Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180376 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

#140999 Jul 5, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know Dogen. I am starting to see the value in it. Did I tell you about the time I invented the leg.

That's nothin'. I invented air! And I did it long before you cut and paste morons knew how to breath. I never got credit for it because those dang government Jewish educators took all the credit!

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#141000 Jul 5, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
I believe a river could still run in it's natural channels if siphons were used to create power with water from it and if the water that is used is returned to it the effect would be manageable to appear natural. Water could be withdrawn in places where the river is very deep and replaced back above more shallow places.
Then the deep places wouldn't be deep any more and the shallow places wouldn't be shallow any longer. You didn't think this through very well, did you?
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#141001 Jul 5, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Then the deep places wouldn't be deep any more and the shallow places wouldn't be shallow any longer. You didn't think this through very well, did you?
What do you see wrong with taking water from the deep places and returning it to more shallow places Ooogah?

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#141002 Jul 5, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
I believe a river could still run in it's natural channels if siphons were used to create power with water from it and if the water that is used is returned to it the effect would be manageable to appear natural. Water could be withdrawn in places where the river is very deep and replaced back above more shallow places.

Well we will let Dominion Virginia Power know they need to consult you before they start any new projects from now on.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#141003 Jul 5, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
I believe a river could still run in it's natural channels if siphons were used to create power with water from it and if the water that is used is returned to it the effect would be manageable to appear natural. Water could be withdrawn in places where the river is very deep and replaced back above more shallow places.
Where would the siphon go?

It has to go to an area of lower elevation. I don't know if you have checked lately but river valleys tend to be the lowest land around.

There is a very good reason for this, it is called "gravity".

You can't siphon water uphill.
One way or another

United States

#141004 Jul 5, 2013
Come on Evo children, use the pics of dams and generators, to show the terrible waste by dams.

You morons don't have a clue.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#141005 Jul 5, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what we can do. We can run it down a spiral to add the spin. Obviously spinning will increase the gravity and it will speed up. If we spin it enough it will break the speed of light and we will have unlimited energy forever!
Spin gravity solves global energy shortage!
/sarcasm
Which is why toilets are like mini-black holes.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#141006 Jul 5, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>My point was that a flushing container which could hold a lot of water could turn a shaft and reset itself by a counter weight and ratchet mechanism and if more than one were on line and timed to work together, the shaft could be turning all the time .
So, you're saying that a toilet is a limitless energy machine. Well, except for all the energy used to propel the water into the tank.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#141007 Jul 5, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
I believe a river could still run in it's natural channels if siphons were used to create power with water from it and if the water that is used is returned to it the effect would be manageable to appear natural. Water could be withdrawn in places where the river is very deep and replaced back above more shallow places.
Check out this link. This is the one I referred to in a previous post. A portion of the river is diverted, generates electricity and is then returned to the main river. This is very similar in essence to a mill race and old grist mills using a wheel or a turbine.

Note the 14 million dollar price tag. Not anywhere near free.

http://www.coid.org/powerplant.htm

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#141008 Jul 5, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
That you could infer from anything I have written that I think those who don't agree with me are stupid, just shows how unreasonable you are. Reason, look it up. Now I know why you people continually call each other dishonest. You can lie by deliberately distorting what someone else has said.
Seems there is a lot of that that goes on here and it "kinda does" make everyone look stupid.
You're the one who said he knows enough about evolutionary theory to say it's wrong, yet you have yet to demonstrate this mastery of the subject to any extent, as is the way with creationists. "All I need to know about it is that it's wrong." Gotta know the subject matter better than that, pal. I understand what reason is. You, however, have sorely failed at it.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#141009 Jul 5, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
In my mind, it doesn't matter so long as the inlet is lower than the outlet, between those two points, you can go up, down, all round so long as you don't exceed vapor pressure limits so the water remains liquid and the enclosed channel is ridgid, the only other limitation is the friction of the fluid against itself and the channel walls.
However, since we are just talking about going from an upstream point to a downstream point, the difference matters very little at all.
I am coming to an understanding that leaves me in agreement with you. Aside for a siphon raising water above the level of the bucket, it seems that there is not a great deal of difference between a hole in a bucket and a siphon in a bucket.

A very educational diversion.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#141010 Jul 5, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That's nothin'. I invented air! And I did it long before you cut and paste morons knew how to breath. I never got credit for it because those dang government Jewish educators took all the credit!
Maybe so, but you wouldn't have a leg to stand on if it weren't for me.

This is fun. I wonder what else we invented or thought of first before a global conspiracy or gangs of educated bullies pushed us down.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#141011 Jul 5, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>What do you see wrong with taking water from the deep places and returning it to more shallow places Ooogah?
I don't know what deep and shallow have to do with it, but pulling from a higher elevation to a lower elevation makes sense and is being done.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#141012 Jul 5, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>We began going over ways of using water as a power source a few days ago. Siphons totally power themselves.
How much energy does it cost to drive water into a water tower? Would you guess that it's more than can be derived from its descent, equal, or less? Only one of these is correct.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#141013 Jul 5, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>What do you see wrong with taking water from the deep places and returning it to more shallow places Ooogah?
Wow! I guess I have to repeat myself;

Ooogah Boogah wrote:
Then the deep places wouldn't be deep any more and the shallow places wouldn't be shallow any longer. You didn't think this through very well, did you?
Take it to the extreme if you must, take all of the water out of the river then put it back when you are done with it .... see any problem with that? Bet not!!

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#141014 Jul 5, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I am coming to an understanding that leaves me in agreement with you. Aside for a siphon raising water above the level of the bucket, it seems that there is not a great deal of difference between a hole in a bucket and a siphon in a bucket.
A very educational diversion.

As long as there is enough down hill volume to create enough negative pressure to draw the fluid over the hill it will flow, which is what the difference is. In effect with a siphon you are creating a valveless pump.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#141015 Jul 5, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! I guess I have to repeat myself;
<quoted text>
Take it to the extreme if you must, take all of the water out of the river then put it back when you are done with it .... see any problem with that? Bet not!!
What got me was him saying to keep it natural, then apply a unnatural condition. LOL

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#141016 Jul 5, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> What got me was him saying to keep it natural, then apply a unnatural condition. LOL
How is a bottomless pit "unnatural?"

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#141017 Jul 5, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
How is a bottomless pit "unnatural?"

You can't siphon that , the hose wont reach.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#141018 Jul 6, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
How much energy does it cost to drive water into a water tower? Would you guess that it's more than can be derived from its descent, equal, or less? Only one of these is correct.
Can you figure out how the water could pump itself into a tank that is elevated above the river level? I will give you a clue that the water intake is way upstream.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr 15th Dalai Lama 1,416
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Genesis Enigma 163,074
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 hr Aura Mytha 222,270
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 20 hr Regolith Based Li... 32,461
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Mon Dogen 78,757
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! Aug 19 Science 814
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web