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 4,889)

Showing posts 97,761 - 97,780 of168,492
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Aug 07

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100074
Aug 19, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You just made Urban Cowboy look intelligent, congratulations on demonstrated the lowest denominator.
He's right you know. You are very religious.

Since: Aug 07

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100075
Aug 19, 2012
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. Please quote for me what Jesus actually said about homosexuality. Chapter and verse. And, while you're at it, show us how you know Jesus took the Genesis story literally and not allegorically.
It is not my obligation to educate the ignorant. Look it up your self lazy!

Since: Aug 07

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100076
Aug 19, 2012
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Tackstrips and "spin = gravity" are just the rants of a delusional mind. As soon as you apply the scientific method to either, they fall apart, which is exactly why you won't answer questions about either of them when challenged.
Remind as again how a dremel tool is proof positive that spin doesn't matter. Koo-koo...koo koo...koo koo...
Elohim

Chester, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100077
Aug 19, 2012
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not my obligation to educate the ignorant. Look it up your self lazy!
Tell us again how animals don't feel pain.

Since: Aug 07

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100078
Aug 19, 2012
 
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you hate Catholics?
Why do you lie all the time?
Elohim

Chester, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100079
Aug 19, 2012
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. Please quote for me what Jesus actually said about homosexuality. Chapter and verse. And, while you're at it, show us how you know Jesus took the Genesis story literally and not allegorically.
(cue the cricket sounds)

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Mugwump

Leeds, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100080
Aug 19, 2012
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Your Darwinsim disease has blinded you to the truth. To you, true is false and false is true. It's amazing how consistently wrong you are.
Talking of being consistently wrong - you got an answer to the following yet?- or do you want to dodge a bit more ?

Just to remind you - this was based on your response to how the population rose from 6 to 27 Million in 348 years - I simply applied your exponential function for another 1000 years to illustrate why (as myself and others have been telling you) exponential functions DON'T WORK.

Anyway - feel free to respond (this is the basis of one of your 99 reasons remember - and if you are wrong on this one , or refuse to address it - it does cast some doubts as to your other 98 reasons wouldn't you think?)
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's easy. P(n)= 2 * C^n
Say, a generation is 25 years. 358/24 = about 15 generations
With only 3 children per generation,
2 * 3^15 = 2 * 14,348,907 = 28,697,814
Also see:
http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok - now we you have a data point for 2000 BC using your formula
Lets apply the same exponential formula to predict 1000 BC shall we?(i.e. 1358 Years post-flood)
Using generation of 25 years. 1358/25 = 54 generations
2 * 3^54 = 2 * 58,149,737,003,040,100,000,000 ,000 =
116,299,474,006,080,000,000,00 0,000
OBSERVED Population in 1000 BC =(wait for it)
50,000,000
Yep you right - bang on the money when you take rounding errors into account
You really should just give up - I have already ruined 2 keyboards spitting coffee over them - I am going to have to start invoicing you

Since: Aug 07

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100081
Aug 19, 2012
 
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Talking of being consistently wrong - you got an answer to the following yet?- or do you want to dodge a bit more ?
Just to remind you - this was based on your response to how the population rose from 6 to 27 Million in 348 years - I simply applied your exponential function for another 1000 years to illustrate why (as myself and others have been telling you) exponential functions DON'T WORK.
Anyway - feel free to respond (this is the basis of one of your 99 reasons remember - and if you are wrong on this one , or refuse to address it - it does cast some doubts as to your other 98 reasons wouldn't you think?)
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
How can you say exponential functions don't work? It is exactly what happened. The observed historical world population data grew exponentially. Are you denying reality?
Elohim

Chester, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100082
Aug 19, 2012
 
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Talking of being consistently wrong - you got an answer to the following yet?- or do you want to dodge a bit more ?
Just to remind you - this was based on your response to how the population rose from 6 to 27 Million in 348 years - I simply applied your exponential function for another 1000 years to illustrate why (as myself and others have been telling you) exponential functions DON'T WORK.
Anyway - feel free to respond (this is the basis of one of your 99 reasons remember - and if you are wrong on this one , or refuse to address it - it does cast some doubts as to your other 98 reasons wouldn't you think?)
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Wow! 6 to 27,000,000 in 348 years!?!?! They must have been very fertile back in the olden days to be pumping kids out like puppies in a litter. But we know all things are possible when goddunnit!

Since: Aug 07

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100083
Aug 19, 2012
 
1 Cor 6:9 "...nor men who practice homosexuality..."

The term homosexuality refers to those who exchange and corrupt normal male-female sexual roles and relations. Those whom some translations refer to as sodomites or effeminate are so called because the sin of male-male sex dominated the city of Sodom. The sinful perversion of homosexuality is condemned always, in any form, by Scriture (cf. Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Tim 1:10)

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100084
Aug 19, 2012
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Remind as again how a dremel tool is proof positive that spin doesn't matter. Koo-koo...koo koo...koo koo...
His claim was that spin generates gravity. Are you suggesting that spin generates gravity, too?

Since: Aug 07

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100085
Aug 19, 2012
 
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>Wow! 6 to 27,000,000 in 348 years!?!?! They must have been very fertile back in the olden days to be pumping kids out like puppies in a litter. But we know all things are possible when goddunnit!
That was ignorant. Actually, zero to 27 million only requires 3 children each for 15 generations.
Mugwump

Leeds, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100086
Aug 19, 2012
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you say exponential functions don't work? It is exactly what happened. The observed historical world population data grew exponentially. Are you denying reality?
Erhhhh - did you actually read my post - let me summarize (or dumberise in your case)

I used, YOUR Data, YOUR Formula, YOUR calculation from 2348 BC (pop=6)---> 2000 BC (pop=27,000,000)

And applied the same to project to 1000 BC to see if it fits YOUR data.

Projected from exponential growth YOU defined from YOUR formula =
116,299,474,006,080,000,000,00 0,000

Actual Observed growth from YOUR data
50,000,000

Are YOU denying reality ?

Since: Aug 07

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100087
Aug 19, 2012
 
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

Since: Aug 07

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100088
Aug 19, 2012
 
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Erhhhh - did you actually read my post - let me summarize (or dumberise in your case)
I used, YOUR Data, YOUR Formula, YOUR calculation from 2348 BC (pop=6)---> 2000 BC (pop=27,000,000)
And applied the same to project to 1000 BC to see if it fits YOUR data.
Projected from exponential growth YOU defined from YOUR formula =
116,299,474,006,080,000,000,00 0,000
Actual Observed growth from YOUR data
50,000,000
Are YOU denying reality ?
You are doing it wrong.

Since: Aug 07

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100089
Aug 19, 2012
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
His claim was that spin generates gravity. Are you suggesting that spin generates gravity, too?
No, but a dremel tool has so little mass it is hardly an argument.
Mugwump

Leeds, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100090
Aug 19, 2012
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are doing it wrong.
Care to elaborate?
Psychology

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 97,761 - 97,780 of168,492
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••