Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180394 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

#139423 Jun 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean evidence don't you?
The acceleration at the surface of the Moon can be calculated by several methods. We know how big it is. By observing the orbit of a satellite around the Moon and timing it we can "weigh" the Moon. it can also be checked by measuring how long it takes feather to fall on the Moon. I am sure there are other ways too. Using Newtonian physics they all give us the same answer.
Are those good enough for you?
Good enough for what?
One way or another

United States

#139424 Jun 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
jimbo, scientists are usually not satisfied with just one line of evidence. They like multiple sources.
The support for Newtons's gravity is immense. It is tested by everyone from high school students to college professors. Unless you need the extreme accuracy given by Einsteins relativity it is still used everywhere today.
I already used science to prove gravitational lensing is a lie, while I explained why and then I tied sciences retro reflector test into the equation, showing how fast light breaks down into single photons, also proving that speed of light doesn't matter, because the light beams break down, which also means that the light from those galaxies don't make it here in one piece, meaning that no one is looking back in time as science claims.

You did say that science likes more than one line of evidence, so that should do right nicely.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#139425 Jun 27, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>.
Then simply show that the chimps had them and lost them, so we can see the proof. So far neither you nor science, show proof or evidence.

You don't seem to understand what constitutes evidence since you confabulate it with "proof".

I would think that even a rather slow learner like your self would have figured that out by now.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#139426 Jun 27, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
What is wrong with you. Nowhere do any in science call the Crab Nebula, a ring nebula, as you claim by your post.

I did not claim that in my post. I was simply showing a nebula with a similar structure.


[QUOTE who="One way or another"]<quoted text> The caption below is from just under the second picture on that we page. See where it says," slams into surrounding nebula?
The Crab pulsar is the white dot in the center of the vortex revealed by NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory. The inner ring is probably created when the pulsar's wind slams into the surrounding nebula, and energy from this collision makes the whole structure glow. Somewhere inside here gamma-ray flares are created.
NASA / CXC / ASU / J.Hester et al.
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/Crab-Nebu...

Yes....... So?

I think you are trying to make issues out of things that never were issues. I did say that pulsars have solar flares, but I never stated anything about where gamma-ray flares originate. However, not where it says "inner ring" indicating the nebula forms a ring (actually concentric rings) around the star.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#139427 Jun 27, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
I already used science to prove gravitational lensing is a lie, while I explained why and then I tied sciences retro reflector test into the equation, showing how fast light breaks down into single photons, also proving that speed of light doesn't matter, because the light beams break down, which also means that the light from those galaxies don't make it here in one piece, meaning that no one is looking back in time as science claims.
You did say that science likes more than one line of evidence, so that should do right nicely.
Yet you ignore the simple experiment that I suggested to show your 'light theory' wrong.

It's cheap
You can do it in your garden
It is simple

Why do you ignore the chance to test your hypothesis Jimbo?

Rhetorical question

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#139428 Jun 27, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol, so what your stating is, that journals are any bodies biotch that will have them or better yet, pay them, as long as its new. Do you ever think before you write? I mean, ok, I see your point.

No, what I said was:

Dogen wrote: Now you demonstrated you don't understand how peer review works or what it does. One thing you don't understand is that journals are in COMPETITION with each other to attract the best and most innovative science which keeps their journals in publication. No one wants to pay $40 an issue for a journal that says "same ole, same ole" every 2 months. In the same way they are competing for citation. The more often their journal gets cited the more university libraries will purchase it, etc. Finding and publishing the best and most innovative research is what keeps a journal alive and thriving. Science journal editors are not paid in 'attaboys' but in monies that journal makes from subscriptions.

If you are going to lie about what someone is saying then for the love of Yahweh don't leave the quote you are mangling in the post!

I expect fundies to lie better than this.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#139429 Jun 27, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You always twist word and meaning. Not once have you expressed what I have written, correctly. I understand by what you write, that you hate new or different thinking, but acting like a baby is well, childish.
I never claimed there was a black hole at the center of the Crab Nebula, I said the nebulas are leavings of black holes and nowhere in all I've written will anyone find different.. Grow up.

All you have said is that you are stupid in a different way than what I tried to correct.

Fair enough. Here are an more appropriate set of scientific reality for you to digest.

Black holes do not create nebula.
Black holes can CONSUME nebula.
Black holes =/= pulsars
The crab nebula is the result of a supernova (one observed and documented in 1054).
Different types of nebula have different origins. Note for example the differences between the Orion Nebula and the Crab Nebula.




Black holes

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no black hole at the center of the crab nebula.
There is a pulsar (observable in visible light) there.
It keeps expanding due to inertia of the original plast.
The pulsar (formerly a giant star) has blown off material and thus there is LESS material near the star than further out.
So, again, you have no clue what you are talking about and you refuse to learn.

Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#139430 Jun 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I expect fundies to lie better than this.
Ever the optimist

And do you really count Jimbo as a fundy ?

He seems to have no specific beliefs as such (besides in his own intelligence - DK)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#139431 Jun 27, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text> only you could twist dogen's words and meaning so much and then in the very next post accuse him of twisting words and meaning.

I have become habituated to Jim as a constant fountain of irony.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#139432 Jun 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction, the Moon's gravity is directly related to its mass divided by its radius squared, or g =(KM)/R^2. The Moons mass is much less than 1/6 of that of Earth. I am not sure of its density.
An interesting aspect of Earth's gravity is that if you dug a hole all the way to the center the force of gravity would slowly climb for the first half of the journey. and peak at the Mantle/Outer Core boundary. The acceleration is roughly 10.8 m/sec^2 there. This occurs because the Earth is not of uniform density. The core is much denser than the mantle.
Tedium, not correction. I wasn't talking about the gravitic surface acceleration of a sphere. The only thing changing in the formula is substituting moon's mass or Earth's mass. All else being equal, all else IS equal. Dimensions and densities are largely inconsequential as the point was that spin is irrelevant to augmenting the total gravitational effect of a body.
The moon's density (3.34 g/cm3) is much lower and more homogeneous than the Earth's (5.5 g/cm3) and most of this is attributed to the Earth's iron nickel core(s).
Certainly the distribution of gravity would be different for a torus or a cylinder, but the "fields" of these shapes don't change the sum.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#139433 Jun 27, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Show where they are the same as humans, as in other apes.

As you are a scientific researcher I would expect that this would be an opportunity for you to utilize your skills.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#139434 Jun 27, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Then in front of everyone, refute what I've written, your talk is just talk without proof or evidence.

We have refuted EVERYTHING you have written other than your name.

We can go to work on that, if you like.

Jim.... Humm... sounds like a nickname for James.

And we are off and running!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#139435 Jun 27, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a deceitful, lying, biotch chimney.

Translation: How dare you tell the truth!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#139436 Jun 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
That is raw speculation, entirely unfounded in science.
Peddling fairytales is an affront to all acquainted with science.
You're drinking cheap, fermented evo-koolaid.

ROTFLMFAO.

I confess, I do not see how your run of unsupported assertions can ever be stopped.
One way or another

United States

#139437 Jun 27, 2013
By the way, the more ways I get to say the same things, the more people that will come to understand, because no two people understand the written word in the same ways.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#139438 Jun 27, 2013
the dark lord wrote:
<quoted text>
29.456% on its axis: 426rpm

I love your senseless humor.
One way or another

United States

#139439 Jun 27, 2013
These Evo children don't care and don't want new, because the offer nothing of value.
One way or another

United States

#139440 Jun 27, 2013
I will not bother with these Evo idiots, I'll just keep posting my work.

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 isn’t the Crab’s 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 nebula’s 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#139441 Jun 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Many highly accomplished scientists believed in the book of Genesis.

Yes, but most not literally.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your arrogant, baseless declarations are indicative of extreme naïveté and shallowness.
If you showed a degree of respect, you would be taken more seriously.
I realize that it is politically fashionable to bash religion in the forum of scientific debate. However, you must understand that even if the Genesis account is proven false, such would do absolutely nothing to validate evolution. You cannot present as scientific evidence for a theory perceived flaws in religious doctrine.
I find it laughable that DarwinBots ultimately must resort to bashing religion as their theory comes under assault. Ultimately, the foundation of their so-called "evidence" [I use that term loosely] for evolution relies on the attempted disproof of intelligent design. This is because there is no positive evidence that evolution happened or that it is even possible.

Are you a fundy bot that has simply run amuck?

If not, is there any way you could prove it?

I bet I could write a program that would post just like you and take up less than a couple hundred lines of code.


One way or another

United States

#139442 Jun 27, 2013
The more that people prove them wrong, the more people they send to use their childishness against you. They also use harsher language and lie more.

They offer nothing of value, they are worth nothing.

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
Curious dilemma about DNA 2 min pshun2404 10
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 6 min yehoshooah adam 2,708
One species or three 34 min pshun2404 3
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Subduction Zone 61,519
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr THE LONE WORKER 220,695
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Aura Mytha 28,325
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Subduction Zone 160,325
More from around the web