Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,187

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." Full Story
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#100091 Aug 19, 2012
Obviously children don't read and comprehend well. I never said spin creates gravity children, I said there can be no gravity without spin, big difference.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#100092 Aug 19, 2012
Earths rotation rate around the barycenter between the earth and sun is about 67,000 miles an hour. Earths spinrate on its axis is right at 1,000 mph.Notice that earth has a strong atmosphere and strong gravity as well. However, earth has water all across its surface, where most other planets don't, so that likely plays a big part in having a strong atmosphere.

Then look at earths moon, it's rotational rate around the earth and its barycenter is, very slow,1.03 km/s just as the moons spin rate on its own axis is about 13 miles per hour. Notice that the moon has very little atmosphere and very little gravity.Both axial spin and rotation around earth are slow and the atmosphere and gravity are very weak.

Let's then look at the rotation rate of Venus, around the barycenter and the sun at 78,341 miles per hour, that's faster than earths rotation rate around the suns barycenter, of course, Venus is closer to the sun and being closer to the sun,Gravity becomes greater according to Newtons second law of motion, so how is it that Venus is 90% of the size, mass and density and it's gravity is 90% of the earths. That cannot be, Venus is 1/3 closer to the sun. If Newtons 2nd law is correct, venus should have a much greater gravity.

Then it's axis spin rate is very slow, at just 6.5 km/hour, but I add in, that Venus has an atmosphere where the winds roar across the planet at 220 miles per hour, approximately. This will prove important, because in my hypothesis, axial spin rate creates atmosphere. However, with Venus as a model and a tiny axial spin rate, there should be no atmosphere.Volcanoes to the rescue, it seems those and more chemicals are creating the venus atmosphere.

Next is Mercury, it spins on its own axis at only 6 mph and according to my hypothesis, mercury should not have much of an atmosphere and it doesnt. However, it's rotational rate around the suns barycenter is 106,000 miles per hour, meaning, that according to my hypothesis, Mercury's gravity should be higher and by the way,it is 2/3rds closer to the sun than the earth, so it's gravity should be very high, even for its size, but wait a minute, mercury is 40% of earths size. Gravity on Mercury is only 38% of earths. According to Newtons second law of motion, gravity should be much higher on mercury.

Mars, now here's something interesting. Mars and earth traverse their orbits around the sun and their respective barycenters at about the same velocity. Both also spin on their axis at about 1,000 miles per hour., and yet, mars is half the size of earth. Mars gravity is 38% of earths gravity, which is less than half of earths, but once one factors in that mars is further away from the sun, it's easy to see the other 12% loss in gravity, considering Newtons second law of motion.The mars spin and orbital rate match up with its gravity and atmosphere, according to my hypothesis.

On rover curiosity, today's scientists claim that mars gravity is only 1/6th of earths, so who is right, today's scientists that must know mars gravity to land the 2000 pound rover curiosity from a hovering craft, or newton and Einstein, that claim mars has a gravity of 38%?

According to science, we do not rotate around the sun, we rotate around the barycenter.

Hypothesis by ,--

Jim Ryan

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#100093 Aug 19, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you lie all the time?
Catholic schools teach evolution.

Catholics are well represented in the Clergy Letter Project.

You called signatories lesbians, homosexuals, deviants pervets and accused them of bastardizing the 'whole religion', whatever that's supposed to mean.

Why do you hate Catholics?

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#100094 Aug 19, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Exponential population growth formula simplified for large number of P:
Pn = 2 * C^n
where C = Children, n = generations
So
2 *(3^15)= 28,697,814
Your formula seems to forget that it takes TWO to make children.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#100095 Aug 19, 2012
Thanks for the chance to post this again children. Psychology anyone.:-)

Earths rotation rate around the barycenter between the earth and sun is about 67,000 miles an hour. Earths spinrate on its axis is right at 1,000 mph.Notice that earth has a strong atmosphere and strong gravity as well. However, earth has water all across its surface, where most other planets don't, so that likely plays a big part in having a strong atmosphere.

Then look at earths moon, it's rotational rate around the earth and its barycenter is, very slow,1.03 km/s just as the moons spin rate on its own axis is about 13 miles per hour. Notice that the moon has very little atmosphere and very little gravity.Both axial spin and rotation around earth are slow and the atmosphere and gravity are very weak.

Let's then look at the rotation rate of Venus, around the barycenter and the sun at 78,341 miles per hour, that's faster than earths rotation rate around the suns barycenter, of course, Venus is closer to the sun and being closer to the sun,Gravity becomes greater according to Newtons second law of motion, so how is it that Venus is 90% of the size, mass and density and it's gravity is 90% of the earths. That cannot be, Venus is 1/3 closer to the sun. If Newtons 2nd law is correct, venus should have a much greater gravity.

Then it's axis spin rate is very slow, at just 6.5 km/hour, but I add in, that Venus has an atmosphere where the winds roar across the planet at 220 miles per hour, approximately. This will prove important, because in my hypothesis, axial spin rate creates atmosphere. However, with Venus as a model and a tiny axial spin rate, there should be no atmosphere.Volcanoes to the rescue, it seems those and more chemicals are creating the venus atmosphere.

Next is Mercury, it spins on its own axis at only 6 mph and according to my hypothesis, mercury should not have much of an atmosphere and it doesnt. However, it's rotational rate around the suns barycenter is 106,000 miles per hour, meaning, that according to my hypothesis, Mercury's gravity should be higher and by the way,it is 2/3rds closer to the sun than the earth, so it's gravity should be very high, even for its size, but wait a minute, mercury is 40% of earths size. Gravity on Mercury is only 38% of earths. According to Newtons second law of motion, gravity should be much higher on mercury.

Mars, now here's something interesting. Mars and earth traverse their orbits around the sun and their respective barycenters at about the same velocity. Both also spin on their axis at about 1,000 miles per hour., and yet, mars is half the size of earth. Mars gravity is 38% of earths gravity, which is less than half of earths, but once one factors in that mars is further away from the sun, it's easy to see the other 12% loss in gravity, considering Newtons second law of motion.The mars spin and orbital rate match up with its gravity and atmosphere, according to my hypothesis.

On rover curiosity, today's scientists claim that mars gravity is only 1/6th of earths, so who is right, today's scientists that must know mars gravity to land the 2000 pound rover curiosity from a hovering craft, or newton and Einstein, that claim mars has a gravity of 38%?

According to science, we do not rotate around the sun, we rotate around the barycenter.

Hypothesis by ,--

Jim Ryan

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#100096 Aug 19, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Exponential population growth formula simplified for large number of P:
Pn = 2 * C^n
where C = Children, n = generations
So
2 *(3^15)= 28,697,814
Does this take into account that people usually don't reproduce after they're 200 years old?
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#100097 Aug 19, 2012
Dang it, everytime I post I am taken to a blank white page with the number 200 at the top left corner and then I have to click backwards to see of my post comes up. If not I post again. Sometimes it posts once, sometimes none and sometimes 2 and 3 times.

This is not good.
Mugwump

Swansea, UK

#100098 Aug 19, 2012
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Does this take into account that people usually don't reproduce after they're 200 years old?
I wouldn't bother - UC is strangely reluctant to defend his position.

Though apparently when I used the forumula to project years 1348 (n=1348/25 =54 generations) from the standing start of 6 individual post flood - the number I got (quite big) was because I was doing it wrong .... Feel free to try it yourself as UC didn't actually point out WHAT I had done wrong

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#100099 Aug 19, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong Kong! They are phonies that throw Jesus Christ, the Bible, and all that makes Christianity what it is under the bus for their own selfish, sinful desires.
Remember what the Bible teaches: "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many." (MAT 7:13)
That stupid forged letter that you circulate all the time is signed by gay and lesbian and all other manner of deviant perverted "churches" that bastardize the whole religion. Most of the signatories are repeated several times. Evolution is the work of Satan and is a total lie.
Wow.

Just....wow.

I hope you re-read this, UC...then fall on your knees and ask your God to forgive you for this post.

Since: Aug 07

United States

#100100 Aug 19, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow.
Just....wow.
I hope you re-read this, UC...then fall on your knees and ask your God to forgive you for this post.
Forgive me? He'll thank me. Homosexuality is wrong any way you look at it. Biblically, practically, medically, hygenically, socially, and reproductivly. It's sick and deviant behavior condemned by both God and State Law.

Florida's Sodomy Laws

Florida Criminal Code 800.02 establishes punishment for "any unnatural and lascivious act".

Adults are prohibited from living "in an open state of adultery" by 798.01. Adults are also prohibited from engaging in "lewd and lascivious behavior" by 798.02.

Punishment for violations of the sections defining a unnatural and lascivious act, living in open adultery, lewd and lascivious behavior, are all misdemeanors of the second degree, punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 60 days and a fine that shall not exceed $500.

Since: Aug 07

United States

#100101 Aug 19, 2012
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Does this take into account that people usually don't reproduce after they're 200 years old?
You're not too swift are you pal? What is the generation age I gave? How many children per couple? Damn you're stupid.

Since: Aug 07

United States

#100102 Aug 19, 2012
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Your formula seems to forget that it takes TWO to make children.
Please have your IQ checked.

Since: Aug 07

United States

#100103 Aug 19, 2012
Notice the word Sodomy comes from the Bible. And NO, I don't hate Catholics or Gays for disobeying the Bible. Some of my co-workers and neighbors are gay and I like them very much but what they do is wrong. Me calling them wrong does not mean I hate them. I don't really hate anyone. They are just doing a particular sin. My sin - whatever it happens to be - is just as bad and has equal weight to theirs. That's just the way it is. I am human therefore am sinful and I can't help it as hard as I try not to and this is the same as the gays. So we are no different. There sin is wrong and so is mine. I guess being gay is particularly noticable.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#100104 Aug 19, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Please have your IQ checked.
Consistently tests about 140. Once at 148, but I'm sure that was an anomaly.
Mugwump

Swansea, UK

#100105 Aug 19, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Please have your IQ checked.
Going to explain where I was going wrong in my use of your formula to predict the population for 1000 BC.

Really, if I have made a mistake then fair enough but until you can outline my error we can assume it simply demonstrates that an exponential formula can't be applied to real world populations indefinitely.

Over to you UC (again)

Since: Aug 07

United States

#100106 Aug 19, 2012
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Consistently tests about 140. Once at 148, but I'm sure that was an anomaly.
It's seems about half that.

Since: Aug 07

United States

#100107 Aug 19, 2012
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Going to explain where I was going wrong in my use of your formula to predict the population for 1000 BC.
Really, if I have made a mistake then fair enough but until you can outline my error we can assume it simply demonstrates that an exponential formula can't be applied to real world populations indefinitely.
Over to you UC (again)
All you do is twist the facts and nitpik minor differences. You are avoiding the big picture that I explained earlier. That is, in general, a standard exponetial growth curve fits the biblical account nicely, but nothing about evolution can explain zero growth for millions of years and then, all of a sudden, an exponential growth curve matches the actual historical world population growth data from the Flood to the present 7 billion. Evolution has no answers and the Bible answers it satisfactorily.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#100108 Aug 19, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
It's seems about half that.
Sounds like another baseless opinion.

Instead of that stupid list of of phony arguments from incredulity and ignorance that you keep putting up, you should assemble "Urban Clownboy's Amazing List of 99 Baseless Assumptions".

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#100109 Aug 19, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You may see microevolution happening but not macroevolution. Genetic variation and natural selection was designed into the Creation but no plant or animal ever transitioned from one type to another. Nobody has ever seen the kind of microbes-to-man macroevolution happen and there is no evidence that it ever did happen. You have been hypnotized and drugged by the hyperbole and equivocation that is the mind-controlling theory of evolution but it is wrong and it is a total lie. You are seeing the world through a pair of broken binoculars that are always out of focus. If you could fix them, you would be able to see the world properly in clear focus with all it's rich complexity that it is the result of intelligent design by a supreme Creator.
What is the mechanism that prevents the transition from micro evolution to macro evolution? What is it that ensures that a small isolated group will always be able to reproduce with its ancestor group? Are you referring to science or to "God's Law"?
Mugwump

Swansea, UK

#100110 Aug 19, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
All you do is twist the facts and nitpik minor differences.
116,299,474,006,080,000,000,00 0,000

AND

50,000,000

Is a minor difference - you are KIDDING, glad i'm not one of your CPA clients.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are avoiding the big picture that I explained earlier.
Nope, it is you who is avoiding that fact that using your formula and your data - the results don't match reality
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That is, in general, a standard exponetial growth curve fits the biblical account nicely,
Not if the figures I produced using your formula are anything to go by.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
but nothing about evolution can explain zero growth for millions of years and then, all of a sudden, an exponential growth curve matches the actual historical world population growth data from the Flood to the present 7 billion.
Actually all this has been explained numerous times - you just ignore it , or dont understand it

But all this aside - can you explain why my use of your formula and data to project from 2348 BC --> 1000 BC gives a population some 2325989480121600000 times bigger than the observed data

********** Just answer the above question - have asked about 3 times now **********

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
Blitzkrieg turned mayhem: Hacktivists claim the... 6 min Lukashenko is Dr ... 2
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Brian_G 14,584
Defending net neutrality is a fight for human r... 2 hr Kid_Tomorrow 1
China signals censors will continue to crack do... 2 hr Kid_Tomorrow 1
Marissa Mayer Says Yahoo Would 'Welcome the Opp... 2 hr Kid_Tomorrow 1
what is light? 4 hr Jaimie 23
40 Most Impressive Libraries Around The World 6 hr Gene 1
More from around the web