Should evolution be taught in high school?

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>We're talking about intelligent design, not a particular religious doctrine. I pointed out that brilliant scientists believe in God, and you feel a necessity to go out on a tangent and bash religion. This is because atheists harbor contempt for God and religion in general,,which allows them to swallow ridiculous fairytales like man evolving from a microbe and life originating from molecules. They ignore the obvious evidences of God because they wilfully close their eyes, as you are obviously doing.

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>
There's the lie...
You can't logically show the evolution of any complexity... Not in the lab nor on paper. Can you demonstrate how a whale evolved its migratory instinct WITHOUT intelligent design. You don't even now its mechanism of navigation. You don't know what nucleotide sequences sprang into existence. You accept onFAITH that EVOLUTIONDIDIT and that whatever the mechanism, it didn't require intelligent design.

Psychology wrote:

Children seem to enjoy turning things around. I say there can be no gravity without spin and they say I claim that spin creates gravity.
Those are 2 different things children, but it's ok, we can hardly expect you to understand the difference.

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
Scientific prediction: if spin creates gravity, then there should be a measurable and demonstrable change in the gravitational pull of the tip of a Dremel tool when it's turned on versus when it's turned off. Dremel tools have tips that spin at very high rates (2000+ rpm) and they have mass. If the hypothesis is incorrect, the gravitational pull of the tip of the Dremel tool should remain the same whether it's on or off.
Test this prediction, then tell us if the results support or refute your "hypothesis." In other words, show us that your "hypothesis" is true. It's readily demonstrable. If you're so confident in your "hypothesis," you should be willing and eager to do this.

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course we can.
Genetic algorithms easily demonstrate increases in ordered complexity.
On the evidence side, we have for example well documented fossil series such as the one showing the development of the 3-boned middle ear from the jaw bones of antecedent reptiles. The step by step transitions are preserved.
This shows that the principle of evolution enabling increases in complexity are not in question. Now, you can spend the next 30 years saying "OK, explain THIS one,now explain THAT one" but your case is lost. We do not need to know every single explanation for every single development when we understand how the principle works, and that it works.

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
My first biology teacher was a Catholic Priest! FUnny how he had no trouble with evolution. Like all those signatories of the Clergy Letter Project that has been mentioned many times, usually after some Creationist says something stupid like 'Believe in evolution is disbelief in God'.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Just back form vacation, er....holiday, and thanks for the laugh!

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Just back form vacation, er....holiday, and thanks for the laugh!

Elohim wrote:

<quoted text>I learned about Evolution from the Xavierian Brothers. Biology class was right after morning Mass. Keep in mind Ted, Catholics are real Xians in the eyes of a fundie. They worship the Pope, have strange Satanic type ritualistic cannibalism during the service etc etc etc

Elohim wrote:

<quoted text>Welcome back. Hope you had a good time and are well rested.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
The application of creating centrifigal forces with spin vs. the gravitational pull of a mass seems a common engineering problem.
In automatic mechanical ignition advance systems, sprung weights are against a rotor. When the rotor is idling at low RPM, the opposing weights are held against the cam by springs; however, as the RPM increases sufficiently, the centrifigul forces spread the weights outward and the forces cause the springs to stretch and the entire mechanism advances the ignition timing. Back down to idle speed the springs overcome the centrifigul forces and they return to against the cam.
I think I recall that the earth would need to spin 16 times faster for centrifigul force to overcome the pull of gravity.
Therefore, by way of springs and markers, you could measure the centrifigul forces as they rise with RPM. Now if you had a way to apply that to spinning objects of various masses, you could relate the two forces and find exactly where they are equal. My guess is it would take an object of significant mass, say, the size of a mountain, to even get in the ball park.
I am sure some graduate physics student or JPL engineer has already done this. Kong will probably find it for us!

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, thank you. Yes, I had a good time hiking in the mountains every day. It was totally awesome.

Eolhim wrote:

<quoted text>Excellent! I was up in NH hiking last month. Love hiking in the mountains.

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
You just have to find the rotational rate where G * M1 * M2/r^2 = M2 * v^2/r, for any object M2, sitting on object M1, where r is the distance between the centres of mass and v = the speed of the object M2 sitting on the rotating M1 due to the latter's spin.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
I was in the Smokies on the Appalachian Trail near Newfound Gap. Breathtaking! I can't wait to go back.
http://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/nfg.htm

Mugwump wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope the data is fine - its how you plan to use it I have objections to
But as I started this 3 days ago asking for you 'standard formula'- please continue

Mugwump wrote:

<quoted text>
Out of interest UC - care to post your pop growth forumula now ?
I believe we had agreed on a historical data set (albeit one that spans twice as long as you insist the earth has been in existence - but hey, was your choice)
You insist that whether growth rates change (as they obviously have recently - according to your data) is inconsequential.
Now all you have to do is
A) produce your formula, derived from the data
B) show how (as YOUR 99 reasons say it does) this disproves evolution / old earth.
Sorry to harp on but you did offer to see this one through - and you do have a tendency to dodge certain issues, oh and this being one of your 99 reasons I am presuming you can back it up - otherwise casts doubt on the veracity of the other 98 reasons wouldnt you say.
To jog your memory, the last post on the subject was thus (#98328)
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/tech/TCTDUMIJ55H2B...

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Great. Can you put in some real numbers or give a real world example? I guess the earth and a person could be M1 and M2 and the rotation 16 times greater would do it, correct? How about a smaller example?

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
As I recall, you rejected the actual population counts. So how can we proceed? If you don't even agree to widely accepted historical figures for the formula we are to derive together, how are we supposed to do this? I guess your point is, no matter what, evolution happened. Is that right?

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
The application of creating centrifigal forces with spin vs. the gravitational pull of a mass seems a common engineering problem.
In automatic mechanical ignition advance systems, sprung weights are against a rotor. When the rotor is idling at low RPM, the opposing weights are held against the cam by springs; however, as the RPM increases sufficiently, the centrifigul forces spread the weights outward and the forces cause the springs to stretch and the entire mechanism advances the ignition timing. Back down to idle speed the springs overcome the centrifigul forces and they return to against the cam.
I think I recall that the earth would need to spin 16 times faster for centrifigul force to overcome the pull of gravity.
Therefore, by way of springs and markers, you could measure the centrifigul forces as they rise with RPM. Now if you had a way to apply that to spinning objects of various masses, you could relate the two forces and find exactly where they are equal. My guess is it would take an object of significant mass, say, the size of a mountain, to even get in the ball park.
I am sure some graduate physics student or JPL engineer has already done this. Kong will probably find it for us!