Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116662 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey moron
www.yourdictionary.com/constant
Constant describes something that doesn't change or something that continues or remains steady.(adjective)

Yes, the cosmological constant is a constant.

0.73

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116663 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok dodger 2, then your saying all the galaxies are moving in direction from all other galaxies?

It would be more accurate to say that all groups of galaxies are moving away from all other groups of galaxies.

Take a balloon and put 3 dots of ink on it and start to inflate the balloon. Notice that the spots get further and further apart.

Same principle at work.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116664 Feb 10, 2013
phaedrus wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't understand what a constant is, do you? Oh wow, this is too funny to be true! Chimney1 has given a great reply to this, so I won't bother. But if a kid ever asks me why they should stay in school, I'll point at you.

Psycho is a fountain of illogical crap.

If you enjoyed that then stay tuned. He will keep you in stitches.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116665 Feb 10, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Debunked by a hypothesis? That's not right.

A hypothesis fits the facts. You do not.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116666 Feb 10, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Saying you've debunked something is practically meaningless. Whether something is debunked or not is entirely up to the reader to decide. You don't any authority over anyone with regards to whether something has been dubunked or not. This is at the level of a Dogen or something. "That's already been debunked..." Right. Give me a break.

Sorry, but you don't understand science. If valid criticisms are leveled at a work and they are not defended against then it was a successful debunking. You have never shown how your ideas can hold up to the criticism that we have leveled at them and therefore can be considered as refuted.

It is not our responsibility to defend your notions. If you fail to do so they are DOA.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116667 Feb 10, 2013
urban cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree.

Well, you would since the facts are against you. And idea can be debunked or refuted and still held. But there is no logical reason for holding the opinion.
One way or another

Sarasota, FL

#116668 Feb 10, 2013
phaedrus wrote:
<quoted text>
Our galaxy is not moving in the same direction as all others. In general, galaxies are moving away from each other. If they are close enough together, galaxies may move towards each other due to gravity. Andromeda is an example of a galaxy that is sufficiently close that gravity is pulling us together. There are other examples of clusters of galaxies falling in on each other.
We can measure the relative direction and speed of any galaxy we can see (we can't see all galaxies).
Happy?
Thanks, because by your words, science cannot prove red shift.:-)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116669 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, because by your words, science cannot prove red shift.:-)

The red shift is an observation, not something science needs to prove.

Please read a science book so we do not have to keep teaching 6th grade science class with you.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116670 Feb 10, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The red shift is an observation, not something science needs to prove.
Please read a science book so we do not have to keep teaching 6th grade science class with you.
Must admit - I only know the 'basics' of physics as found it a bit dry (sorry) and concentrated on biology and chemistry up to degree level.

I say this not in an attempt at humility (though being British is hard to fight off the urge - and queuing - we are ALL about the queuing)

But to point out that I don't comment as I am not au fait enough with the subject.

Can you see the point I am making here ?
One way or another

United States

#116671 Feb 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, idiot. Like a fundamental force of nature. it can remain constant, but the behavior of all the objects subject to that force is not static. Just like the rock falling down a cliff because of the constant force of gravity.
Got it YET????
Geeze moron, einsteinium cosmological constant described a static universe. Since you're too stupid to understand, static has NO force moron.

Get a brain moron.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116672 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Geeze moron, einsteinium cosmological constant described a static universe. Since you're too stupid to understand, static has NO force moron.
Get a brain moron.
Then how come static electricity makes balloons stick to your jumper?

MORON
One way or another

United States

#116673 Feb 10, 2013
You morons were claiming that red shift proved an expanding universe. You morons change faster than the wind.
One way or another

United States

#116674 Feb 10, 2013
Darn phone and it evil tendencies. In an above post, einsteinium should read, Einstein.
One way or another

United States

#116675 Feb 10, 2013
To all you morons with shit for brains, static is not static electricity. Lol
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116676 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
To all you morons with shit for brains, static is not static electricity. Lol
So you have got the abilities to read and respond to other people's posts.

So respond to this.

You were adamant last year that your announcement on the 23rd of January would shake the science world to its core and make you millions.

You were wrong then - why should anyone think you are correct now with that as a track record?

Now you have shown you can

A) comprehend other people's posts.
B) respond when it suits your purpose.

As I say - respond rationally to this one - or admit that you are a Poe
One way or another

United States

#116677 Feb 10, 2013
Yoo hoo, morons,-- static 1. pertaining to or characterized by a fixed or stationary condition.
2. showing little or no change: a static concept; a static relationship.
3. lacking movement, development, or vitality: The novel was marred by static characterizations, especially in its central figures.
One way or another

United States

#116678 Feb 10, 2013
Hey Evo morons, which scientist wrote the following on the web site,--http://universalium.aca demic.ru/97635/cosmological_co nstant

Astron.
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. Cf. Einstein model.
[1925-30]
***

Term reluctantly added by Albert Einstein to his equations of general relativity in order to obtain a solution to the equations that described a static universe, as he believed it to be at the time.
The constant has the effect of a repulsive force that acts against the gravitational attraction of matter in the universe. When Einstein heard of the evidence that the universe is expanding, he called the introduction of the cosmological constant the "biggest blunder" of his life. Recent developments suggest that in the early universe there may well have been a cosmological constant with a nonzero value.
***

Which scientists confirmed this shit?
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116679 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Yoo hoo, morons,-- static 1. pertaining to or characterized by a fixed or stationary condition.
2. showing little or no change: a static concept; a static relationship.
3. lacking movement, development, or vitality: The novel was marred by static characterizations, especially in its central figures.
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have got the abilities to read and respond to other people's posts.
So respond to this.
You were adamant last year that your announcement on the 23rd of January would shake the science world to its core and make you millions.
You were wrong then - why should anyone think you are correct now with that as a track record?
Now you have shown you can
A) comprehend other people's posts.
B) respond when it suits your purpose.
As I say - respond rationally to this one - or admit that you are a Poe
In your own time
One way or another

United States

#116680 Feb 10, 2013
I don't bother with the most deceitful idiots, but then all you Evo morons prove just how stupid you choose to be.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116681 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
I don't bother with the most deceitful idiots, but then all you Evo morons prove just how stupid you choose to be.
Translation :

That nasty mugwump keeps pointing out the total failure of my past delusions and correctly points out why anyone should think I am right now - when I was so obviously wrong before.

I know I have screwed this up a bit when he deceitfully equated a static universe hypothesis with static electricity, in a sense parodying me - I responded to that - but now he has called me on something I don't wont to admit to - I will pretend I don't respond, even though I just did

Mine is a confused world.

--------

Don't worry Jimbo - everyone gets the message - the translation is probably redundant so I won't invoice you for it.

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 Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 4 min Phillip 494
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 min Phillip 52,195
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 21 min scientia potentia... 1,204
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 52 min replaytime 218,825
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr scientia potentia... 24,885
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr scientia potentia... 157,753
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Jan 19 scientia potentia... 98
More from around the web