Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."

Comments (Page 4,674)

Showing posts 93,461 - 93,480 of168,488
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95674
Jul 7, 2012
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It confirms the big bang and a 13.7 year old universe among other things.
Fine tuning is a delusion in the mind of the desperate.
It does NOT prove past guesstimates of the age of the universe.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/06/...

Since: Aug 07

Charlotte, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95675
Jul 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It confirms the big bang and a 13.7 year old universe among other things.
Fine tuning is a delusion in the mind of the desperate.
No delusions or desparations here!

The tentative observation of the Higgs-Boson doesn't seem to be either directly or indirectly related to the Big Bang or the age of the universe.

If any of the four fundamental forces (electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction, gravity), or any of the 3 types of elementary particles (quarks, leptons, guage bosons) were any different even by the slightest imaginable amount, then not just life, but the universe itself would not be possible.

Consider just one parameter, the expansion rate of the universe.

Scientists estimate that if this rate were off by just 1 part in 10^55, it would either fly apart with no chance of star or galaxy formation or collapse back onto itself.

That number is very difficult to visualize.(The number of atoms in the entire universe is estimated at 10^80)

If you had a tuning scale that stretched from one end of the universe to the other and it was marked off in atoms, the setting for the expansion rate would be less than the width of just one atom!

If the expansion rate was adjusted one atom to the left, the universe would collapse on itself, or if shifted one atom to the right would fly apart.

And this is just one of many examples of the extreme fine tuning and precise calibration and design of the universe!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95676
Jul 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>It does NOT prove past guesstimates of the age of the universe.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/06/...

We have much better than guesstimates. We do so because we have multiple and unrelated methods of dating the universe which all give us the same answer. All the work has been checked.

Article was interesting and highlights that science does not know everything yet. Not even close.

Since: Aug 07

Charlotte, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95677
Jul 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the dolt who says fur traders took all the koalas that allegedly lived on the Asian continent and brought them to Australia to make them incredibly costly and difficult and dangerous to harvest, and then went about the monumental task of eradicating every last bit of evidence that they ever existed on the Asian continent.
I don't know how they got there but I gave you several reasonable possibilities and this is not as big an issue as you seem to think.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95678
Jul 8, 2012
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No delusions or desparations here!
The tentative observation of the Higgs-Boson doesn't seem to be either directly or indirectly related to the Big Bang or the age of the universe.
If any of the four fundamental forces (electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction, gravity), or any of the 3 types of elementary particles (quarks, leptons, guage bosons) were any different even by the slightest imaginable amount, then not just life, but the universe itself would not be possible.
Consider just one parameter, the expansion rate of the universe.
Scientists estimate that if this rate were off by just 1 part in 10^55, it would either fly apart with no chance of star or galaxy formation or collapse back onto itself.
That number is very difficult to visualize.(The number of atoms in the entire universe is estimated at 10^80)
If you had a tuning scale that stretched from one end of the universe to the other and it was marked off in atoms, the setting for the expansion rate would be less than the width of just one atom!
If the expansion rate was adjusted one atom to the left, the universe would collapse on itself, or if shifted one atom to the right would fly apart.
And this is just one of many examples of the extreme fine tuning and precise calibration and design of the universe!

Thank you for proving my delusions and desperation thesis.

Oh, and you can philosophize all you want and we are still left with only one known universe and it is how it is. There is no evidence our universe was fine tuned, nor can there ever be. That is a philosophical idea and is not falsifiable.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95679
Jul 8, 2012
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No delusions or desparations here!
The tentative observation of the Higgs-Boson doesn't seem to be either directly or indirectly related to the Big Bang or the age of the universe.
If any of the four fundamental forces (electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction, gravity), or any of the 3 types of elementary particles (quarks, leptons, guage bosons) were any different even by the slightest imaginable amount, then not just life, but the universe itself would not be possible.
Consider just one parameter, the expansion rate of the universe.
Scientists estimate that if this rate were off by just 1 part in 10^55, it would either fly apart with no chance of star or galaxy formation or collapse back onto itself.
That number is very difficult to visualize.(The number of atoms in the entire universe is estimated at 10^80)
If you had a tuning scale that stretched from one end of the universe to the other and it was marked off in atoms, the setting for the expansion rate would be less than the width of just one atom!
If the expansion rate was adjusted one atom to the left, the universe would collapse on itself, or if shifted one atom to the right would fly apart.
And this is just one of many examples of the extreme fine tuning and precise calibration and design of the universe!
Fine toned for what?

Your argument hinges on the assumption that you were intended to be here, presumably by your invisible space wizard.

Since: Aug 07

Woodruff, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95680
Jul 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
We have much better than guesstimates. We do so because we have multiple and unrelated methods of dating the universe which all give us the same answer. All the work has been checked.
Article was interesting and highlights that science does not know everything yet. Not even close.
*We* have much better than guesstimates.*We* do so because *we* have....."? We? You're no physicist. You're no scientist. You don't even understand what they were doing.

Since: Aug 07

Woodruff, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95681
Jul 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Fine toned for what?
Your argument hinges on the assumption that you were intended to be here, presumably by your invisible space wizard.
Fine toned? My guitar is fine toned so I can play "The Girl from Ipanema". It's tuned precisely to "A-440" pitch.

Yeah I know, that's the standard counter, but it doesn't make any sense. Notice that I didn't argue from theology but that you did.

Since: Aug 07

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95682
Jul 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The weakest type of chemical bonds of those listed are:

a)ionic bonds

b)hydrogen bonds

c)double bonds

d)disulfide bonds

e)covalent bonds
LowellGuy

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95683
Jul 8, 2012
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No delusions or desparations here!
The tentative observation of the Higgs-Boson doesn't seem to be either directly or indirectly related to the Big Bang or the age of the universe.
If any of the four fundamental forces (electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction, gravity), or any of the 3 types of elementary particles (quarks, leptons, guage bosons) were any different even by the slightest imaginable amount, then not just life, but the universe itself would not be possible.
Consider just one parameter, the expansion rate of the universe.
Scientists estimate that if this rate were off by just 1 part in 10^55, it would either fly apart with no chance of star or galaxy formation or collapse back onto itself.
That number is very difficult to visualize.(The number of atoms in the entire universe is estimated at 10^80)
If you had a tuning scale that stretched from one end of the universe to the other and it was marked off in atoms, the setting for the expansion rate would be less than the width of just one atom!
If the expansion rate was adjusted one atom to the left, the universe would collapse on itself, or if shifted one atom to the right would fly apart.
And this is just one of many examples of the extreme fine tuning and precise calibration and design of the universe!
The universe as we know it and life as we know it. We don't know what other universes and life might be possible under other condition. So, got any other authoritative declarations based on absolutely nothing that you'd like to make?
LowellGuy

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95684
Jul 8, 2012
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
*We* have much better than guesstimates.*We* do so because *we* have....."? We? You're no physicist. You're no scientist. You don't even understand what they were doing.
You wouldn't know science if you caught it banging your mom. Remind us how you concluded that "fur traders" is the best explanation for koalas on Australia. Please show your work.
LowellGuy

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95685
Jul 8, 2012
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Fine toned? My guitar is fine toned so I can play "The Girl from Ipanema". It's tuned precisely to "A-440" pitch.
Yeah I know, that's the standard counter, but it doesn't make any sense. Notice that I didn't argue from theology but that you did.
If your explanations ever require "God did it with magic," it is necessarily theological.
LowellGuy

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95686
Jul 8, 2012
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know how they got there but I gave you several reasonable possibilities and this is not as big an issue as you seem to think.
What is "reasonable" about claiming that fur traders would make it prohibitively time-consuming, dangerous, and expensive to harvest their livestock's pelts by transporting the entire species (all the koala fur traders formed a collective, perhaps?) to an island in the middle of an unexplored ocean, and then proceeded to eradicate every molecule of evidence of their commerce as well as of koalas ever existing anywhere on the Asian continent?

And, how did you conclude that ^that^ is the most likely explanation for koalas appearing only on Australia?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95687
Jul 8, 2012
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Fine toned? My guitar is fine toned so I can play "The Girl from Ipanema". It's tuned precisely to "A-440" pitch.
Yeah I know, that's the standard counter, but it doesn't make any sense. Notice that I didn't argue from theology but that you did.
All your arguments are from theology. Who are you trying to kid?

Since: Aug 07

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95688
Jul 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
All your arguments are from theology. Who are you trying to kid?
Not always. Some are and some are not. But you people tend to argue more from theology than from science.

Since: Aug 07

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95689
Jul 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
What is "reasonable" about claiming that fur traders would make it prohibitively time-consuming, dangerous, and expensive to harvest their livestock's pelts by transporting the entire species (all the koala fur traders formed a collective, perhaps?) to an island in the middle of an unexplored ocean, and then proceeded to eradicate every molecule of evidence of their commerce as well as of koalas ever existing anywhere on the Asian continent?
And, how did you conclude that ^that^ is the most likely explanation for koalas appearing only on Australia?
Have you already checked every molecule on the Asian continent for Koala content? Really?
Mugwump

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95690
Jul 8, 2012
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you already checked every molecule on the Asian continent for Koala content? Really?
Give it up UC - your explainations of how Koalas got to Oz are 'just so' stories that are at best a highly implausible explaination of one of the problems the flood account - asking for an examination of every molecule on the Asian continent is simply another example of the double standards you apply to creation science and real science - wanna provide evidence of the creation account ?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95691
Jul 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
*We* have much better than guesstimates.*We* do so because *we* have....."? We? You're no physicist. You're no scientist. You don't even understand what they were doing.

I have a masters degree in science,.....

Oh well, you will never understand.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95692
Jul 8, 2012
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
The weakest type of chemical bonds of those listed are:
a)ionic bonds
b)hydrogen bonds
c)double bonds
d)disulfide bonds
e)covalent bonds

b. from H.S. Chemistry.

Since: Aug 07

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95693
Jul 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a masters degree in science,.....
Oh well, you will never understand.
In what exactly? The arts and sciences is a broad category. That could be ANYTHING. And don't lie this time.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 93,461 - 93,480 of168,488
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••