Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179708 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#177355 Aug 28, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
I have found science contradicting itself, from one theory to another and one discipline to another. Because of that, I challenge every single little thing, whether I'm right or wrong, it doesn't matter. What matters is challenging everything that is said and done.
Science claims that Pluto is not big enough in mass, to be considered a planet. However science claims that air has mass. That sounds pretty stupid to me, but then I'm not someone who copy and pastes everything that somebody else says. I like to challenge everything that is said and done. Challenging everything is the only way to learn new things, but it seems you and the rest of your evolutionist copy and paste morons don't know that.
There's a difference between us chimney, you don't ever want to be seen as wrong in anything and I don't care if I'm wrong, I care about learning new things. There's plenty of time to be right and plenty of time to be wrong. The problem is, if you're afraid to be wrong, you will never be right.
HOLY CRAP! There are actually two clowns that gave Jimbozo a "brilliant" for this post???

Now, THAT is truly scary.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#177356 Aug 28, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
What good is mass, without spin?
If there was no spin, there would be no tornado and no gravity.
The stupid just never stops, does it?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#177357 Aug 28, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point about approving of the challengers.
Seems to me that Einstein was relegated to the back of the room for quite a spell before he finally made enough noise, and enough time had passed for the others to catch up with him.
He was so far ahead of most of them that they failed to realize he was ahead of them and not behind them ... where most of them wished him to stay.
It is said that power corrupts the mind.
Knowledge is power.
I say it is entirely possible that many mistakes have been made by human scientists simply because they engaged in a power struggle with each other over moot points and lost focus of the common goal.
Just a thought.
I wouldn't attach any significance to Jimbo's ranting about science. He rants about everything. If it isn't science, it's the lawyers. If it isn't the lawyers, it's the government. If it isn't the government, it's the Great Jewish Carpet Conspiracy.

He just likes to bitch.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#177358 Aug 28, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on idiot boy, show us where science makes the claim, that air has mass.
Wow. Just wow. This is so befuddlingly stupid that it even stretches credibility for Jimbo.

Go take a basic chemistry course. Air is composed of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, some water vapor, and a few other chemicals. Each and every one of those has mass.

It is even fairly easy to calculate the mass of the air in a room. Let's assume a room that is 20'x15'x10' as an example. That is a total of 3000 cubic feet of air. I prefer metric units for this since it is more commonly used in science. So 3000 cubic feet is about 85 cubic meters. Now, a mole of gas at room temperature (25C) takes up about 24 liters, which is .024 cubic meters.

That means the room has a total of 85/.024 = 3540 moles of gas.

Now, air is a mixture of nitrogen molecules and oxygen molecules plus a few much rarer components. Approximate 3/4 of the air is nitrogen with a molecular mass of 28 and about 1/4 is oxygen with a molecular mass of 32. That means that air has a mass per mole of about 29 grams.

So now we can multiply the mass of one mole of air with the number of moles in the room to get 3540*29=103000 grams =103 kilograms =226 pounds.

In other words, the air in a 20'x15'x10' room weighs about 225 pounds.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#177359 Aug 28, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
What good is mass, without spin?
If there was no spin, there would be no tornado and no gravity.
Wrong. gravity is not related to spin. The gravity of an object is not increased nor decreased by that object spinning. For example, if the earth stopped spinning, the moon would follow the same orbit as it does now.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#177360 Aug 28, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point about approving of the challengers.
Seems to me that Einstein was relegated to the back of the room for quite a spell before he finally made enough noise, and enough time had passed for the others to catch up with him.
That is just historically wrong. Einstein had his most productive year in 1905 when he formulated special relativity, explained the photo-electric effect, and explained Brownian motion. All of these were accepted rapidly by the scientific community because they were easily tested and his predictions were verified by observations. Einstein formulated general relativity in 1915, but its interesting predictions were not tested until after the war (WW I) during the eclipse of 1919. His predictions were verified and his ideas accepted (although further testing was and is done).

Einstein's problems came when quantum mechanics arose as an explanation for the phenomena that happen at the atomic and sub-atomic levels. Einstein never accepted the philosophical basis for quantum theory. he formulated many objections to it in his debates with Bohr and Bohr was able to replay to all of them.

Much later, actual experiments were done showing the Einstein was wrong in his intuitions and that the predictions of quantum mechanics were verified.

In other words, when Einstein was correct and verified by observations, his ideas were quickly accepted. When he was wrong and his ideas were contradicted by observation, his ideas were not accepted. That seems like a good thing.
He was so far ahead of most of them that they failed to realize he was ahead of them and not behind them ... where most of them wished him to stay.
Again, simply inaccurate historically. In particular, Einstein was simply wrong about quantum mechanics. It wasn't so much that he was behind as that he stopped running in the race.

“Jon Snow”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#177361 Aug 28, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is just historically wrong. Einstein had his most productive year in 1905 when he formulated special relativity, explained the photo-electric effect, and explained Brownian motion. All of these were accepted rapidly by the scientific community because they were easily tested and his predictions were verified by observations. Einstein formulated general relativity in 1915, but its interesting predictions were not tested until after the war (WW I) during the eclipse of 1919. His predictions were verified and his ideas accepted (although further testing was and is done).
Einstein's problems came when quantum mechanics arose as an explanation for the phenomena that happen at the atomic and sub-atomic levels. Einstein never accepted the philosophical basis for quantum theory. he formulated many objections to it in his debates with Bohr and Bohr was able to replay to all of them.
Much later, actual experiments were done showing the Einstein was wrong in his intuitions and that the predictions of quantum mechanics were verified.
In other words, when Einstein was correct and verified by observations, his ideas were quickly accepted. When he was wrong and his ideas were contradicted by observation, his ideas were not accepted. That seems like a good thing.
<quoted text>
Again, simply inaccurate historically. In particular, Einstein was simply wrong about quantum mechanics. It wasn't so much that he was behind as that he stopped running in the race.
Einstein hated the probabilistic , and thought everything should be deterministic.
Thus the famous quotes.... I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice..... and the Poet, Einstein said: "As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world."
Yes he was wrong, and the other famous quote is...

Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.

Stephen Hawking

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Level 1

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#177362 Aug 28, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is just historically wrong. <quoted text>
Again, simply inaccurate historically. In particular, Einstein was simply wrong about quantum mechanics. It wasn't so much that he was behind as that he stopped running in the race.
I note that you begin your argument where >you< wished to start on the time line.
Earlier.
Yes he was shunned for some time ... at first.
Hell he was even expelled for being "slow" from school even before that.
No one would listen to him at all at first and he was pretty much dismissed.
You begin your recital after he began to be listened to and taken seriously.

Nice story you wrote though.
thanks.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Level 1

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#177363 Aug 28, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Einstein hated the probabilistic , and thought everything should be deterministic.
Thus the famous quotes.... I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice..... and the Poet, Einstein said: "As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world."
Yes he was wrong, and the other famous quote is...
Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.
Stephen Hawking
Laymen's definition of string theory andsuper string theory;

String Theory;
"Sometimes weird shit happens."

Super String Theory;
"Sometimes really weird shit happens."
AQ
uboat

London, UK

#177364 Aug 28, 2014
That's like saying should science or evidence based thought be taught at school. A bit extreme not to.
One way or another

United States

#177365 Aug 28, 2014
The evolutionist children here, make up whatever they want to and when they get caught at it and can't prove it, they tell everybody else to go look for it or they call them names and other childish things.
One way or another

United States

#177366 Aug 28, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. Just wow. This is so befuddlingly stupid that it even stretches credibility for Jimbo.
Go take a basic chemistry course. Air is composed of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, some water vapor, and a few other chemicals. Each and every one of those has mass.
It is even fairly easy to calculate the mass of the air in a room. Let's assume a room that is 20'x15'x10' as an example. That is a total of 3000 cubic feet of air. I prefer metric units for this since it is more commonly used in science. So 3000 cubic feet is about 85 cubic meters. Now, a mole of gas at room temperature (25C) takes up about 24 liters, which is .024 cubic meters.
That means the room has a total of 85/.024 = 3540 moles of gas.
Now, air is a mixture of nitrogen molecules and oxygen molecules plus a few much rarer components. Approximate 3/4 of the air is nitrogen with a molecular mass of 28 and about 1/4 is oxygen with a molecular mass of 32. That means that air has a mass per mole of about 29 grams.
So now we can multiply the mass of one mole of air with the number of moles in the room to get 3540*29=103000 grams =103 kilograms =226 pounds.
In other words, the air in a 20'x15'x10' room weighs about 225 pounds.
Awww, you must need a pat on the head, good boy, you were the first one to come up with that, oh I mean somebody else was, but that's okay, you can have a pat on the head anyway.
One way or another

United States

#177367 Aug 28, 2014
Gravity and space junk. By Jim Ryan

Science claims that good science is good observation. Science does not claim that you have to be a PhD to be a good observer.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Science dictates that except in the face of gravity. Science claims that gravity is only an attractant.

If I am wrong or science is wrong, simply show anything that performs an action, that produces no reaction.

Look to the space junk that NASA wants to possibly incinerate in space. the space junk in lower orbits will eventually fall back to earth, but the space junk that is in high orbit, will not fall back to earth. That suggests that gravity is keeping it there. Therefore there are two forces in gravity. One is attraction and one is repulsion. The planets must sit in the sun's high orbit considering their mass keeps them from falling into the sun, just as the space junk does not fall back to earth, from its high orbit around the earth.

Science embraces sensationalism, as it refuses even the simplest of truth's, right before their eyes.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#177368 Aug 28, 2014
One way or another wrote:
Lol, science should always be challenged, according to the evo morons, as long as they approve of the challengers .
Ask them, who are you to judge? Name one new thought you have brought to science.

Name one new thought you have brought to science.

I have a MS thesis that provided data to a larger, published, paper that is often cited.

That puts me one ahead of you.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#177369 Aug 28, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Kongy, at the center of every galaxy, a star explodes or imploded, according to the morons in science, creating a black hole, tell us a reason for that.

Um,..... no. That is NOT how SMBHs form.

Please look things up.

If you are going to make fun of real science then at least make fun of what it actually says (not that you would know).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#177370 Aug 28, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
What good is mass, without spin?
If there was no spin, there would be no tornado and no gravity.

Incorrect with respect to gravity.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#177371 Aug 28, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. I know that.
I was looking forward to the other poster's answer however.
Man, you can be such a nosy little buzz kill sometimes.

Sorry, but its what I do.
;)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#177372 Aug 28, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
And you totally missed his point ... or ignored it.
His argument concerning you being afraid to admit a mistake is gaining credibility.
Just saying.
No, that was not a point he had.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#177373 Aug 28, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. Just wow. This is so befuddlingly stupid that it even stretches credibility for Jimbo.
Go take a basic chemistry course. Air is composed of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, some water vapor, and a few other chemicals. Each and every one of those has mass.
It is even fairly easy to calculate the mass of the air in a room. Let's assume a room that is 20'x15'x10' as an example. That is a total of 3000 cubic feet of air. I prefer metric units for this since it is more commonly used in science. So 3000 cubic feet is about 85 cubic meters. Now, a mole of gas at room temperature (25C) takes up about 24 liters, which is .024 cubic meters.
That means the room has a total of 85/.024 = 3540 moles of gas.
Now, air is a mixture of nitrogen molecules and oxygen molecules plus a few much rarer components. Approximate 3/4 of the air is nitrogen with a molecular mass of 28 and about 1/4 is oxygen with a molecular mass of 32. That means that air has a mass per mole of about 29 grams.
So now we can multiply the mass of one mole of air with the number of moles in the room to get 3540*29=103000 grams =103 kilograms =226 pounds.
In other words, the air in a 20'x15'x10' room weighs about 225 pounds.

And you didn't think Jim could get any dumber.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#177374 Aug 28, 2014
One way or another wrote:
The evolutionist children here, make up whatever they want to and when they get caught at it and can't prove it, they tell everybody else to go look for it or they call them names and other childish things.
Interesting delusion. But it is still a delusion.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min Chimney1 48,417
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 26 min Chimney1 154,622
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 hr scientia potentia... 216,623
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 13 hr ChristineM 23,486
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... 14 hr It aint necessari... 638
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 16 hr Timmee 7
Science News (Sep '13) Fri _Susan_ 3,980
More from around the web