Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178617 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.

One way or another

United States

#114531 Jan 16, 2013
Space is not a vacuum.

Science claims space is a vacuum

New science by Jim Ryan

The speed of light test done in a vacuum over 20 miles is total BS, because man can achieve a totally closed and complete vacuum, while space cannot. It has trillions of tons of dust, if you believe in star nurseries, as science claims, coupled with billions of miles of gas clouds, trillions of tons of plasma, from the billions of suns and their ejections, trillions of tons of cosmic rays that all tend to divert and break up light, from as close as the moon, as science proves.

There is no vacuum in space, the kind that man can bring about on earth, ENTIRELY DEVOID of matter.

Trillions of tons of matter is all through out space, according to science.

How is it scientists are too stupid to understand that there is no vacuum in space?

vacuum[ vak-yoom,-yoo-uh m,- yuh m ]
noun
1. a space entirely devoid of matter.
2. an enclosed space from which matter, especially air, has been partially removed so that the matter or gas remaining in the space exerts less pressure than the atmosphere (plenum).
3. the state or degree of exhaustion in such an enclosed space.

To have star nurseries,--plural, as science claims and it takes dust beyond measure almost, to create a star, never mind many stars in many nurseries, as science claims, science contradicts itself terribly, while all scientist must be stupid or stoned, not to point it out to science as a whole.

The following is for all you idiot scientists and the morons that believe you. Read the last line carefully.

MISSING DARK MATTER LOCATED - INTER-GALACTIC SPACE IS FILLED WITH DARK MATTER

On many science web sites, science claims there is almost no matter in space. Science lies constantly

Researchers at IPMU and Nagoya University used large-scale computer simulations and recent observational data of gravitational lensing to reveal how dark matter is distributed around galaxies.

Galaxies have no definite "edges", the new research concludes. Instead galaxies have long outskirts of dark matter that extend to their nearby galaxies; the inter-galactic space is not empty but filled with dark matter.

http://www.ipmu.jp/node/1222
One way or another

United States

#114532 Jan 16, 2013
Immunology

More original science by Jim Ryan

In the following I would suggest that science study children that rarely wear shoes or don't wear shoes at all. I would divide the study into different nations or groups of nations with basically, the same diseases.

I would divide the shoeless-- because of intense poverty, from the people and children that choose to go shoeless and those that rarely or almost never go without shoes.

I might look at the data as the mostly shoeless by desire as mentally and possibly physically, stronger and therefore, more resistant to disease, unless science finds differently.

It may be that kids and people exposed to the pathogens in the dirt, grass and mud puddles on a constant basis, build stronger immune systems, at least for those that choose to go barefoot.
Yes
Elohim

Branford, CT

#114533 Jan 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Space is not a vacuum......
"but the space between my ears is"

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#114534 Jan 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Science claims space is a vacuum
Nope.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Dade City, FL

#114535 Jan 16, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Where do you get 2,000,000,000 for N0
Why only 10000 for t
I thought you argument was meant to show the half-life of dinosaur DNA
Ahh I forgot, you are a new earther so 10,000 years seems right for dinosaurs.
Have you seen that creationist museum with the kid riding a dinosaur truly educational right?
No, I used two different, independent peer-reviewed professional papers research results and appled them using real data which strongly supports a young earth creation. Based on the reported half-life of DNA of 521 years, the estimated beginning amount of Dino DNA of 2B base pairs and the amount of DNA remaining discovered and reported by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, I used the standard half-life formula to arrive at 10,000 years. Which is roughly about what I would expect. It seems you evos have a real problem on your hands.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#114536 Jan 16, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I used two different, independent peer-reviewed professional papers research results and appled them using real data which strongly supports a young earth creation. Based on the reported half-life of DNA of 521 years, the estimated beginning amount of Dino DNA of 2B base pairs and the amount of DNA remaining discovered and reported by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, I used the standard half-life formula to arrive at 10,000 years. Which is roughly about what I would expect. It seems you evos have a real problem on your hands.
Hi Urb can you just point to the parts of the papers that

A) suggest 2B Dino DNA Base pairs
B) where Dr Schweitzer quoted the amount (would need to be the number of base pairs I guess) of DNA remaining

Thanks

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114537 Jan 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Space is not a vacuum.

But your brain is.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114538 Jan 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Immunology
More original science by Jim Ryan
In the following I would suggest that science study children that rarely wear shoes or don't wear shoes at all. I would divide the study into different nations or groups of nations with basically, the same diseases.
I would divide the shoeless-- because of intense poverty, from the people and children that choose to go shoeless and those that rarely or almost never go without shoes.
I might look at the data as the mostly shoeless by desire as mentally and possibly physically, stronger and therefore, more resistant to disease, unless science finds differently.
It may be that kids and people exposed to the pathogens in the dirt, grass and mud puddles on a constant basis, build stronger immune systems, at least for those that choose to go barefoot.
Yes

What does your lit. review reveal? That is the first step after coming up with a scientific idea. NOT publication.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114539 Jan 16, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I used two different, independent peer-reviewed professional papers research results and appled them using real data which strongly supports a young earth creation. Based on the reported half-life of DNA of 521 years, the estimated beginning amount of Dino DNA of 2B base pairs and the amount of DNA remaining discovered and reported by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, I used the standard half-life formula to arrive at 10,000 years. Which is roughly about what I would expect. It seems you evos have a real problem on your hands.

Sorry, science does not work this way. I have explained a number of things wrong with just slapping numbers into a formula and why that does not past mustard in real science.

Further the Dino DNA remnants indicate that the Dinos in question were at least 1.5 million years old (how long it takes for aggrated DNA to become unreadable) base on the hypothized 521 year half life.

Even worse for you is that the 521 year estimate was based on AVERAGE half life of bird DNA (Moa) that were dated with the same geological techniques that dinos are dated. The standard dating methods were authoritative as they are in all real science.

It is also noted that DNA half-life is going to be very dependent upon the environment the DNA is deposited in. Can you think of a better environment than a O2 free, bacteria free, dry, hermetically sealed chunk of fossil? Me neither.

At any rate it is clear (AGAIN) that you don't know anything about the real world application of science or the standards science has for how research and analysis of data is conducted.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114540 Jan 16, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Urb can you just point to the parts of the papers that
A) suggest 2B Dino DNA Base pairs
B) where Dr Schweitzer quoted the amount (would need to be the number of base pairs I guess) of DNA remaining
Thanks

He likes picking numbers out of his arse that seem to support his contention. He is a true pseudoscientific, creationist, through and through. Kent Hovind would be proud of him.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#114541 Jan 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, science does not work this way. I have explained a number of things wrong with just slapping numbers into a formula and why that does not past mustard in real science.
Further the Dino DNA remnants indicate that the Dinos in question were at least 1.5 million years old (how long it takes for aggrated DNA to become unreadable) base on the hypothized 521 year half life.
Even worse for you is that the 521 year estimate was based on AVERAGE half life of bird DNA (Moa) that were dated with the same geological techniques that dinos are dated. The standard dating methods were authoritative as they are in all real science.
It is also noted that DNA half-life is going to be very dependent upon the environment the DNA is deposited in. Can you think of a better environment than a O2 free, bacteria free, dry, hermetically sealed chunk of fossil? Me neither.
At any rate it is clear (AGAIN) that you don't know anything about the real world application of science or the standards science has for how research and analysis of data is conducted.
Nonsense.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#114542 Jan 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
He likes picking numbers out of his arse that seem to support his contention. He is a true pseudoscientific, creationist, through and through. Kent Hovind would be proud of him.
Lying dope.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#114543 Jan 16, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Urb can you just point to the parts of the papers that
A) suggest 2B Dino DNA Base pairs
B) where Dr Schweitzer quoted the amount (would need to be the number of base pairs I guess) of DNA remaining
Thanks
Good questions. Tomorrow. On phone at bar now.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114544 Jan 16, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense.

LOL. You even know you are wrong. Hysterical.

Welcome to real science. It takes real study and real work.

How is your biology study coming?

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, science does not work this way. I have explained a number of things wrong with just slapping numbers into a formula and why that does not past mustard in real science.
Further the Dino DNA remnants indicate that the Dinos in question were at least 1.5 million years old (how long it takes for aggrated DNA to become unreadable) base on the hypothized 521 year half life.
Even worse for you is that the 521 year estimate was based on AVERAGE half life of bird DNA (Moa) that were dated with the same geological techniques that dinos are dated. The standard dating methods were authoritative as they are in all real science.
It is also noted that DNA half-life is going to be very dependent upon the environment the DNA is deposited in. Can you think of a better environment than a O2 free, bacteria free, dry, hermetically sealed chunk of fossil? Me neither.
At any rate it is clear (AGAIN) that you don't know anything about the real world application of science or the standards science has for how research and analysis of data is conducted.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114545 Jan 16, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Lying dope.

You take lying dope? that explains a tremendous amount.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114546 Jan 16, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Good questions. Tomorrow. On phone at bar now.

take your time. Make up something good. I will keep knocking them out of the park.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#114547 Jan 16, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Good questions. Tomorrow. On phone at bar now.
No problem - enjoy your Beer (even if it is American Lager)
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#114548 Jan 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
take your time. Make up something good. I will keep knocking them out of the park.
Nah, when it comes to number progressions its a piece of American Beer (sorry could resist)

a) define your start point (or end point if you see what I mean)
b) define your formula (and back it up, based on numerous observed correlations)
c) define any assumptions made

And spit out an end point

And Bobs your Aunties live-in lover, you have a point
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#114549 Jan 16, 2013
couldn't resist for Gods sake - I'm turning in, have an early meeting
Avanzado

Kansas City, MO

#114550 Jan 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Wikipedia is for brain dead morons, that believe anything they are told.
Whos IQ is higher than primitive human animals? Advanced Alien Beings. They wont even contact the humanoid..........the designers will not even acknowledge human existance.......They just made up a story and made the human animal believe.....end of story!

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Kong_ 164,347
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr thetruth 19,066
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 5 hr GTID62 86
Poll Do you believe the universe is granular? (Aug '11) 6 hr cpshrivastava 31
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 7 hr Zog Has-fallen 11
News British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... (Jul '14) 10 hr goonsquad 162
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) May 26 DanFromSmithville 141,352
More from around the web