Should evolution be taught in high school?

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>A free falling object is in a constant state of acceleration. This is true regardless if the speed of the object is "faster" or "slower" at portions of its trajectory.

To bad we can never get such straight answers from you.

PS I am ALWAYS mocking you.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope. Still stands. The fact of historic world population growth from Christ to the present is exponential and that means evolution is impossible because it establishes a record that can not be changed and makes it impossible for the beginning of the exponential growth curve to have started significantly sooner than it did. You are toast and need to admit you've got a big problem. You need to make up another "just-so" story so that population growth stays flat for millions of years and then all of a sudden starts to grow at an exponential rate to the present. But of course you can't do that because it would expose the myth of evolution for the fraud it is. Just one of 99 reasons why evolution never happened.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Is that your final answer? Will you testify that you were not mocking but are dead serious?

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm a perfectly normal devout Catholic atheist sexual deviant so please don't include me in your sweeping generalization.

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
A free falling object is in a constant state of acceleration. This is true regardless if the speed of the object is "faster" or "slower" at portions of its trajectory.
To bad we can never get such straight answers from you.
PS I am ALWAYS mocking you.

Psychology wrote:

Children mock what they cannot do,--be.
they also cannot use the words of the hypothesis to refute it, but hey, that's what children do.
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 

Psychology wrote:

Only morons claim an object can accelerate and decelerate at the same time. An object can remain in motion while decelerating, but not accelerate and decelerate at the same time.
If the above is not true, then it should be easy to explain that concept, right?
How would you teach children, please explain.

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
All objects in free fall (gravity implied) experience a constant state of acceleration due to gravity.

Psychology wrote:

Only morons claim an object can accelerate and decelerate at the same time. An object can remain in motion while decelerating, but not accelerate and decelerate at the same time.
If the above is not true, then it should be easy to explain that concept, right?
How would you teach children, please explain.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope. Still stands. The fact of historic world population growth from Christ to the present is exponential and that means evolution is impossible because it establishes a record that can not be changed and makes it impossible for the beginning of the exponential growth curve to have started significantly sooner than it did. You are toast and need to admit you've got a big problem. You need to make up another "just-so" story so that population growth stays flat for millions of years and then all of a sudden starts to grow at an exponential rate to the present. But of course you can't do that because it would expose the myth of evolution for the fraud it is. Just one of 99 reasons why evolution never happened.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
This is the exact exchange regarding the dremel tool and Dogen:
Urban Cowboy wrote:
“Remind as again how a dremel tool is proof positive that spin doesn't matter. Koo-koo...koo koo...koo koo..”.
LowellGuy wrote:
“His claim was that spin generates gravity. Are you suggesting that spin generates gravity, too?”
Urban Cowboy wrote:
“No, but a dremel tool has so little mass it is hardly an argument.”
Dogen wrote:
“I refer you to an elementary physics book.”
Dogen wrote (commenting on the same UC quote):
“But it SHOULD if it is spinning fast enough. Do you not get anything?
Spinning = gravity.”
*End*
There is no hint that Dogen was mocking anyone. Dogen was clearly establishing that he believed that a spinning dremel creates gravity and then he acted as though he could prove it with a reference to a physics book. Then he stated –without any hint of sarcasm – that it SHOULD (notice the caps!) if it spins fast enough. And then he further emphasizes his position with an emphatic “Spinning = gravity". And you go along with this dimwit that lied about it later when he realizes he was wrong and squirms out of it like the little twerp he is? That makes you just as stupid and dishonest as he is! Shame on you LG!

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
He doesn't leave us much option.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
I never said that, so don't put words in my mouth liar. And the "Spin = gravity" is Dogen's quote alone. He even referred me to an elementary physics book and told me, "Don't you ever get anything?". You people can't possibly keep all you lies straight.
None of you voodoo darwin zombies can ever be trusted. Every one of you are cut from the same soiled cloth.

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
An object can accelerate in one direction and decelerate in another. Try to wrap your mind around three dimensional space.

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
All objects in free fall (gravity implied) experience a constant state of acceleration due to gravity.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

Do objects in free fall (as in falling to the Earth) really accelerate?

appleboy wrote:

<quoted text>
OK. So what I get out of this is that "acceleration" and "speed" are not the same. So the earth is in a constant state of acceleration around the sun (that is, it is in freefall), but its speed remains the same.

appleboy wrote:

<quoted text>
OK. So what I get out of this is that "acceleration" and "speed" are not the same. So the earth is in a constant state of acceleration around the sun (that is, it is in freefall), but its speed remains the same.

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
What is the mathematical relationship between planetary spin and gravity?
If I'm NOT spinning, does my body have gravitational pull? If I start spinning, does my body's gravity increase? How much? We have equipment that would be able to detect gravitational fluctuations. I just want to know the math so we can test it.