Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."

Comments (Page 5,678)

Showing posts 113,541 - 113,560 of168,713
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116588
Feb 10, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I debate with UC and lately Russell. You have nothing worthwhile to say.
The Hubble Expansion and red shift does not apply to the galaxies in our local cluster, as has been explained to you with the reasons. Now run along.
Poor little chimney, can't answer the simplest things.

Funny, Russell and UC don't dispute what I write, but they sure as hell dispute your stupidity. Lol, stay stupid and deceitful, it suits you.

I'd love for Russell and UC or anyone with a brain to dispute what I write. Can you tell them for me? Lol

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116589
Feb 10, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
Science really does treat everyone as if they, we, are all morons as you Evo nuts choose to be.
If the Big Bang is true, did all the galaxies explode from one central point and if not, how does science claim all the galaxies left that central point?
Only people that choose to be idiots, believe without question.
former CIA Director, William Casey,“We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
Well its like this Jimbo.

Quantum fluctuations in the original inflation field produced minor differences in density in the initial formless energy field, and these were magnified in the inflationary event and the gravitational effect that continued afterwards, with the tiny differences being magnified as more dense areas pulled in less dense areas, coming to form concentrations of galactic clusters.

Where these clusters have galaxies close enough together, the gravitational attractive force is great enough to overcome the overall cosmological expansion which is being driven by the cosmological constant, an effect first recognised by Einstein and arising form his general relativity equations, but which he himself found hard to accept as he preferred a static universe to an expanding one. Later he accepted the evidence.

Therefore galaxies now close enough together are not being driven apart from each other, but are still as a cluster being driven apart from other galactic clusters on a larger scale.

Now I am sure you are no wiser than when I started, will resort to weak insults and mindless objections, and this is why its not worth discussing anything with you.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116590
Feb 10, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well its like this Jimbo.
Quantum fluctuations in the original inflation field produced minor differences in density in the initial formless energy field, and these were magnified in the inflationary event and the gravitational effect that continued afterwards, with the tiny differences being magnified as more dense areas pulled in less dense areas, coming to form concentrations of galactic clusters.
Where these clusters have galaxies close enough together, the gravitational attractive force is great enough to overcome the overall cosmological expansion which is being driven by the cosmological constant, an effect first recognised by Einstein and arising form his general relativity equations, but which he himself found hard to accept as he preferred a static universe to an expanding one. Later he accepted the evidence.
Therefore galaxies now close enough together are not being driven apart from each other, but are still as a cluster being driven apart from other galactic clusters on a larger scale.
Now I am sure you are no wiser than when I started, will resort to weak insults and mindless objections, and this is why its not worth discussing anything with you.
So you and science can't answer the simple questions I ask?

Did all the galaxies blow out as the Big Bang originally claimed?

Come on chimney, your deceit can't protect you for long.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116591
Feb 10, 2013
 
Did the galaxies get pushed out of the womb like babies perhaps? Come on chimney, answer these simple questions. Surely such great men of science that claim to be right every time can answer questions for us poorly educated people, right? Lol
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116592
Feb 10, 2013
 
Lmao, here's your cosmological constant. Hahahahahahahaha

cosmological constant
noun Astronomy
1. a term introduced by Einstein into his field equations of general relativity to permit a stationary, nonexpanding universe: it has since been abandoned in most models of the universe.

Do you really get away with such BS you moron?

If amyone with a brain reads your last post with the words cosmological constant in it and applies it as you claim, against what Einstein claims, they will see just what an idiot you really are.

A static universe doesn't attract or repel you moron.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116593
Feb 10, 2013
 
You're a deceitful piece of shit chimney.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116594
Feb 10, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well its like this Jimbo.
Quantum fluctuations in the original inflation field produced minor differences in density in the initial formless energy field, and these were magnified in the inflationary event and the gravitational effect that continued afterwards, with the tiny differences being magnified as more dense areas pulled in less dense areas, coming to form concentrations of galactic clusters.
Where these clusters have galaxies close enough together, the gravitational attractive force is great enough to overcome the overall cosmological expansion which is being driven by the cosmological constant, an effect first recognised by Einstein and arising form his general relativity equations, but which he himself found hard to accept as he preferred a static universe to an expanding one. Later he accepted the evidence.
Therefore galaxies now close enough together are not being driven apart from each other, but are still as a cluster being driven apart from other galactic clusters on a larger scale.
Now I am sure you are no wiser than when I started, will resort to weak insults and mindless objections, and this is why its not worth discussing anything with you.
Hey moron, why don't you explain your first sentence, in the post that you use the words,-- cosmological constant, because from what I read, its pure bull shit, just like the rest of that post, but hey, let's be fair and give you the chance to prove what you claim.

I will detail after you idiot boy. Do you really think you can use such utter BS to fool others?
phaedrus

Leicester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116595
Feb 10, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
So you and science can't answer the simple questions I ask?
Did all the galaxies blow out as the Big Bang originally claimed?
There weren't any galaxies at the time of the Big Bang. Your question makes you look ridiculous because you're clearly trying to argue against a strawman version of the theory.
phaedrus

Leicester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116596
Feb 10, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
Lmao, here's your cosmological constant. Hahahahahahahaha
cosmological constant
noun Astronomy
1. a term introduced by Einstein into his field equations of general relativity to permit a stationary, nonexpanding universe: it has since been abandoned in most models of the universe.
Do you really get away with such BS you moron?
If amyone with a brain reads your last post with the words cosmological constant in it and applies it as you claim, against what Einstein claims, they will see just what an idiot you really are.
A static universe doesn't attract or repel you moron.
If you read further down on the page you took that definition from ( http://universalium.academic.ru/97635/cosmolo... ) you'll see the following:

"Recent developments suggest that in the early universe there may well have been a cosmological constant with a nonzero value."

This is entirely in line with chimney's description. You might also want to refer to http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_accel.h... before showing yourself up again.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116597
Feb 10, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
Lmao, here's your cosmological constant. Hahahahahahahaha
cosmological constant
noun Astronomy
1. a term introduced by Einstein into his field equations of general relativity to permit a stationary, nonexpanding universe: it has since been abandoned in most models of the universe.
Do you really get away with such BS you moron?
If amyone with a brain reads your last post with the words cosmological constant in it and applies it as you claim, against what Einstein claims, they will see just what an idiot you really are.
A static universe doesn't attract or repel you moron.
Dear Moron

1. Einstein developed the cosmological constant as part of the general relativity equations, as he assumed a static universe and needed a repulsion constant to counteract gravity.

2.With the discovery of an expanding universe as per Hubble, Einstein abandoned his constant as no longer necessary in an expanding universe, and called it a mistake.

3. Newer understanding of the way the universe is expanding, with its expansion initially slowing up to about 5 billion years ago due to gravity but since then with the expansion accelerating, has resuscitated Einstein's cosmological constant. It also fits inflation theory for the early universal expansion burst.

So its alive and well, regardless of which old sources you quote.

Of course, my prediction that any attempt to answer you reasonably would be met with the usual stupidity and baseless accusations on your part, and it is proven once again.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116598
Feb 10, 2013
 
phaedrus wrote:
<quoted text>
There weren't any galaxies at the time of the Big Bang. Your question makes you look ridiculous because you're clearly trying to argue against a strawman version of the theory.
Believe me, a straw man would be an improvement on Jimbo's understanding of ANYTHING.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116599
Feb 10, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
So you and science can't answer the simple questions I ask?
Did all the galaxies blow out as the Big Bang originally claimed?
Come on chimney, your deceit can't protect you for long.
Your problem is you don't know enough to even ask the right questions.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116600
Feb 10, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Till someone can answer for the fact that evolution is a fact (observable, testable, replicable, parsimonious, with multiple lines of evidence form multiple different fields we are still waiting for the creations to suit up while we score millions of points.
anyone got a good creationist site? AIG and Creation.com both fail in spades. Any better ones out there?
http://www.biblegateway.com/

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116601
Feb 10, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Chimney, you really shouldn't be so proud of yourself and so disrespectful of people like me who believe in God. Because after all we are both just people. And we both have our beliefs.

You seem to be implying that Chimney should not kick your butt just because you believe in God. I believe in God and Chimney is perfectly decent to me. Maybe you need to look in a mirror to see if you are not part of the problem.



[QUOTE who="Urban Cowboy"]<quoted text>
I happen to believe in the creator whereas you believe in the creation, or nature if you will. But besides our beliefs there is science, and that is what both of share an interest in .

Sounds iffy. You profess an interest in science, but nearly 100% of your posts contain antiscience propaganda. You have specifically denied:
Evolution

Biology

Modern medicine

Chemistry (especially biochemistry)

Physics (notably radiometric dating and the other dating methods that come from physics.)

Anthropology (for nearly everything).

Geology (age of the earth, proof against global flood, proof of the age of the earth, how sediments are laid down,....)

Genetics (for everything you can't warp to fit in your paradigm.

Etc....

[QUOTE who="Urban Cowboy"]<quoted text> Your baseline is Nature/Old Earth and mine is God. Our beliefs are mutually exclusive of science.

No, YOUR believe is exclusive of science. Chimney's are BASED on science.

[QUOTE who="Urban Cowboy"]<quoted text> Yes, I belief the Bible is the inspired word of God. And you believe there is no God and no intelligence involved in Nature (or maybe there is a "god" but he was not actively involved - who knows which brand you hold- but for you the "billions of years" thing is non-negotiable).

Billions of year has been confirmed by a multitude of diverse methods from astronomy, geology, physics, astrophysics,..... It is non-negotiable till someone refutes all those measurements.

[QUOTE who="Urban Cowboy"]<quoted text> We both have directly observable evidence that supports and reinforces our particular beliefs and we both find gaps that don't fit so we must explain with unobservable theories.

No, you have no actual evidence. You have to make up evidence and warp real evidence to force it into some sort of non terminal fit. Chimney relies on observation.

[QUOTE who="Urban Cowboy"]<quoted text> Point is, we are both doing the same thing!

See disproof above.

[QUOTE who="Urban Cowboy"]<quoted text> Neither one of us is anywhere near discovering all the true answers that lay ahead on this journey we call life. We just happen to choose different paths to the same destination. That's OK. It makes life interesting. We certainly aren't robots programmed to all think alike thankfully.
Sure, yours seems more popular at the momement but try not be so proud and disrespectful just because someone doesn't share your particular beliefs. When you act as though your beliefs about, say the "billions of years" thing are 100% absolute while mocking me for my beliefs about the Bible, that is hypocritical and a double standard. And in insulting me is surely not going to somehow shame me into your way of thinking!

You base your beliefs on YOUR (mis)understanding of a single old book of religious stories and teachings. Other base theirs on hundreds of years of modern science. it is not a popularity contests. One is right and the way to be has always been with the evidence.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116602
Feb 10, 2013
 
alan wrote:
<quoted text>Chips? That just one way of human tracking/study group infology. Their are more humans studying human behavior that human behavior can provide. They cant wait to control human thoughts and modify human behavior.....first they need the drug, they are working around the clock to control humans, only on Thursdays to find cures.
I just want to know which one is chipping us.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116603
Feb 10, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
"No" only takes two keystrokes.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116604
Feb 10, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
While I cannot claim it always, what I wrote that you responded to was not disrespectful.
So lets just take your whole "you just have a different world view" approach.
What are the fundamentals of these different world views? You have no valid physical evidence in support of your beliefs. Therefore the only honest claim you can make would be, as per Kurt Wise
"...if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."
http://creation.com/kurt-p-wise-geology-in-si...
Yet that is not what you do. Instead, you present a weak parody of science in order to try and pretend that what you believe is legitimate in rational empirical terms, probably for several reasons:
1. Even you cannot quite swallow Kurt Wise's position stated so bluntly, and seek the legitimacy of science.
2. You know that the only way you are going to smuggle scriptural dogma back into the schools is to appear to play by the rules of science.
3. You hope to persuade a less sophisticated audience that this is a legitimate debate between two scientific viewpoints, rather than a fight between science itself and religious dogmatism.
Now, you and Russell can keep presenting cobbled together apologetics dressed up in the format of scientific papers if you like, but you still do not have a single solid YEC leg to stand on. I have yet to see one such paper that even came close to presenting a solid argument with good evidence. And yes, I will read such papers VERY critically, as anybody should read ANY scientific paper.

The logic is as follows.
1. I make a clearly emotional decision as a child.
2. I reject science as a consequence of that emotional decision.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116605
Feb 10, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey moron, why don't you explain your first sentence, in the post that you use the words,-- cosmological constant, because from what I read, its pure bull shit, just like the rest of that post, but hey, let's be fair and give you the chance to prove what you claim.
I will detail after you idiot boy. Do you really think you can use such utter BS to fool others?
Your "spin = gravity" "hypothesis" fails about 20% of the time, according to you. How many other hypotheses fail about 20% of the time and are still accepted as valid?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116606
Feb 10, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Creationists are routinely discriminated against despite their science being "just like real scientists" because they are real scientists who work in scientific establishments and publish their work like scientists do
Wrong. They are discriminated against because their "science" is NOT just like real science. The methodologies and analyses do not withstand peer review, which is why they had to create their own publications to get their hogwash to see ink.

What do you think the peer-review process is? What percentage of submitted articles do you think EVER get published in the legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journals? What percentage get published in the creationist journals?
Russell wrote:
http://creation.com/discrimina tion-against-creation-scientis ts
And also see regarding Raymond Damadian, inventor of MRI:
http://creation.com/the-not-so-nobel-decision
It was like
And in case you rush off to Wiki or trash-origins or Readers Digest and come back in a frenzy saying, Raymond Damadian did not invent MRI.....sigh...please see:
http://creation.com/dr-damadians-vital-contri...
An article by a friend about peer review:
http://creation.com/creationism-science-and-p...
What do YOU think peer-review is? How do you think it operates?
Russell wrote:
Who debunked my comets post? Who?
I must have missed it....
Easily done when one has a rich full life is is not cemented to this Forum
Does water have magical properties?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116607
Feb 10, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol, aww, poor chimney, too stupid to debate what's written at the time and answer most anything completely, but he sure can use his childish innuendo and deceit.
Try this idiot, if red shift is real, is our galaxy moving in the same direction as all other galaxies?

Ah, so there IS such a thing as a stupid question.

One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Can we see the direction and speed of all other galaxies in the universe?

Not yet.

One way or another wrote:
<quoted text> One last question, is andromeda the only galaxy moving in the opposite direction, so as to collide with our galaxy, according to science?

No.

One way or another wrote:
<quoted text> You choose to be an idiot, just like so many others in your childish clique, making yourselves look like the idiots you choose to be. It's no wonder that not one of you idiots have had an original thought in all the years y'all have been here.

You need to look in a mirror when you say the above.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 113,541 - 113,560 of168,713
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••