Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 174,458

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." Full Story
LowellGuy

Haverhill, MA

#114096 Jan 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, that's why you're too stupid to show how light alone can carry an image of a distant world or galaxy. Keep talking moron.
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.”
The Jews who control science just notified me in the present with a telephone call that I received the instant it was made and not a nanosecond later...they said if you continue spreading true science over the freely accessible Internet so they can't take credit for the discoveries, they'd begin an in-depth investigation of you, including reading your mail, scanning your online activity for subversive content, and recording your whereabouts and activities at all times. If you don't want to be under constant surveillance, they said what you should do is stop exposing their deceptive practices and propaganda, and visit the doctor who used to prescribe you the pills that hid the truth from you. Apparently he's on their side, but I've heard he might be sympathetic to your plight and could offer some useful ways to fight the Jew conspiracy without attracting their attention.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#114097 Jan 10, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
I must admit, it is a little entertaining watching him make total fools out of all of you.
He does have a way of tapping into everyone's worst instincts. I commend you for your patients in not getting caught up in his nonsense. I ignore him sometimes for weeks at a time, then he says something so stupid it just seems to make sense that he ought to be wacked upside his head, so I go and make a reply to his idiocy. But of course, you know that's all he really wants, some way to get attention. It just encourages him. Darn.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Atlanta, GA

#114098 Jan 10, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
He does have a way of tapping into everyone's worst instincts. I commend you for your patients in not getting caught up in his nonsense. I ignore him sometimes for weeks at a time, then he says something so stupid it just seems to make sense that he ought to be wacked upside his head, so I go and make a reply to his idiocy. But of course, you know that's all he really wants, some way to get attention. It just encourages him. Darn.
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.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#114100 Jan 10, 2013
Until someone can prove how billions of year old light can transport with it, images of galaxies, I will keep posting the following.

Science claims it can see back in time, purposely dumbing down the population, not in just this, but in such a great many ways.

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

#114101 Jan 10, 2013
If y'all weren't such complete morons, you would just ignore me. You call me every name in the book, you claim I need mess, you claim dunning Kruger and more and yet, you morons feel the need to twist word and meaning and act like a childish clique.

I talk about science and you morons talk about me. Y'all are the sick ones, too stupid to address science.

Ignore me you fruking idiots.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#114102 Jan 10, 2013
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.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#114103 Jan 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
If y'all weren't such complete morons, you would just ignore me. You call me every name in the book, you claim I need mess, you claim dunning Kruger and more and yet, you morons feel the need to twist word and meaning and act like a childish clique.
I talk about science and you morons talk about me. Y'all are the sick ones, too stupid to address science.
Ignore me you fruking idiots.
LMAO!!!! Science?!?!?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
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.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 12 min xxxooxxx 121,108
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr MikeF 138,204
Darwin on the rocks 2 hr Dogen 373
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 6 hr Chimney1 381
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 7 hr Chimney1 719
Monkey VS Man Oct 19 Bluenose 14
Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution Oct 19 TurkanaBoy 204

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE