• Sections
Should evolution be taught in high sc...

# Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178740 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

#115458 Jan 29, 2013
Will

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.

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#115459 Jan 29, 2013
Has anyone noticed that some of Jimbos new science has a SEEMINGLY random word at the top.

I am thinking if we can decipher the code - it could be the pass phrase into Narnia.

To be fair it is more likely to be a rearrangement of the following words

Delusional
Realise
F\$&kwit
I
Am
A
I

But what do I know - I am not typing this on my diamond encrusted Ipad as I sit on a throne of gold made from my millions from pet psychology last year.
One way or another

United States

#115460 Jan 29, 2013
Right

Seeing back in time

Original work
By Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence

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.”

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#115461 Jan 29, 2013
For Aslan!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

#115462 Jan 29, 2013
I think Jimbozo is lying about making it to the 10th grade.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#115463 Jan 29, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
For Aslan!
:-)

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of \$100's

#115464 Jan 29, 2013
MikeF wrote:
I think Jimbozo is lying about making it to the 10th grade.
It does seem as though he had a very long 9th grade career in any case, perhaps even a record setter!
The Dude

#115465 Jan 29, 2013
One way or another wrote:
If you children can refute what I write, I'll stop writing it. You keep lying, claiming you already did, but that's all ya got.
Actually I usually only really read your first and last lines. I mean, you don't refute us so why should we indulge your irrelevant tangents and refute you?(shrug)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115466 Jan 29, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you noticed how he has all but given up with actually engaging in discussion now ?
I have asked him 4 times (my limit) to post what he thinks is his best 'new science' and we can discuss it rationally - the fact that he just goes into 'spamalot' mode suggests that maybe he knows he can't defend any of it.
In some ways this is maybe a pointer that he is'nt completly 'gone' and has some self awareness

People with delusional disorder are not completely gone. If they were completely taken over by the disorder he would have schizophrenia. One of my former clients was very pleasant to talk to and was very educated and could talk about a number of subjects, but once she got into her delusional material,.... It was absolutely crazy and ABSOLUTELY REAL to her. I could never challenge it in a straight forward manor. I had to work at developing the therapeutic relationship and gradual work at the underpinnings of her ideas. That was real work! Give me someone with full fledged schizophrenia any day of the week!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115467 Jan 29, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.- Chip Todd

I was just talking to one of the administrators where I world about this. We were joking about the phrase "knowledge is power" and the irony involved in that.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#115468 Jan 29, 2013
So we're talking about psychology now? Cool
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#115469 Jan 29, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
People with delusional disorder are not completely gone. If they were completely taken over by the disorder he would have schizophrenia. One of my former clients was very pleasant to talk to and was very educated and could talk about a number of subjects, but once she got into her delusional material,.... It was absolutely crazy and ABSOLUTELY REAL to her. I could never challenge it in a straight forward manor. I had to work at developing the therapeutic relationship and gradual work at the underpinnings of her ideas. That was real work! Give me someone with full fledged schizophrenia any day of the week!
Interesting insight -

sorry was in no way tying to tread on your diagnostic toes as it were - am actually interested in what makes someone like Jimbo tick.

And I guess if the 'clique' can actually help him or not.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#115470 Jan 29, 2013
hmm...well Freud just pisses me off. I enjoy Carl Jung, though. DID interests me more than schizophrenia does. Of course, I'm not a professional.

Jimbo, do you hear voices?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115471 Jan 29, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting insight -
sorry was in no way tying to tread on your diagnostic toes as it were - am actually interested in what makes someone like Jimbo tick.
And I guess if the 'clique' can actually help him or not.

I am pretty certain that this type of forum attracts this type of disorder. They can feed their delusions without having to deal with the repercussions of expressing those beliefs to real people that they know. They have just enough insight to know that does not work out for them ("I don't talk about these things with my family because they don't understand and think I'm crazy.").

But expressing our beliefs reinforces them regardless of the feedback we receive. This is one of the reasons that cults encourage their member to proselytize to the heathen masses. The more one tries to convert others, the deeper their belief becomes. If they get told off then the person was just not ready to receive their message....
One way or another

United States

#115472 Jan 29, 2013
Left

Gravity

Original work
Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence

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

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115473 Jan 29, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
hmm...well Freud just pisses me off. I enjoy Carl Jung, though. DID interests me more than schizophrenia does. Of course, I'm not a professional.
Jimbo, do you hear voices?

LOL. Hummm.... "pisses me off". Freud would have a field day with that expression.

Jung is a favorite of mine as well. He was friends with Einstein and hated Freud so he must have his head screwed on pretty straight.

I have had some "DID" clients and plenty of "borderlines". I don't have the negative reactions to these types of clients that some therapists do.

The only voice Jimbo hears is his own. That is his problem.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#115474 Jan 29, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Left

Gravity

Original work
Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence

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
Hiya. Do you hear voices?

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of \$100's

#115475 Jan 29, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Left
Gravity
Original work
Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence
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
The reason stuff in low orbit falls to the earth faster is because of atmospheric resistance, dim bulb!

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of \$100's

#115476 Jan 29, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Left
Gravity
Original work
Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence
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
Explain asteroids, comets and mar's orbit using your theory
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#115477 Jan 29, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Left
Gravity
Original work
Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence
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
First word = left

Seriously it's a subnormal (pun intended) message

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.