Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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

#139276 Jun 26, 2013
Added material

Heart of black holes

Here is the heart of my new science by Jim Ryan

Go to the second picture in the following website. It is a blue picture, depicting the pulsar, a white dot at the center of the Crab Nebula.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/Crab-Nebu...

My new science is that nebula are the castings of black holes, just as the pulsar is. There are many nebula with pulsars, just as there are black holes.

Copy and paste below! My response will be below that.

This flare isnít the Crabís first fit. Since 2007 AGILE and Fermi have detected about a half dozen events, the most fantastic that of April 2011, when the Crab erupted in an outburst at least 30 times brighter than the nebulaís norm. The new flare is the brightest since that event. These flares put out 1,000 times more power than the Sun does at all wavelengths.

My response! The flares are coming from a black hole that is dumping its contents into the nebula, just as it dumped the pulsar there. The pulsar and the surroundings are illuminated by the castings of the black hole, otherwise, the crab nebulas pulsar should illuminate the whole area like that, all the time.

The swirling motion also matches the small end of a black hole, that grows larger as it extends away from the black hole.

A black hole is feeding this nebula, that's why it keeps expanding, while it retains its shape, even after a thousand years, where the matter is supposedly moving away from the neutron, since the blast.

Nothing in the nebula has been shown to cause flares and the scientists claim to be puzzled by that. The blue picture at the website given, shows by its design, that it is being fed, because without being fed, the pulsar would have dust and gas, equally distributed around the pulsar.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#139277 Jun 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You make yourself look like an idiot and then you want to change the subject, so ok, lets change the subject. Yes, a black hole is feeding this nebula, that's why it keeps expanding, while it retains its shape, even after a thousand years, where the matter is supposedly moving away from the neutron, since the blast.
Nothing in the nebula has been shown to cause flares and the scientists claim to be puzzled by that. The blue picture at the website given, shows by its design, that it is being fed, because without being fed, the pulsar would have dust and gas, equally distributed orotund the pulsar.
Your repetitious pseudoscience is boring me.
You do understand that they are called black holes because their gravity doesn't let anything out, don't you?
Simply because the astrophysicists haven't determined the cause of the flares does not mean that the least likely explanation is the most probable one. Have you considered that that the neutron star's binary companion unsettles the distribution of offal and that the primary's accretion disc reaches a saturation point at which time the accelerated mass is ejected along the primary's axis? Do you allow any credence to the theory that the magnetic ropes unbind and cross, causing flares similar to our own sun's but more energetic? And/or that the primary might share some characteristic with a magnetar?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1975SvA....18....
One way or another

United States

#139278 Jun 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
When an ice skater is spinning and he/she pulls his/her arms in, rotational speed increases. Does the skater's gravitational pull increase as well? If so, by how much? If not, why not, and why does it do so for planets according to you (but not the way you think it should, in about 1/3 of cases, according to you, which necessarily falsifies your "science")?
Interresting question, I'll have to think about it.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#139279 Jun 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
When an ice skater is spinning and he/she pulls his/her arms in, rotational speed increases. Does the skater's gravitational pull increase as well? If so, by how much? If not, why not, and why does it do so for planets according to you (but not the way you think it should, in about 1/3 of cases, according to you, which necessarily falsifies your "science")?
So Jimbo has some "theory" about spinning makes gravity? Oh, lovely.

Energy does have gravity, but it is tied with the equation e=mc2, meaning that it takes A LOT of energy to create a measurable amount of gravity. A rotating body of normal matter would fly apart from its centrifugal force long before any appreciable amount of kinetic gravity would be created. An ice skater with their arms out or in still has the same amount of rotational energy.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#139280 Jun 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Added material
As soon as you start testing ANY of the gibberish you keep posting, we'll take you seriously. Until then, it ain't science. It's just the ravings of a run-of-the-mill paranoid lunatic with delusions of grandeur.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#139281 Jun 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Interresting question, I'll have to think about it.
Well, you've already stated definitively that the spinning tip of a Dremel tool doesn't increase its gravitational pull even though it's spinning at thousands of RPM. Why would a human spinning at 100 RPM possibly increase in gravitational pull if something spinning at 2,500 RPM doesn't increase in gravitational pull? And, if something spinning at 2,500 RPM doesn't increase in gravitational pull versus 0 RPM, why would Earth's rotational speed of a mere 1 revolution per day generate gravity? What if we attach a large styrofoam ball to the tip of the Dremel tool? Would THAT increase in gravitational pull? What if we attached a baseball-size ball of iron to the tip of the tool? Would THAT increase in gravitational pull? Remember, you already said that mass doesn't cause gravity, and you have opened the possibility of a human's 100 RPM spin causing gravity, but you've dismissed the possibility of a Dremel tool's 2,500 RPM spin causing gravity. Why does gravity result from some things spinning at relatively few RPM result in gravity, but some things spinning at relatively high RPM doesn't result in any gravity?

And, if your idea is valid, why is it wrong about 1/3 of the time? If it's valid, shouldn't it be correct 100% of the time? How does a valid understanding of reality fail 1/3 of the time? Is it those damn Jews? Or, maybe your 4th grade teacher? Or, could it be the scientists who don't understand how anything works the way you do?
One way or another

United States

#139282 Jun 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Your repetitious pseudoscience is boring me.
You do understand that they are called black holes because their gravity doesn't let anything out, don't you?
Simply because the astrophysicists haven't determined the cause of the flares does not mean that the least likely explanation is the most probable one. Have you considered that that the neutron star's binary companion unsettles the distribution of offal and that the primary's accretion disc reaches a saturation point at which time the accelerated mass is ejected along the primary's axis? Do you allow any credence to the theory that the magnetic ropes unbind and cross, causing flares similar to our own sun's but more energetic? And/or that the primary might share some characteristic with a magnetar?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1975SvA....18....
There's a whole lot of assuming going on at the Harvard site you have. I'm reading it, but it will take me time to figure out at least all I can.

By the way, the astrophysicists do speak to the flares.

By the way, bring proof of this nonsense you wrote---neutron star's binary companion unsettles the distribution of offal and that the primary's accretion disc reaches a saturation point at which time the accelerated mass is ejected along the primary's axis?
One way or another

United States

#139283 Jun 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
When an ice skater is spinning and he/she pulls his/her arms in, rotational speed increases. Does the skater's gravitational pull increase as well? If so, by how much? If not, why not, and why does it do so for planets according to you (but not the way you think it should, in about 1/3 of cases, according to you, which necessarily falsifies your "science")?
Ya can't have gravity without spin.

Artificial gravity is the varying (increase or decrease) of apparent gravity (g-force) via artificial means, particularly in space, but also on Earth. It can be practically achieved by the use of different forces, particularly the centrifugal force and linear acceleration.

The creation of artificial gravity is considered desirable for long-term space travel or habitation, for ease of mobility, for in-space fluid management, and to avoid the adverse long-term health effects of weightlessness.

A number of methods for generating artificial gravity have been proposed for many years, as well as an even larger number of sci-fi approaches using both real and fictitious forces. Practical in-space applications of artificial gravity for humans have not yet been built and flown, principally due to the large size of the full-scale spacecraft that would be required to allow centripetal acceleration rotating spacecraft, such that they have not been selected as funded missions for the various large national space agencies that have developed the vast majority of space hardware in the early decades of human spaceflight.[1

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#139284 Jun 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
There's a whole lot of assuming going on at the Harvard site you have. I'm reading it, but it will take me time to figure out at least all I can.
By the way, the astrophysicists do speak to the flares.
By the way, bring proof of this nonsense you wrote---neutron star's binary companion unsettles the distribution of offal and that the primary's accretion disc reaches a saturation point at which time the accelerated mass is ejected along the primary's axis?
The previous link identifies the binary companion of the Crab Nebula's primary. It is a far more likely scenario that an orbiting binary would perturb the nebular debris than the inexplicable presence of an undetected black hole.
You don't know about relativistic x-ray jets?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_jet
One way or another

United States

#139285 Jun 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you've already stated definitively that the spinning tip of a Dremel tool doesn't increase its gravitational pull even though it's spinning at thousands of RPM. Why would a human spinning at 100 RPM possibly increase in gravitational pull if something spinning at 2,500 RPM doesn't increase in gravitational pull? And, if something spinning at 2,500 RPM doesn't increase in gravitational pull versus 0 RPM, why would Earth's rotational speed of a mere 1 revolution per day generate gravity? What if we attach a large styrofoam ball to the tip of the Dremel tool? Would THAT increase in gravitational pull? What if we attached a baseball-size ball of iron to the tip of the tool? Would THAT increase in gravitational pull? Remember, you already said that mass doesn't cause gravity, and you have opened the possibility of a human's 100 RPM spin causing gravity, but you've dismissed the possibility of a Dremel tool's 2,500 RPM spin causing gravity. Why does gravity result from some things spinning at relatively few RPM result in gravity, but some things spinning at relatively high RPM doesn't result in any gravity?
And, if your idea is valid, why is it wrong about 1/3 of the time? If it's valid, shouldn't it be correct 100% of the time? How does a valid understanding of reality fail 1/3 of the time? Is it those damn Jews? Or, maybe your 4th grade teacher? Or, could it be the scientists who don't understand how anything works the way you do?
Your dremel tool no sense was used by you children as mockery, not a serious question. If it was, I wasn't aware that any of you were serious about it. Why don't you find the posts made back then and I'll address it.

I did not say mass did not cause gravity, I said that spin is necessary in the production of gravity, big difference, but of course, you morons always twist word and meaning. Deceit is just part of your childish clique.

If not, show the post of mine that supposedly says spin causes gravity. It may be possible that I made a mistake on a post, but the rest of my posts would have clarified my position, that there can be no gravity, without spin.
One way or another

United States

#139286 Jun 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
The previous link identifies the binary companion of the Crab Nebula's primary. It is a far more likely scenario that an orbiting binary would perturb the nebular debris than the inexplicable presence of an undetected black hole.
You don't know about relativistic x-ray jets?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_jet
Go play your childish games somewhere else moron, you didn't read that site and you made up BS. Run along boy.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#139287 Jun 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
The nebula would not be anywhere near where the supernova happened and yet, the matter is right there.
That would not happen.
Are you a physicist??

Ooops I'm sorry, I forgot for a moment that you are that batspit crazy person who keeps posting junkscience.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#139288 Jun 26, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
<quoted text>
(I am from Chicago)
I would never give up on education. It is too important. The government involvement in local schools has devastated entire communities. But we should never give up on our children.
How is government involvement devastated communities??
Believer

Manchester, TN

#139289 Jun 26, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>No, but it is a typical example of the vulgarity and violence of the fundamentalist Christians posting on this forum.
Well, it would take a Saint not to be offended by the name calling from the other side. We are all human.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#139290 Jun 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
There's a whole lot of assuming going on at the Harvard site you have. I'm reading it, but it will take me time to figure out at least all I can.
By the way, the astrophysicists do speak to the flares.
By the way, bring proof of this nonsense you wrote---neutron star's binary companion unsettles the distribution of offal and that the primary's accretion disc reaches a saturation point at which time the accelerated mass is ejected along the primary's axis?
This "assuming" comment coming from someone who claims to have overturned huge swaths of many sciences yet hasn't done experiment one to prove any of it.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#139291 Jun 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya can't have gravity without spin.
Artificial gravity is the varying (increase or decrease) of apparent gravity (g-force) via artificial means, particularly in space, but also on Earth. It can be practically achieved by the use of different forces, particularly the centrifugal force and linear acceleration.
The creation of artificial gravity is considered desirable for long-term space travel or habitation, for ease of mobility, for in-space fluid management, and to avoid the adverse long-term health effects of weightlessness.
A number of methods for generating artificial gravity have been proposed for many years, as well as an even larger number of sci-fi approaches using both real and fictitious forces. Practical in-space applications of artificial gravity for humans have not yet been built and flown, principally due to the large size of the full-scale spacecraft that would be required to allow centripetal acceleration rotating spacecraft, such that they have not been selected as funded missions for the various large national space agencies that have developed the vast majority of space hardware in the early decades of human spaceflight.[1
That is a duplication of the effects of gravity, but it is not actual gravity. Such an item would attract other masses equally while spinning or stationary. Your profound ignorance isn't helping your case.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#139292 Jun 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Your dremel tool no sense was used by you children as mockery, not a serious question. If it was, I wasn't aware that any of you were serious about it. Why don't you find the posts made back then and I'll address it.
I did not say mass did not cause gravity, I said that spin is necessary in the production of gravity, big difference, but of course, you morons always twist word and meaning. Deceit is just part of your childish clique.
If not, show the post of mine that supposedly says spin causes gravity. It may be possible that I made a mistake on a post, but the rest of my posts would have clarified my position, that there can be no gravity, without spin.
I asked you dozens of times. First you said no, then you refused to acknowledge my argument about it. Now that you've allowed the possibility of human gravitational pull increasing as they spin, you now realize that your responses contradict each other and you need to backtrack.

Does a non-rotating mass exert any gravitational pull?

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

London, UK

#139293 Jun 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Your dremel tool no sense was used by you children as mockery, not a serious question. If it was, I wasn't aware that any of you were serious about it. Why don't you find the posts made back then and I'll address it.
I did not say mass did not cause gravity, I said that spin is necessary in the production of gravity, big difference, but of course, you morons always twist word and meaning. Deceit is just part of your childish clique.
If not, show the post of mine that supposedly says spin causes gravity. It may be possible that I made a mistake on a post, but the rest of my posts would have clarified my position, that there can be no gravity, without spin.
tho i do not except the figures for rpm i would argue that the answer to
One way of another's problem was one of MASS.

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

London, UK

#139294 Jun 26, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it would take a Saint not to be offended by the name calling from the other side. We are all human.
i am Saint,
what do you mean?
One way or another

United States

#139295 Jun 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked you dozens of times. First you said no, then you refused to acknowledge my argument about it. Now that you've allowed the possibility of human gravitational pull increasing as they spin, you now realize that your responses contradict each other and you need to backtrack.
Does a non-rotating mass exert any gravitational pull?
As to your last sentence,-----

I don't know for sure, I can only say that i believe that spin is a necessary component of gravity.

What in space does not spin? Everything In space, spins. Spin is a part of everything in space and that is alive on earth.

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) 23 min MIDutch 164,928
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 1 hr Frindly 3,269
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Frindly 83,837
No Evidence for Creation, a Global Flood, Tower... 2 hr Dogen 40
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) 21 hr MIDutch 1,996
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Tue Regolith Based Li... 223,191
Time Dec 9 THANKS 2
More from around the web