Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180382 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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#127374 Apr 18, 2013
This is the YouTube video that Richard Jenkins made:

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#127375 Apr 18, 2013
rusty, in your so called many nations, those all refer to nations under Nebuchadnezzar. They all say "his men" and "his horses", etc.. No where does it imply anyone else than Nebby. And it certainly does not mention a break of 250 friggin' years. You are lowering the so called Tyre prophecy to the equivalent of me claiming you will find a red car.

I see you have not even attempt to find a city that was not defeated in that period of time. That is the same as an admission of defeat.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#127376 Apr 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
DOH!! Forgot the linky:
http://www.nalsa.org/DownWind.html
OK, so this is more than a sail or propeller driven by the wind, the wheels themselves are generating some of the power for propulsion, but that also seems counter intuitive. I'll be looking at this with more interest and plenty of skepticism.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127377 Apr 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally worthless post.
You say you've read some of the articles and they "contain science".
Yet you always refuse to be specific.
Now you're attempting to appeal to authority... suggesting that I should simple accept whatever perceived authorities tell me rather than to think for myself.

No, that is not what I said. I will give you another opportunity in a moment.

But first, you do not seem to understand what the Appeal to Authority fallacy actually means.

"Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appe...

Did you catch that. Appeal to authority is only a fallacy "when the person is question is NOT a legitimate authority."


Second point is that you are not capable of thinking for yourself on the subject of science any more than I am capable of reading Russian.

The ability to understand science is predicated upon proper education in the field(s) being studied. This is not the 17 or 18 hundreds when an amateur could become self educated in a field and become a renowned expert in that area (very rare even then).

You have nothing more than arguments from absolute stupidity.

We now return to our regularly scheduled program.....

Dogen wrote:

BUT (the point) I am not arguing against science so it is not my job (per the scientific method) to prove that professional, peer review, journals with article written and reviewed by PhD researchers don't contain legitimate science. That is for your side to do.
To date you have nothing as you have not done so.
You can hold your breath and scream that Evolutionary Biology is not real science till the cows come home, but that does not make it true.
ONLY SCIENCE CAN REFUTE SCIENCE.
Religion cannot do so.
Philosophy cannot do so.
Pseudoscience cannot do so.
==========

!!!!!!!

Try again.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#127378 Apr 18, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, so this is more than a sail or propeller driven by the wind, the wheels themselves are generating some of the power for propulsion, but that also seems counter intuitive. I'll be looking at this with more interest and plenty of skepticism.
Actually from an aerodynamic perspective sails can act either as propellers or turbines. When a sailboat is on a downwind reach it is acting as a propeller. The wind will be moving faster relative to the sail after interacting with it. When a sailboat is on an upwind tack it is acting as a turbine, the wind moves slower relative to the sail after it interacts with it. In both cases the wind moves slower relative to the ground after interacting with the sails.

If you consider the path of any point on the propeller you will find that it takes a corkscrew path through the air. If you "unrolled" that corkscrew into a straight line you would see that the path is always one at a constant angle to the wind, exactly the same as a boat on a downwind reach.

This is extremely counterintuitive. The man who has the official record will even readily admit that he may not have been the first one to travel directly downwind faster than the wind. A man did it in the sixties, but his indicators were simple yarn tell tales that could be argued to be in the path of the rotors acceleration of the wind.

Here is video of possibly the first ever DDWFTTW vehicle. Turn up your speakers:

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127379 Apr 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Dogen, you have no comprehension of science.
I don't need to replace ToE with another scientific theory to falsify it. You've brought up that argument before, and it has been debunked even by your own evo-minions.
You have fallen prey to the classic fallacy of the false alternative.

First, you misrepresent my argument.
Second, what I actually said is not a fallacy.

Let me break it down for you.


"Description of False Dilemma

A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":

Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
Claim Y is false.
Therefore claim X is true.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:

Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
It is not the case that 1+1=4.
Therefore 1+1=12.

In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:

Bill is dead or he is alive.
Bill is not dead.
Therefore Bill is alive."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/fals...


So then, there are two issues here:

1. Creationism/ID is not a science. 99% of what creationism/ID does is try (pathetically) to discredit established science (not just evolution either - many fields are involved). It fails to do that.

2. Having failed that the ONLY other way for Creation/IDism to replace Evolution is to .... replace it. That is to have a better explanation (theory) to explain the observed fact of evolution than the ToE. And you have nothing there either.

Claiming that the theory of evolution does not have all the answers to everything is meaningless. NO scientific theory has that. Not one of them.


I hope I don't have to teach you logic one fallacy at a time!
Urban Cowboy

United States

#127380 Apr 18, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
How?
Let me guess, traces found in samples dated > 60k years ago
And the phrase of the day is 'déjà vu'
As and aside, how you doing Mr Cowboy, hope all is well
Living out of hotels reviewing vmware hypervisor data conversions but west virginia is beautiful. Nice people here. SORRY to dwell but contamination can't explain it all.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#127381 Apr 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually from an aerodynamic perspective sails can act either as propellers or turbines. When a sailboat is on a downwind reach it is acting as a propeller. The wind will be moving faster relative to the sail after interacting with it. When a sailboat is on an upwind tack it is acting as a turbine, the wind moves slower relative to the sail after it interacts with it. In both cases the wind moves slower relative to the ground after interacting with the sails.
If you consider the path of any point on the propeller you will find that it takes a corkscrew path through the air. If you "unrolled" that corkscrew into a straight line you would see that the path is always one at a constant angle to the wind, exactly the same as a boat on a downwind reach.
This is extremely counterintuitive. The man who has the official record will even readily admit that he may not have been the first one to travel directly downwind faster than the wind. A man did it in the sixties, but his indicators were simple yarn tell tales that could be argued to be in the path of the rotors acceleration of the wind.
Here is video of possibly the first ever DDWFTTW vehicle. Turn up your speakers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =dAkJ_QVbloQXX
Actually, I have less problem understanding how the cart could go upwind (against the wind) using a propeller or turbine. It's just that going down wind, I would expect a "zero" crossing point as the cart goes from being pushed by the wind to "pushing on the wind" using power from the wheels and with no apparent airflow across the propeller. Once going faster than the wind, I can believe and possibly model sustaining the propulsion, it's just getting past the passive, being pushed mode, to the actively pushing using energy from wheel motion and airflow that is giving me the most trouble.

I am beginning to suspect an "assist" of some sort to cross that "zero point". If I am right about that, it wouldn't be cheating ... much ... but it would mean going faster than the wind downwind would not be possible without artificial assist at some point.

Again, I haven't carefully modeled it, all thumbnail speculation at this point.
Urban Cowboy

United States

#127382 Apr 18, 2013
Hey Mugwump, you guys getting hit hard by the DDoS attacks?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#127383 Apr 18, 2013
CONT--->

PART 4

----------

It is to this island Tyre location that Alexander....part of the "many nations" prophesy......build his giant causeway

In doing this his army and the many local people he conscripted as labourers fulfilled the words of 26:12 exactly:

"And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water."

==========

The prophetic words there are amazingly precise with respect to their fulfillment

==========

Alexander's scheme - the causeway he built from the ruins of Old Tyre allowed his army to cross the sea channel (with water on left hand and right hand) on what he had made into dry ground.

As a result he seized the island of (New) Tyre, and took the wealth which its people had thought was safe in the fortress.
==========

The conclusion is that Ezekiel's words have in fact been fulfilled for over 2300 years, and are still true today.

==========

Compare the location of present day modern Tyre to the location shown here on the site of ancient Tyre

http://maps.google.com/maps...

Zoom out to see the townships adjacent to the barren and desolate area between the road and the beach

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/image.axd...
==========

I would love to see the ancient Temple of Heracles

Unfortunately

It was never rebuilt

==========

Difficulties in Unearthing Remains from the Tyre of Ezekiel’s Day

Katzenstein describes some of the marine archaeological research of the massive harbor installations that are now under water (1997: 11–17).

Aubet mentions that Tyre lay at the center of a line of reefs that made up the harbor, which are now under water.

This has been due to erosion, human intervention and a rise in the sea level over the past 300 years.

Alexander’s mole also interrupted water currents, and some of the structures from that mole are now under water (Aubet 1993: 153).

When excavations are undertaken, it is as if the Tyre of Ezekiel’s day never existed (Gibson and Negev 2001: 519, 520).

THUS --->
IT IS AS IF THE TYRE OF EZEKIEL'S DAY ======NEVER===== existed

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/12/...

==========
By the way

I know you're desperate

But there are no time limits on Ezekiel's prophesy

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127384 Apr 18, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Here it is folks.....
The death throes....
This could take hours........EVEN days
This is the exact established pattern...incl timeline...of how SZ carries on when proven wrong
Agonizing denials...
Fixation on particular words..
Misreading of facts....
And the whining.......Oh heavens to betsy...
What a chore!
Listen slug
Every bit of Ezekiel's prophesy has been true
Ancient Tyre was never rebuilt
What you're suggesting is absurd
But such is your inability to think straight when being shown to be wrong
Its elephant external testicles all over again
==========
These are your unrealistic demands
1) That Ezekiel prophesied that King Nebuchadrezzar alone would destroy Tyre
2) That the ancient Phoenician city has been rebuilt
You're wrong on both counts
==========
Here's the Scripture verse from Bible Gateway
Ezekiel 26
New International Version (NIV)
A Prophecy Against Tyre
26 In the eleventh month of the twelfth[a] year, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, because Tyre has said of Jerusalem,‘Aha! The gate to the nations is broken, and its doors have swung open to me; now that she lies in ruins I will prosper,’ 3 therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. 4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock. 5 Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord. She will become plunder for the nations, 6 and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword. Then they will know that I am the Lord.
----------
As you see
It is in Verse 3 that God clearly states that He will bring many nations against Tyre
Here is the verse:
Ez 26:3
3 therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves.
==========
Please carefully note: "Many Nations"
==========
No where does God say He was going to utterly destroy Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar ALONE
The scriptures do not say that
Why?
Because God did not say that
==========
God said ===***MANY NATIONS**==
...And how was the destruction going to be achieved?
Via many nations incl the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar
He's the "he" in the versus Ez 26:7-11
Here they are:
NEXT POST

You are getting increasingly irrational.

Nebuchadnezzar never got into the city of Tyre.

Game, set and match.


Never mind most of the other things you said were totally wrong, but this one fact alone proves you wrong.

Not only is your argument wrong, but it is completely unnecessary, as I have pointed out.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127385 Apr 18, 2013
Russell wrote:
CONT-->
PART 2
Here are the verses pertaining to King Nebuchadnezzar
He's the "he" in these following verses
----------
Ezekiel 26: 7-11
New International Version (NIV)
A Prophecy Against Tyre
7 “For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar[b] king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army.
8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you.
9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons.
10 His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the warhorses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through.
11 The hooves of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground.
==========
Any issues with the above?
Did anything mentioned there NOT come to pass?
==========
No it was ALL FULFILLED
==========
Did you notice the clear reference to the MAINLAND?
Here it is:
Verse 8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword;
==========
The Tyrians carried off all their wealth to the island
That indeed is the New Tyre
Alexander referred to mainland Tyre as Paleotyros
"Palaetyros" (Old Tyre) to build his great causeway (or "mole") from the mainland out to the island in order to conquer the island where the Tyrians then lived. In doing this his army and the many local people he conscripted as labourers fulfilled the words of 26:12 exactly"
==========
So now we have two locations and utterly fulfilled prophesies
==========
Let's turn to the next verses
Here we see the destruction wrought by the MANY NATIONS excluding Nebuchadnezzar
The many nations are the "they" in the following verses

verses 9-11 never happened.

Again, what you are saying indicated that you have not examined the information we have provided you.

Why did you ignore it?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#127386 Apr 18, 2013
You missed rusty.

This is the location of ancient and present day Tyre:

https://maps.google.com/maps...

Notice, all but a small part of it is inhabited.

Don't you even know where Tyre is, or the history of Tyre.

What a Maroon:

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127387 Apr 18, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you think of the fulfilled prophesies of Ezekiel?

You mean the one that was written 30 years after the fact and that he STILL got wrong? That prophesy?

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#127388 Apr 18, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I have less problem understanding how the cart could go upwind (against the wind) using a propeller or turbine. It's just that going down wind, I would expect a "zero" crossing point as the cart goes from being pushed by the wind to "pushing on the wind" using power from the wheels and with no apparent airflow across the propeller. Once going faster than the wind, I can believe and possibly model sustaining the propulsion, it's just getting past the passive, being pushed mode, to the actively pushing using energy from wheel motion and airflow that is giving me the most trouble.
I am beginning to suspect an "assist" of some sort to cross that "zero point". If I am right about that, it wouldn't be cheating ... much ... but it would mean going faster than the wind downwind would not be possible without artificial assist at some point.
Again, I haven't carefully modeled it, all thumbnail speculation at this point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing_faster_t...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#127389 Apr 18, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I have less problem understanding how the cart could go upwind (against the wind) using a propeller or turbine. It's just that going down wind, I would expect a "zero" crossing point as the cart goes from being pushed by the wind to "pushing on the wind" using power from the wheels and with no apparent airflow across the propeller. Once going faster than the wind, I can believe and possibly model sustaining the propulsion, it's just getting past the passive, being pushed mode, to the actively pushing using energy from wheel motion and airflow that is giving me the most trouble.
I am beginning to suspect an "assist" of some sort to cross that "zero point". If I am right about that, it wouldn't be cheating ... much ... but it would mean going faster than the wind downwind would not be possible without artificial assist at some point.
Again, I haven't carefully modeled it, all thumbnail speculation at this point.
Nope, no cheating. Did you understand the concept of the treadmill being the equivalent of a wind tunnel test for an airplane part. If the cart stays exactly in place it is the same as going exactly at the speed of the wind. If it goes to the front of the treadmill it is going faster than the wind, if it falls off of the back it is going slower than the wind.

I would have to do some searching, but somewhere there are mathematical formulas that analyze the forces. They show that it is theoretically possible, assuming certain inefficiencies. Of course theory and practice are not the same thing. The models show that it is not only theoretically possible it is physically possible.

The NALSA officials checked out the vehicle very thoroughly. They understand sailing very well and were not afraid to put their stamp of approval on it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127390 Apr 18, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope
Neither has Pompeii
There is a modern Pompei---> spelt with one 'i'
Its near Naples
Are you claiming, therefore, that ancient Pompeii is rebuilt?

They are not the same city, in the same location, with the same name, with continuous inhabitation.

They are different cities, with different names, populated at different times.

Tyre is, as we have seen, the same city, in the same location.....


Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#127391 Apr 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
You missed rusty.
This is the location of ancient and present day Tyre:
https://maps.google.com/maps...
Notice, all but a small part of it is inhabited.
Don't you even know where Tyre is, or the history of Tyre.
What a Maroon:http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWoXX
Oh crap, I missed too.

Tyre is the peninsula that sticks out into the Mediterranean.

If you look at it you can see that over 2/3 of the peninsula is occupied. About a third of it is ruins.

Tyre was an island until Alex the Great built a causeway. The causeway changed the local currents and it filled in. Now it is no longer an island. Ancient Tyre was an island.

Your own article, in fact the parts that you quoted TWICE said that they built over the old city.

Tyre has been rebuilt.

Hmm, you say there was no time limit on the prophesy. Maybe so, of course it was predicted that Nebby would defeat Tyre, Nebby and his men. Perhaps they will return and finish the job. I have my doubts. Until then it is a failed prophecy.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#127392 Apr 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
verses 9-11 never happened.
Again, what you are saying indicated that you have not examined the information we have provided you.
Why did you ignore it?
Dogem provides Dodgy information

How did the prophesies of verses 9-11 never happen

It was a land based siege

Battering rams were a very common battle weapon

I am intrigued by what false doctrine you are about to amaze me

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#127393 Apr 18, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
Thanks.

If you are really interested in this subject here are a couple of links to the buildblog of the Blackbird. The first link is the most recent post, the second is the very first post. By following this you could build your own Blackbird:

http://www.fasterthanthewind.org/

http://www.fasterthanthewind.org/search...

Since I was an active part of the debate I followed this build as it went along. spork also uploaded onto YouTube a series of videos that tell you how to make the small version that they ran on treadmills. Several high school students have done so for science fair projects.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Dogen 162,356
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr Dogen 577
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 10 hr 15th Dalai Lama 76,822
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 12 hr Dogen 4,275
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 16 hr Simon 13,743
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Tue John 32,164
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Jul 16 The FACTory 221,745
More from around the web