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.

Elohim

Branford, CT

#115101 Jan 25, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Justice
Spin electron rate earth gravity.......BLAH BLAH BLAH YADDA YADDA YADDA.....

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115102 Jan 25, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you see anywhere that they claimed an extraordinary event,--NO
You're a stooge
They claimed the layer was volcanic glass.

A volcanic eruption IS an extraordinary event you doofus.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#115103 Jan 25, 2013
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
And they never will agree, because if they actually settled on a specific definition, we would use it to demolish even more of their arguments. As it is, we keep demolishing moving targets, a little more challenging, but not significantly.
Ted, I see you're still on this forum, mindlessly parroting the same regurgitated athetist BS. Those who believe that "science" should be restricted to naturalistic causes are attempting to secure evolution from falsification... the antithesis of science.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#115104 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Ted, I see you're still on this forum, mindlessly parroting the same regurgitated athetist BS. Those who believe that "science" should be restricted to naturalistic causes are attempting to secure evolution from falsification... the antithesis of science.
"Naturalistic" compared to "SUPERnaturalistic"?

And how would you propose we go about testing the qualities and the source of supernatural phenomena?
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#115105 Jan 25, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Proof
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, because that is the only way that test could show light traveling at 186,00 miles per second.
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&#8201;m,- yuh&#8201;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
Make shit up. Ignore refutations. Repeat daily until reality conforms to your incorrect ramblings. No, that's not crazy.

Urban Cowboy, take note. This is you. Can you say "99 reasons?"
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#115106 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Ted, I see you're still on this forum, mindlessly parroting the same regurgitated athetist BS. Those who believe that "science" should be restricted to naturalistic causes are attempting to secure evolution from falsification... the antithesis of science.
Actually you got that totally backwards. If we allowed SUPER-natural causes in science evolution could never be falsified because it would be rendered non-falsifiable. By restricting science to *methodological*(not philosophical) naturalism, it not only makes science possible, but also ensures that evolution remains falsifiable. And therefore scientific.

It's just that no-one's falsified it yet. That ain't OUR problem.(shrug)

And what's atheism got to do with anything anyway? Every time you invoke it you're only admitting your "scientific alternative" is invisible Jewish magic.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#115107 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Ted, I see you're still on this forum, mindlessly parroting the same regurgitated athetist BS. Those who believe that "science" should be restricted to naturalistic causes are attempting to secure evolution from falsification... the antithesis of science.
Science concerns itself with the demonstrable. As soon as you can demonstrate something supernatural, science will include it in its investigations.
One way or another

United States

#115108 Jan 25, 2013
The deceits in science.

Main Entry: varve
Pronunciation:\&#712;värv\
Function: noun
Etymology: Swedish varv turn, layer; akin to Old Norse hvarf ring, Old English hweorfan to turn — more at wharf
Date: 1912
: a pair of layers of alternately finer and coarser silt or clay believed to comprise an annual cycle of deposition in a body of still water

Science is becoming very shabby. Above is the original definition. Now science is changing the definition below, as evolution distorts most everything.

http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012/11/12/var...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115109 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Ted, I see you're still on this forum, mindlessly parroting the same regurgitated athetist BS. Those who believe that "science" should be restricted to naturalistic causes are attempting to secure evolution from falsification... the antithesis of science.
No, I LOVE thinking up ways evolution could be falsified.

For example, if we found highly derived forms in the fossil record prior to any possible antecedents.

Or if we found clear violations in the nested hierarchy anatomically, for example a feathered creature with a 3-boned mammalian middle ear.

Or if we discovered that the nested hierarchies of variation found in pseudogenes, ERV's, and the non functional portions of ubiquitous proteins were inconsistent with each other and / or the fossil record.

But the more ways I see it could be falsified, the more clear it is that it hasn't been.

And FYI, none of that has anything to do with atheism. Evolution does not disprove God nor try to...but, evolution, geology, cosmology, astronomy, and physics do of course render some of the more outlandish claims in the Bible ridiculous. Not the same thing at all. If you believe so, then its the Bible you worship, not God.
One way or another

United States

#115110 Jan 25, 2013
The children love to play their childish clique games. As you play yours, my science is used till you refute it.

In all the years your clique has been here, not one of you Evo morons ever brought any new thinking to science.
One way or another

United States

#115111 Jan 25, 2013
Give

Test/ speed of light theory

More new science by Jim Ryan

If science really wanted to test speed of light theory, science could add a simple laser light to any of its probes and when the probe got say a million miles away from earth, it could send its laser light back to earth, one aimed at American collectors one at Russian collectors and one at another countries collectors, unless science is afraid to know the truth.
How is it that not one scientist in the whole world thought of such already? Are they all morons or does science just not want to know?

One way or another

United States

#115112 Jan 25, 2013
Arrive

Mid Atlantic mountains width

Original work
By Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence

I told you children to be aware of a game of chess. I kept you looking in one place, making you feel comfortable and getting you to do exactly what you did, thanks.

Now children, ask yourselves, how wide are the mountains at the mid Atlantic ridge? They surely aren't 67,500 miles wide
The width of the mountains should equal the movement of those plates and science claims that in one million years, the plates lose approximately 15 miles, so if the earth is 4.5 billion years old and one million divided into 4.5 billion is 4500, then multiply 15times 4500, which equals 67,500 miles of lost plate. The width of the mountains at the mid atl ridge is minuscule, so please explain how that can be, when the width of the mountain range should be, 67,500. as the mountain range is the only place that shows the addition of material.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115113 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Ted, I see you're still on this forum, mindlessly parroting the same regurgitated athetist BS. Those who believe that "science" should be restricted to naturalistic causes are attempting to secure evolution from falsification... the antithesis of science.

LOL. Nice parody of a mindless creotard.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115114 Jan 25, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Give
Test/ speed of light theory
More new science by Jim Ryan
If science really wanted to test speed of light theory, science could add a simple laser light to any of its probes and when the probe got say a million miles away from earth, it could send its laser light back to earth, one aimed at American collectors one at Russian collectors and one at another countries collectors, unless science is afraid to know the truth.
How is it that not one scientist in the whole world thought of such already? Are they all morons or does science just not want to know?
Probes already HAVE "light" emitters. They are called radio transponders. If you knew the first thing about what you are talking about, you would know that visible light and radio waves are merely different wavelengths of the SAME thing - electromagnetic radiation, and it all travels at the same speed through a vacuum.

Thought you should know, since science has known for the last 150 years give or take.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#115115 Jan 25, 2013
nemesis wrote:
<quoted text>Good one! Wrong quess. Try again. This time think....On second thought, Dan go read the Bible and bow your head, you really dont want to know whats out there......it aint God!
I know you are out there. Way out there.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#115116 Jan 25, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Heh...you called him "puke."
I wondered if anyone would catch that?
One way or another

United States

#115117 Jan 25, 2013
The following is the original definition of a varve. Look how thick those varves are, compared to what and how thin science is claiming varves to be, as it chooses in its deceit.

http://formontana.net/varveshand.jpg

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#115118 Jan 25, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
One Way Or Another, aka Pet Whisperer, aka Carpet Whisperer, aka Psychology, aka Jim Ryan, aka resident legitimately batshit insane loon.
OK, I get it. Jim Ryan is alledgedly his real name I suppose. I never did catch why CW (Jim) was anti-science. Is it a symptom of his larger pathology or did he get injured in a bizarre chemistry set accident as a child?
One way or another

United States

#115119 Jan 25, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Probes already HAVE "light" emitters. They are called radio transponders. If you knew the first thing about what you are talking about, you would know that visible light and radio waves are merely different wavelengths of the SAME thing - electromagnetic radiation, and it all travels at the same speed through a vacuum.
Thought you should know, since science has known for the last 150 years give or take.
Yea moron, that's why radio waves can move through walls and light can't.

There is no vacuum in space moron

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, because that is the only way that test could show light traveling at 186,00 miles per second.

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&#8201;m,- yuh&#8201;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

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#115121 Jan 25, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Give
Test/ speed of light theory
More new science by Jim Ryan
If science really wanted to test speed of light theory, science could add a simple laser light to any of its probes and when the probe got say a million miles away from earth, it could send its laser light back to earth, one aimed at American collectors one at Russian collectors and one at another countries collectors, unless science is afraid to know the truth.
How is it that not one scientist in the whole world thought of such already? Are they all morons or does science just not want to know?
Jim, two questions.

To calculate the speed of light using your above method, you would have to know (a) the exact distance between the probe and instrument(s) where the light signal would be received,

and

(b) exactly when the light was emitted from the probe.

(a) How do you propose we measure this distance, a measuring tape?

(b) You'll answer you send a signal to tell the probe to fire the laser at the earth, right? Well, since the signal we sent would ALSO be travelling at the speed of light (which you say we don't know), how can we trust the time calculation?

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) 19 min Gary Coaldigger 20,668
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 25 min Marksman11 142,714
Simulated Evolution in a Computer Program 47 min Zog Has-fallen 1
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 1 hr Chimney1 304
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr Chimney1 172,004
Cartier brand luxury bangle cartier watch on il... 4 hr Dopy 1
Dr. David Berlinski corrects himself on whale e... 5 hr Chimney1 54
More from around the web