Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178702 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.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#98848 Aug 12, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's get one thing straight: "science" is not "evolution"
Evolutionary theory does make a judgment regarding ID... all transmutations occur unassistented by any external force of intelligence. Ernst W. Mayr, one of the 20th century's leading evolutionary biologists, affirmed the priority of dogmatic materialism in this way,
“Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.”
*“Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought” E. Mayr [evolutionist scientist], Scientific American, pg. 82-83,(July 2000),
In other words, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Science makes a judgement against ID.

"Uniformitarianism is not a controversial assumption compared to magic."
-- John Hoelsenbeck, PhD, UC Berkeley
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98849 Aug 12, 2012
Relativity has failed, just as science fails in so many ways, limited by the so called scientists. In lenski's bacterial experiment, where he proved that after 10 million bacteria that were antibiotic resistant, it produced one bacteria that was non resistant.

Lenski, patting himself on the back, didn't bother to reverse the experiment, to see if bacteria do such, as a way to keep its ability to slip in and out of antibiotic resistance, according to its needs.

In the time experiment, the scientists didnt bother to fly the craft much closer to the ground, where the gravity is stronger, which would prove that higher gravity would create more friction on the clock and slow down the workings of the clock even more, making time look as if it was slowing even more than at their original higher altitudes.

Easy test, but the morons running the test obviously didn't want to disprove their own desires or they were too stupid to consider such.

I gave the relavent web sites showing such and the reasons why they are not advancing the work.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98850 Aug 12, 2012
My last sentence pertains to relativity in my above
Post.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98851 Aug 12, 2012
The questions are, why are y'all too stupid to understand these very simple things.
Mugwump

York, UK

#98852 Aug 12, 2012
Psychology wrote:
The questions are, why are y'all too stupid to understand these very simple things.
Dunno - I was checking out your thesis on relativity but realised I was looking at relativism - who could be that stupid huh ?

Oh wait - that was you wasn't it.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98853 Aug 12, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the tests have been done around the Earth and we have observed frame dragging:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B
Meanwhile your idea is nonsense.
Ou wrote the above in reference to my claims that spinning may or may not increase speed in relation to revolving around our barycenter with the sun and gravity. However, the probe B experiment was done at 659 kilometers from earths surface. That proves absolutely nothing, when considering axis spin further out and the effects of spin according to what I spoke of.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98854 Aug 12, 2012
For the moron spouting relativity vs

Copy and paste.

Not long after the special theory of relativity was published in 1905, the French physicist Paul Langevin first formulated one of the best-known implications of the theory, the twin paradox.  If one twin could be sent to a nearby star at a speed approaching the speed of light while the other twin remained on earth, a strange thing would happen: the twin who traveled to the star would, on his return to earth, find that his brother was either very aged or even dead.[1] Special relativity explains that this occurs because time does not move at the same rate for both twins.  If two people or things do not share a frame of reference, time does not progress at the same rate for them.  Instead, the rate of passage of time is relative to frame of reference.  It was this implication of relativity that drew the strongest criticism.  Its opponents feared what might follow from the idea that time is relative to frame of reference.  After all, if time—one of the fundamental irreducible quantities of physics—varied with frame of reference, less fundamental aspects of reality must also be subject to variation, and the objective basis of science would be lost.  One critic, for example, suggested that special relativity rejected science established on objective experiment “in favor of psychological speculations and fantastic dreams about the universe.”[2] Another was opposed to special relativity because its proponents “deny that any concrete experience underlies these [mathematical] symbols, thus replacing an objective by a subjective universe.”[3] In short, what they feared was that relativity, if established, would lead to epistemological relativism.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98855 Aug 12, 2012
The above post first sentence should read,-

For the moron spouting relativity vs relativisim.
Mugwump

York, UK

#98856 Aug 12, 2012
Psychology wrote:
The above post first sentence should read,-
For the moron spouting relativity vs relativisim.
Ehh, you are the moron who posted a link to a critique of relativism as an argument against relativity

And it's incidents like this that illustrate why it is you that is educationally challenged (as well as socially)

For reference : relativism nothing to do with relativity - only a moron would think so - and indeed you did - which is why no one takes you seriously
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98857 Aug 12, 2012
In relativisim vs relativity,---unproven--relati visim seeks evidence, hence probe B's experiment, as the morons running the experiment, run their experiment at one altitude, and yet any moron should know that the speed of a jet produces G forces,--friction, which must also affect the workings of a mechanical clock, while the also seemed too stupid to fly the craft at a lower altitude, to see if gravity at lower altitudes produced more G force on the clock, slowing its mechanisms even more.

By what science did and what it claimed, science was looking for one answer, regardless of the truth.

That's today's science, total frauds.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98858 Aug 12, 2012
Read the following about relativity.

One critic, for example, suggested that special relativity rejected science established on objective experiment “in favor of psychological speculations and fantastic dreams

Sounds like star wars to me. Relativity BS.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98859 Aug 12, 2012
Relativisim proves relativity is BS and never established you twit. Read.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98860 Aug 12, 2012
Oh I'm sorry , here's the site.

http://www.anselmphilosophy.com/read/...
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98861 Aug 12, 2012
Beam her up Scotty, mugwump is living in la la land.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98862 Aug 12, 2012
By what you say, do and don't do, you show everyone who and what you are. You are the one that makes you out to be a moron, no one else.
Mugwump

York, UK

#98863 Aug 12, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Oh I'm sorry , here's the site.
http://www.anselmphilosophy.com/read/...
And from your site (by the way did you notice the word philosophy in the URL?)

In other words, Einstein’s theory recognizes real differences between systems, but it also believes that those differences can be understood and accounted for from any given frame of reference.  It provides truth with the flexibility that makes relativism so appealing but also allows us to bridge frames of reference in a way that extreme relativism denies is possible.

So explain in your own words how your article invalidates relativity - in your own words mind - know you hate cut and paste, and demonstrates you understand the subject at hand
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98864 Aug 12, 2012
If you think it's relativity,-- it's not, it's sh*tfon. Butter.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98865 Aug 12, 2012
Prove that if one twin moves at the speed of light to another planet while the other twin stays here, that the twin that stayed here would be old or dead and the traveller much younger.

By your words, you claim to be too stupid to understand such, even though that site proved it for you.

Frik off twit.
leMango

Naperville, IL

#98866 Aug 12, 2012
Psychology, is your name Andrew Schlafly or Ken DeMeyer? I only ask because every one or your arguments reads like it's been taken directly from their website, conservapedia.com . Denying relativity, connecting it to relativism, even the Lenski thing are all talked about at length, albeit with his experiments with citrate uptake as opposed to the antibacterial resistance papers.

Anyway, I wasn't going to respond past that, but I noticed one huge error on your part that I couldn't resist correcting.

"and yet any moron should know that the speed of a jet produces G forces"

This statement is utterly wrong. Speed has no effect on G forces, but rather acceleration. To put it simply, it's the reason why you can be plastered to your seat in a car that's accelerating to 200 mph and at the same time not even notice that what you are standing on, the earth, is moving a hundred times faster through space.

So before you keep calling people "morons" and "twits," you might want to make sure that you know what you're actually talking about. Frankly it doesn't sound right now like you know enough about any physical science to realize the true degree of your ignorance.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98867 Aug 12, 2012
Science claims that speed creates friction and friction slows things down. If you put a mechanical clock in a jet and fly at supersonic speeds, the jet is creating G forces against the pilot and also the mechanical clock, making it seem as if time is slowing down, which is what relativity has claimed and yet, never been able to prove.

The scientists by what they do, don't do and yet still claim, is to prove relativity, even though they treat the world as morons and themselves.

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.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 32 min Pokay 7,513
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Critical Eye 20,904
News The man who dresses Beyonce 13 hr madoff zionism 1
News Community 14 hr El Chapo 3
News Report: Some top baby monitors lack basic secur... Thu softball player 1
News Supreme Court smacks EPA for ignoring costs, bu... Thu abdaa 9
News IU researchers lead $1.2 million effort to unlo... Thu TW_sugar_daddio 6
More from around the web