to possibly incinerate in space. It must be in a high orbit not to fall back to earth. That suggests that gravity is keeping it there, unlike space junk that is in lower orbits. There are two forces in gravity, one is attraction and one is repulsion. I will explain. The planets must sit in the suns high orbits, considering their mass, keeping them from falling into the sun, just as the space junk does not fall back to earth from its high orbit around the earth.

The same applies to all planets orbiting suns , with respect to their mass and size, as the rocky worlds settled into their orbits, while the much larger planets settled further out, because they don't need as much gravity to hold their places. The suns repulsion gets stronger the closer a planet gets to it. That's why the smaller rocky planets with less mass in many cases, get closer to the sun. Pluto's size and mass leave Pluto where it belongs.

Try also to consider how each planet supposedly blasted into existence during the Big Bang, but how each so easily slipped into its orbit. Don't you think we'd have at least a few crushed worlds hanging around somewhere, if there were a Big Bang?

Looking at mercury, for it's size and mass, it fits my hypothesis.

Venus fits, it is 10% smaller than earth.

Earth fits correctly.

Mars is one sixth the mass. While its diameter is half of earths., so that is questionable

Jupiter's diameter is over ten times greater than the Earth's, but
It has over 300 times the mass.

The question becomes, does circumference trump mass in my gravities repulsion theory. Looking at the gas giants, I'd say yes, but I have more to consider.

Saturn's diameter is about nine times greater than the Earth's
It has 95 times the mass, which means it falls in place behind Jupiter, correctly.

Uranus' diameter is four times that of the Earth's and
It has 15 times the mass.
That falls in line with my theory

Neptune's diameter is slightly less than four times that of the Earth's
It has 17 times the mass.

Neptune seems out of place and I don't know why

Pluto's diameter less than 20 percent that of the Earth's (smaller than the Earth's Moon)
It has less than one percent the mass.
That falls in line with my hypothesis.

There are easy ways to test whether a planet sits in a higher or lower orbit, by comparing the fields to earths. All it would take is releasing space junk in each planets orbits, according to earths orbits. If objects spin away in a comparable high orbit, then that planet is sitting in a lower orbit, than earth.

If junk is released in what our orbits show as low, but the junk stays there, that planet is sitting in a higher orbit.

It is likely that the height of each planets high and low orbits will differ.

Each planets orbits will likely be influenced not only by its higher or lower orbit, but also by mass and circumference, so testing would not be so easy.

Theory by ,--

Jim Ryan
Reply
Report this post
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#113124 Jan 1, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
FYI The United States does NOT represent the rest of the world. The "majority" of people here in the US that thinks bronze age, goat herder FAIRY TALES are "literally and in errantly" true STILL represent a MINORITY in the world population at large.
But then, you "fundamentalist christian creationists" do have a problem understanding simple math, don't you? EVERY addition, multiplication and math problem you guys solve always has 6000 as the answer, doesn't it?
Obviously you're not that good with geography, social studies and map reading either.
Oh but you said the VAST majority didn't you? It turns out that what you said certainly is not true in the States. You need to be very careful of what you say. Support your claims with evidence. Happy New Year.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113125 Jan 1, 2013
Mtum wrote:
The flat earth science of today, hates the truth and proof, even when it is proverbially, suspended, right in front of all scientists.
Back to spamming I see. So you cannot address anything that's presented, you can't oppose or deny the facts, thus you just continue to spam the forum with garbage.

Here's the thing, they have mathematical formulas that work, they actually work to predict things, you have a bunch of assertions and some fourth grade level arithmetic. The physicists have evidence, demonstrable evidence, evidence that NASA has relied on for a while now which has not let them down.

To your satellite garbage, it's a combination of inertia and centrifugal force, anyone with a 7the grade or higher education knows that. They are attracted to the planet, and eventually do enter the atmosphere and burn up. You can often see them, they look like "shooting stars," like meteorites, basically. Sometimes the manage to actually make landfall, though they usually wind up in the ocean since that's the largest area of the planet. If gravity had a "push" effect, this would never happen, ever, we'd have to fly shuttles up there to clean up the atmosphere every decade just to keep from blocking the sun.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#113126 Jan 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are as clueless as the others say. White cells are not the clotting cells, white cells are the actual response, clotting itself is just a quality of the plasma, plasma that is mixed with the blood. Not to mention, the white cells are already there, they are triggered by the release of another chemical, when they get close to the damaged area the cells react to that chemical, they aren't "sent" anywhere, they're already there. It's not at all precise, if it was there wouldn't be scarring, and the clotting would only be what's needed, not a bunch more than needed.
It's all chemistry, nothing magical, just chemicals interacting with other chemicals the way chemicals do. You just want to put a bunch of extra stuff in there and over complicate it. Guess what, in reality, the simplest explanation is often the right one, or in my father's way of saying it ... KISS, Keep It Simple, Stupid.
White blood cells have nothing to do with clotting. I think your KISS strategy is pervasive in the Darwin ideology.(And possibly a very effective recruiting method.) The less you know the better, right? One should NOT ask too many questions regarding the primary axiom.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#113127 Jan 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Back to spamming I see. So you cannot address anything that's presented, you can't oppose or deny the facts, thus you just continue to spam the forum with garbage.
Here's the thing, they have mathematical formulas that work, they actually work to predict things, you have a bunch of assertions and some fourth grade level arithmetic. The physicists have evidence, demonstrable evidence, evidence that NASA has relied on for a while now which has not let them down.
To your satellite garbage, it's a combination of inertia and centrifugal force, anyone with a 7the grade or higher education knows that. They are attracted to the planet, and eventually do enter the atmosphere and burn up. You can often see them, they look like "shooting stars," like meteorites, basically. Sometimes the manage to actually make landfall, though they usually wind up in the ocean since that's the largest area of the planet. If gravity had a "push" effect, this would never happen, ever, we'd have to fly shuttles up there to clean up the atmosphere every decade just to keep from blocking the sun.
We don't have a shuttle anymore. Ours got old and we cancelled the new one just before it was ready. Now we have outsourced that to the Russians.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113128 Jan 1, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
White blood cells have nothing to do with clotting. I think your KISS strategy is pervasive in the Darwin ideology.(And possibly a very effective recruiting method.) The less you know the better, right? One should NOT ask too many questions regarding the primary axiom.
Where did I say that white cells had anything to do with clotting?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113129 Jan 1, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't have a shuttle anymore. Ours got old and we cancelled the new one just before it was ready. Now we have outsourced that to the Russians.
No, space travel is being privatized, and that's a great thing. The guy at Virgin is picking up a lot of slack from what NASA left. NASA screwed up because they couldn't budget well, and too much of our taxes goes to military anyway. The US keeps dropping the ball on scientific matters, you can't expect us to keep up when we defund advancements just for bigger guns.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#113130 Jan 1, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiots like you rarely do.
I was enjoying the very interesting and educational discussion between KK and Chimney until you came along to show everyone your turds.

You might have learned something had you been reading and comprehending rather than chomping at the bit to show everyone your ass.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#113131 Jan 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
Now you both pulled an appeal to popularity, and what's popular is most often wrong.
No, that's what Dutchy did. I just showed he was wrong based on a Gallup poll. And I agree with you on the popularity bit.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113133 Jan 1, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's what Dutchy did. I just showed he was wrong based on a Gallup poll. And I agree with you on the popularity bit.
Okay, then I reascend that portion and apologize for making the assumption.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113136 Jan 1, 2013
Mtum wrote:
<quoted text>
Said the proverbial moron above.
Space debris can stay in orbit for a long time¬ódecades in orbits near the Earth, and essentially forever at very high altitudes.
Here ya go moron.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nwgs/D...
You do realize that we can't just "pop" up there to make repairs, upgrades, and other such things required by technology, right? Not to mention you just provided evidence, in your own words even, that your "push" assertion is wrong, congratulations, it takes a genius to prove one's own assertions fallacious.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#113140 Jan 1, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
White blood cells have nothing to do with clotting. I think your KISS strategy is pervasive in the Darwin ideology.(And possibly a very effective recruiting method.) The less you know the better, right? One should NOT ask too many questions regarding the primary axiom.
I would say the creationist strategy operating on these threads is to ignore facts, maintain a holier than thou superiority and lie and repeat the lie hoping it will become true.

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 Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 min nanoanomaly 505
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 4 min ChristineM 1,209
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 29 min ChristineM 24,891
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 41 min Timmee 157,776
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 48 min Regolith Based Li... 218,828
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr u196533dm 52,229
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Jan 19 scientia potentia... 98
More from around the web