Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 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.

Mugwump

UK

#114104 Jan 10, 2013
As he is suggesting we are morons for responding to him - can I suggest we do as he bids and ignore him.

We know he will never respond rationally anymore anyway and at least in time he may get bored and either grow up or go away.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#114105 Jan 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
It seems more like a paid government clique here.
Science claims we are seeing back into time, some 14 billion years ago. Science claims that we can see that far back in time, because the light from those distant worlds and galaxies have been traveling here for those billions of years and that by such, we are looking back in time. That simply cannot be, according to science.
Simple light cannot carry images of those far off worlds and galaxies to our telescopes, meaning, our telescopes see out to that light, illuminating those entities, disproving relativity, gravitational lensing and light theory.
That's why I said, light cannot carry images of those worlds and galaxies, meaning, if their light speed and theory were true, we could see the light, but not the worlds or galaxies, because images cannot be carried on light.
Wow. Just ... wow. The stupidity of this post is just mind boggling.

Definitely a candidate for FSTDT!
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#114106 Jan 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
It seems more like a paid government clique here
Which government? There's HUNDREDS of them. And pretty much all of them (except the radical muslim ones) teach accepted science theories about the age of the Cosmos, the age and formation of the Earth and the Theory of Evolution.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#114107 Jan 10, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. Just ... wow. The stupidity of this post is just mind boggling.
Definitely a candidate for FSTDT!
I entered a similar post from our boy here into FSTDT a couple of days ago.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#114108 Jan 10, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
As he is suggesting we are morons for responding to him - can I suggest we do as he bids and ignore him.
We know he will never respond rationally anymore anyway and at least in time he may get bored and either grow up or go away.
Well, we can give it a try again but like a petulant child, he'll just spam us until he gets some attention. It been like that for a couple of years now.

Wait until he gets into one of his drunken rant moods in the wee hours. You wake up to page after page of drivel.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114117 Jan 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
According to science, we need a camera and a physical entity we can see, to capture that image.
Since you won't be able to show how the images of far off galaxies can travel on light, that means our telescopes are seeing those galaxies in present time.
I'll just keep posting what is so very evident. I'm sure the morons here will believe anything, but the occasional passerby may see and pass it on. Keep posting, it gives me even more impetus to keep posting it.
Thanks moron

You accidentally said something correct. I am sure you did not intend for such a travesty to happen. We do see them at the present moment, but we see them as they were millions or billions of years ago. Since light has finite speed (299,792,458 meters per second) that means that it is 4,116,450,240,798,000 km to the edge of the universe. It simply takes the image 13.73 billion years to get here.

The image is the same thing as the light. They are synonyms in this context.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114118 Jan 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
If light alone can carry the image of a star, simply show how. The stars we see are in present time.

The light, that is over 13 billion years old, is the image. That is one of the things that make your comment so amusing.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114119 Jan 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
The outright fraud by science
Science claims we are seeing back into time, some 14 billion years ago. Science claims that we can see that far back in time, because the light from those distant worlds and galaxies have been traveling here for those billions of years and that by such, we are looking back in time. That simply cannot be, according to science.
Simple light cannot carry images of those far off worlds and galaxies to our telescopes, meaning, our telescopes see out to that light, illuminating those entities, disproving relativity, gravitational lensing and light theory.
That's why I said, light cannot carry images of those worlds and galaxies, meaning, if their light speed and theory were true, we could see the light, but not the worlds or galaxies, because images cannot be carried on light.
former CIA Director, William Casey,“We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

I am still recommending you ask your Doctor for a trial of Geodon.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114120 Jan 10, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
"Anything is possible when you don't know what you're talking about." - Chip Todd

I like that quote!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114121 Jan 10, 2013
As a bystander wrote:
<quoted text>
So can you show how light alone can carry the image of a distant galaxy?

Think the point is that you are mentally ill.

"Anything is possible when you don't know what you're talking about." - Chip Todd

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114122 Jan 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what the telescope sees is in present time idiot.

yes, it sees 13 billion year old light in the present moment.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#114123 Jan 10, 2013
You wanna play, let's play.

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 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, circumference, distance from the sun and the depth each planet sits in its orbit, so testing would not be so easy.

Hypothesis by ,--

Jim Ryan

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114124 Jan 10, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it does take two doesn't it? And they just keep coming back for more. I think he is sort of ridiculing their arrogance. I stay out of it because it doesn't interest me and it is non-productive from either side. It does reveal their true character though. He is providing a stimulus by making some shocking claim or challenge to mainstream science. He belives his subjects are arrogant by nature so he takes advantage of this as they enjoy feeling superior and what they think is admonishing him and correcting him. Its a classic example of the Pavlov's Dogs experiment. He gets the last laugh every time.

You don't understand psychopathology any more than you understand science. Jim is a very disturbed and angry individual. He really believes what he is saying. I know that is hard to understand, but that is the way Delusional Disorder works.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#114125 Jan 10, 2013
When and if there is intelligent rebuttal, we will see where it goes from there.

Science claims we are seeing back into time, some 14 billion years ago. Science claims that we can see that far back in time, because the light from those distant worlds and galaxies have been traveling here for those billions of years and that by such, we are looking back in time. That simply cannot be, according to science.

Simple light cannot carry images of those far off worlds and galaxies to our telescopes, meaning, our telescopes see out to that light, illuminating those entities, disproving relativity, gravitational lensing and light theory.

That's why I said, light cannot carry images of those worlds and galaxies, meaning, if their light speed and theory were true, we could see the light, but not the worlds or galaxies, because images cannot be carried on light.

former CIA Director, William Casey,“We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#114126 Jan 10, 2013
Light falls apart from just the earth to the moon and back.

Light does not travel here from distant galaxies. It is simply that we can see that light through our telescopes.

The moons retroflectors prove how quickly light disperses in just 239,000 miles and back. There are so many billions of planets, so much space dust, so much mass ejections of plasma from suns, so much in cosmic rays, gas clouds and the interference is just endless.

Science has a way to test light theory, but obviously, it doesn't, for a reason.

There is a defining factor in proving light from distant universes does not reach here. Can any of you figure out what it is?

If light cannot escape a black hole, what force stops the light?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114127 Jan 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
If I am sick like you say, you are just as sick for responding to me you fruking morons.
Why don't you morons talk about people and ignore me. I'll talk about science and ignore y'all.
I have more new science coming.

I get paid for talking to people who are mentally ill. It does not bother me at all.

You should not respond till we can talk about science at your level. After all, what is the point?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114128 Jan 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
If I am sick like you say, you are just as sick for responding to me you fruking morons.
Why don't you morons talk about people and ignore me. I'll talk about science and ignore y'all.
I have more new science coming.

we cannot stop you from sharing your fantasies.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#114129 Jan 10, 2013
Science backs up all my claims. Science is very contradictory. It's just like how the morons here claim the bible is.

Moons reflectors bogus

So, the moons reflectors are 239,000 miles from earth, approximately and since the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, y'all must think that laser beam will get back to earth pretty fast. Actually, the light should return to earth from the moons reflectors in 1.3 seconds, with the reflectors designed to reflect the light back to the point it came from.

However, in the 1.3 seconds the light takes to return to its origin, the earth has moved approx 4,000 miles from the point source of light, according to sciences claim that our galaxy is traveling that fast in 1 second, making it impossible for science to capture any photons, at least according to science.

Science sure is messed up, thinking it can collect photons that are 4,000 miles behind the collector.

At least they depend on all of us being stupid enough to believe them. Well, at least y'all.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#114130 Jan 10, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I like that quote!
His other one is:
"Knowing nothing beats knowing something that ain't so."
eLOHIM

Branford, CT

#114131 Jan 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
You wanna play, let's play.
Gravity by Jim Ryan
YADDA YADDA YADDA ....
LMAO!!!! Science?!?!?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 min DanFromSmithville 20,582
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 37 min Zog Has-fallen 24
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 56 min Paul Porter1 171,736
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Paul Porter1 142,571
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 11 hr Paul Porter1 266
Science Suggests That A Quantum Creation Force ... (Jun '14) 11 hr Paul Porter1 33
News Intelligent design 11 hr GTID62 2
More from around the web