If you weigh the pros and cons of every single type of energy production, the three best (in order) are:
Nuclear
Solar
Geothermal
A well maintained nuclear power plant will produce little to no pollution, and will NEVER (repeat: NEVER) break down due to having so many fail safes. Chernobyl was from cutting corners and Fukushima was from both the tsunami knocking out ALL FOUR BACKUPS (plus it being one of the largest quakes in recorded history, you can't prepare for that) and the plant being in operation far past it's retire date.
Solar and geothermal are expensive, but enough solar in the deserts of the western US or geothermal plants in hot spots in just the US alone could provide enough power for the world many times over (I'm talking either or, not both).
(The issue with wind not being on here is because it is INCREDIBLY inefficient and does not provide a significant enough amount of power to really be considered an "alternative", though it could still be used for smaller communities.)
The only reason people are afraid of nuclear is because when it does go wrong, it's bad and all the anti-nuclear propaganda that has been spread since the cold war. A properly maintained plant with no corners cut will never break down, never produce hazardous waste and shut down completely automatically and safely if something went wrong.
Coal, Gas, even Wind kill more people every year than the top three combined on average.
If you weigh the pros and cons of every single type of energy production, the three best (in order) are:
Nuclear
Solar
Geothermal
A well maintained nuclear power plant will produce little to no pollution, and will NEVER (repeat: NEVER) break down due to having so many fail safes. Chernobyl was from cutting corners and Fukushima was from both the tsunami knocking out ALL FOUR BACKUPS (plus it being one of the largest quakes in recorded history, you can't prepare for that) and the plant being in operation far past it's retire date.
Solar and geothermal are expensive, but enough solar in the deserts of the western US or geothermal plants in hot spots in just the US alone could provide enough power for the world many times over (I'm talking either or, not both).
(The issue with wind not being on here is because it is INCREDIBLY inefficient and does not provide a significant enough amount of power to really be considered an "alternative", though it could still be used for smaller communities.)
The only reason people are afraid of nuclear is because when it does go wrong, it's bad and all the anti-nuclear propaganda that has been spread since the cold war. A properly maintained plant with no corners cut will never break down, never produce hazardous waste and shut down completely automatically and safely if something went wrong.
Coal, Gas, even Wind kill more people every year than the top three combined on average.
Some interesting points here. Solar power currently may be second still, but I feel that the constant advancements we're getting in solar panels can only bring it up.
I question geothermal being on your list though. Geothermal is just very difficult to find enough good spots that would support it. The sheer lack of good locations would nearly put it off the list for me.
Have you considered clean oil at all? I find it very, very difficult to defend the use of fossil fuels, but it provides a much better alternative to the obsession we still have with burning coal.
You know, the "never" part is quite misleading. If by "never" you mean "never," then you're actually wrong. If by "never" you mean "incredibly statistically improbable," then we're getting somewhere. You have to know that no single form of power generation is 100% safe, but modern engineering makes them pretty damn close. Nuclear reactors would be in my top 3 engineering marvels with like oil platforms and massive ships (oil tankers, aircraft carriers, etc).
The investment it would take to make enough of these solar panels to, as you claim, "provide enough power for the world" is... staggering. This would be one of those cases where investment into research before diving in is much better.
I've seen some creative solutions to wind power. My favorite ones are hanging turbines off the sides of buildings in big cities, using the natural draft between buildings to power them even more. Still, as you say, wind is not very efficient and would take an incredible amount of turbines to make a decent dent in power consumption.
Speaking of personal dangers in power plants... did you know that you get much more radiation in your own house than you would if you lived inside a nuclear power plant? (not inside the reactor obviously though)
I started a private Minecraft server on a computer running Ubuntu and I had to install Java. I had no idea installing a program could be so satisfying.
Your computer didn't have java? That **** is standard for linux. Anyway, i now understand you are using a different OS variation of linux, like gnome. I again, use ubuntu, out of personal preference, and it has a neat software center, like the app store, which holds old games like Globulation 2, or (not so old) Cube 2.
EDIT: you changed the topic, :tongue.gif:. i am blind.
Are we forgetting the effects of nuclear radiation and the waste created through nuclear fission? What happens when we don't have enough room to store all that waste? What about it's effect on the environment?
I think nuclear power is great, especially if we ever plan on traveling and colonizing in space.
Also, there are things we can do to help keep nuclear power safe. Have you guys ever heard of LFTR?
That's also a nice video if you don't know much about nuclear power.
Also, fm87:
I disagree with you in your stance on wind power. I actually recall wind turbines being more efficient than solar panels, but this is from my freshman intro to engineering class, and things may have changed/I remember incorrectly.
But these types of energy production techniques really depend on where you are. I live in Buffalo, NY, and solar panels here would be a bad idea given we have snow for nearly half a year. That means every time it snows, someone/some people need to go out and clean the panels. If you only had a couple, that's not a big deal; my school recently purchased a whole freaking array of them, and I'm wondering how that's going to work out for them.
Wind turbines work any time of the year, although they do require more maintenance than solar panels, being more complicated. In windy areas, a small cluster of them could (I think) produce a very large sum of power.
If you're going to build a huge nuclear power plant, you shouldn't do it on a place that gets tsunamis on a regular basis.
You completely ignored WHY they chose nuclear.
Solar farms are not an option, it's a small island.
Hydro is not an option, there are no large enough rivers.
Wind farms are not an option, again it is a small island and constant earthquakes would make upkeep more than it's worth (considering how inefficient they are).
Coal is extremely pollutive.
Geothermal is not an option due to only a couple hotspots on the island of which they are not very strong hotspots in the least.
So what's left? Nuclear.
I disagree with you in your stance on wind power. I actually recall wind turbines being more efficient than solar panels,
Their efficiency has gone down since Solar improvements.
But the main problem is cost per kilowatt. Wind is extremely expensive to maintain and while is is efficient in itself, it is NOT efficient in terms of finding a solution that is along the same cost as the others.
Wind turbines are like hard drives in a server farm. 24/7 there is always something wrong. It might be something little or the whole thing might need a week's worth of maintenance on it, worst case scenario it would need to be replaced completely.
Man, I didn't mean to rant this much. Oh well. I'll say I'm a bit biased since I'm studying nuclear engineering right now, in fact. Hope ya'll had a good read!
I could actually tell that you were studying something that had to do with nuclear power. I'm guessing you just got past why an RBMK sucks as well? You have an interesting mix of using technical jargon and a more common language. Peticularly this part.
When talking about Chernobyl in Ukraine, you have to realize that the reactor design used there was incredibly sub-par to what we currently have. Specifically, they were running something called an RBMK. These reactors had an incredibly (and dangerously) high void coefficient; essentially, the hotter they got, the faster they got hotter.
Your lack of description of what an RBMK is kinds hints that you don't fully know. and your use of the term "high void coefficient" means you did one of 2 things, just looked it up on Wikipedia or its something related to the technical jargon of something you have studied. If you looked it up on Wikipedia and posted it in an attempt to sound smarter than you are then you would have paraphrased what Wikipedia says. You just stated the important part. I know its off topic but I had to point that out. Its good to have someone who understands the topic better than most people here. Plus technical jargon leads right into my next, somewhat off topic reply.
If you weigh the pros and cons of every single type of energy production, the three best (in order) are:
Nuclear
Solar
Geothermal
Solar and geothermal are expensive, but enough solar in the deserts of the western US or geothermal plants in hot spots in just the US alone could provide enough power for the world many times over (I'm talking either or, not both).
Are not "hot spots" they are areas of increased geothermal energy. Hotspots relate to the theory of plate tectonics and are areas where for some "unknown" reason reason, magma is flowing to earths surface. Hawaii is an example of a hotspot. And as best I can tell the idea is to pour water on them to create steam. If you were to do this to an actual hot spot then you are a moron. Hot spots have one thing in common, effusive eruptions which kinda flow out wherever they leave. Areas of normal activity tend to be on subduction zones, which only happen when an oceanic plate collides with a continental plate section. They drop down onto the crust and melt. But they bring water with them. The result is a build up of steam in the magma as it rises to the surface. These erupt explosively. Shards of molten rock rise and solidify then when there isn't enough heat to hold them up, the fall to the earth in a pyroclastic flow. Essentially its a bunch of little rocks, some as small as grains of sand, flowing at hundreds of miles per hour. And all they want to do its shred everything to little bits, like sandblasting the environment. So yeah, adding water to a safe hot spot would be stupid because it could build up and explode on you. Though it is less likely. As for active volcanoes, you realy don't want to drill them an exit... And yes I am aware that you don't drill to the lava, but it still seems like a lesson from bad idea 101.
Oh and, I did some research a while back after hearing that you could enrich uranium with a washing machine. You could but it wouldn't be very effective. Also, the "junk" uranium that's left over gets sent to Boeing, or other airplane manufacturers for use in passenger planes. Because so many people enter the back end of the plain the front needs to be counter balanced and they need a heavy material. Apparently uranium is cheaper than led.
Are we forgetting the effects of nuclear radiation and the waste created through nuclear fission? What happens when we don't have enough room to store all that waste? What about it's effect on the environment?
Umm.. anyone else want to answer this. Ill leave a reply but it is a counter argument and should be responded to, being the only serious counter argument. The material came from somewhere, we aren't going to "run out" of places to put it. Coal also is an environmental hazard and we cant control its waste. There are better counter arguments to your point but I will leave them for other people.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Stupid url limit! Mac tech support at: topic/649868-guide-mac-support-101-upd-14-june/
If you're talking used uranium, yes it would likely be much cheaper than lead.
But that said, source? I've never heard of them using such materials to counterbalance airplanes, being that they are already fairly balanced as it is.
Umm.. anyone else want to answer this. Ill leave a reply but it is a counter argument and should be responded to, being the only serious counter argument. The material came from somewhere, we aren't going to "run out" of places to put it. Coal also is an environmental hazard and we cant control its waste. There are better counter arguments to your point but I will leave them for other people.
I'm not saying Nuclear Energy is bad, I'm just saying we need a place to throw it away when we're done. From what I understand, it's a growing issue in the U.S., not sure about other countries though.
And like coal and oil, we are going to run out of Uranium, especially at the rate we are consuming it. Renewable energy is optimal.
I'm not saying Nuclear Energy is bad, I'm just saying we need a place to throw it away when we're done. From what I understand, it's a growing issue in the U.S., not sure about other countries though.
Depending on the fuel used, it is completely harmless once it is used by the power plant and can no longer generate energy.
And like coal and oil, we are going to run out of Uranium, especially at the rate we are consuming it. Renewable energy is optimal.
And like coal and oil, people have been saying this for close to 70 years, yet we have not run out.
By the time we do, renewable energy will be so prevalent that we won't need to think twice.
Besides, uranium is barely being mined, and barely being used. We're fine on that front. (Coal and oil not so much, but we all already know about that.)
If you're talking used uranium, yes it would likely be much cheaper than lead.
But that said, source? I've never heard of them using such materials to counterbalance airplanes, being that they are already fairly balanced as it is.
There are numerous references to depleted uranium trim weights here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Stupid url limit! Mac tech support at: topic/649868-guide-mac-support-101-upd-14-june/
Depending on the fuel used, it is completely harmless once it is used by the power plant and can no longer generate energy.
Radioactivity is far from safe (depending on the type of decay). Some types of waste may be harmless, but the waste that is lethal is what we need to worry about.
And like coal and oil, people have been saying this for close to 70 years, yet we have not run out.
By the time we do, renewable energy will be so prevalent that we won't need to think twice.
Besides, uranium is barely being mined, and barely being used. We're fine on that front. (Coal and oil not so much, but we all already know about that.)
We have enough coal, oil, and natural gas in the earth to last us about 300 years, but uranium will last us about 200 years. Now there does lay a vast wealth of inaccessible uranium under the ocean, that if we can figure out how to harvest will last us 60,000 years (at current consumption rates). Right now it is not needed nor economical to harvest this untapped region under the sea, but it will become necessary if we become reliant on nuclear energy.
I personally think we need to balance our consumption of energy so that we don't completely shut down once we run out of one type of energy.
There are numerous references to depleted uranium trim weights here.
Its use has been phased out in many newer aircraft.
So it's not being used anymore/won't be used for much longer.
Radioactivity is far from safe (depending on the type of decay). Some types of waste may be harmless, but the waste that is lethal is what we need to worry about.
"Harmless" and "safe" as in no longer radioactive.
I personally think we need to balance our consumption of energy so that we don't completely shut down once we run out of one type of energy.
I personally think we should have put massive investments into solar power for the deserts of the world 10 years ago, and solved this problem almost completely.
A decent sized farm in the deserts in the western/midwestern US could provide a literal metric assload of power. Of course distributing it properly and over long distances might be a problem.
So it's not being used anymore/won't be used for much longer.
Some that say its still in use, some say it stopped in the 80s. I suspect that's because Boeing claims to cut back or use very little as more of a politic thing to keep anti nuclear protesters away.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Stupid url limit! Mac tech support at: topic/649868-guide-mac-support-101-upd-14-june/
I could actually tell that you were studying something that had to do with nuclear power. I'm guessing you just got past why an RBMK sucks as well? You have an interesting mix of using technical jargon and a more common language. Peticularly this part.
Your lack of description of what an RBMK is kinds hints that you don't fully know. and your use of the term "high void coefficient" means you did one of 2 things, just looked it up on Wikipedia or its something related to the technical jargon of something you have studied. If you looked it up on Wikipedia and posted it in an attempt to sound smarter than you are then you would have paraphrased what Wikipedia says. You just stated the important part. I know its off topic but I had to point that out. Its good to have someone who understands the topic better than most people here. Plus technical jargon leads right into my next, somewhat off topic reply.
Oddly enough, I'm trying to decide what you're trying to say about me. I'll admit that I've not gone very far along my studies, mainly having only taken an intro course that covers the basics. The deeper details come in time. It was due to this cursory knowledge that I can throw out a few nice terms here and there, yet perhaps not explain them all to the utmost.
Hmm.. this seems to be going stagnant... I think its about time to switch topics but we have the rare privilege of having someone who actually knows something about this topic so I kind of don't want to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Stupid url limit! Mac tech support at: topic/649868-guide-mac-support-101-upd-14-june/
Ok old topic was stagnant so i decided to jump to the most controversial science related topic, the theory of evolution.
Ill start I suppose. I dont think there is enough evidence in support of the theory. I could go on an entire page rant to state why but I wont.
I also dont think It is right to teach in schools. Essentially it is claiming you will agree with this or you will get a bad grade. I remember taking biology tests and despite knowing enough that almost the entire class asked me for help when they needed it, the teacher came up with lame reasons to fail me. One was not crossing a t. It was because I spoke up about what I believed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Stupid url limit! Mac tech support at: topic/649868-guide-mac-support-101-upd-14-june/
Ok old topic was stagnant so i decided to jump to the most controversial science related topic, the theory of evolution.
Ill start I suppose. I dont think there is enough evidence in support of the theory. I could go on an entire page rant to state why but I wont.
I also dont think It is right to teach in schools. Essentially it is claiming you will agree with this or you will get a bad grade. I remember taking biology tests and despite knowing enough that almost the entire class asked me for help when they needed it, the teacher came up with lame reasons to fail me. One was not crossing a t. It was because I spoke up about what I believed.
Yeah, there's actually huge amounts of evidence in support of the theory and extremely little against it. Please do go on a one-page rant as to your misconceptions about both it and all of science so we can tell you the ways in which you're wrong.
Evolution is real, even if the 'path' we think it went through is incorrect. This is proven by bacteria, viruses, diseases and the like as well as dormant traits in animals (chickens and raptor teeth for instance).
Creationism is pretty stupid. I don't really think I need to explain, but the South Park episode on Scientology makes the good points.
As for being taught in schools, evolution is not religious, it is a scientific theory, why the hell would it be unacceptable to teach it in schools? Hell, my catholic school (turned me into an agnostic, true story) taught us evolution back in 2nd grade.
There is no reason for evolution not to be taught in schools, but there is a reason creationism is not taught in schools.
A well maintained nuclear power plant will produce little to no pollution, and will NEVER (repeat: NEVER) break down due to having so many fail safes. Chernobyl was from cutting corners and Fukushima was from both the tsunami knocking out ALL FOUR BACKUPS (plus it being one of the largest quakes in recorded history, you can't prepare for that) and the plant being in operation far past it's retire date.
Solar and geothermal are expensive, but enough solar in the deserts of the western US or geothermal plants in hot spots in just the US alone could provide enough power for the world many times over (I'm talking either or, not both).
(The issue with wind not being on here is because it is INCREDIBLY inefficient and does not provide a significant enough amount of power to really be considered an "alternative", though it could still be used for smaller communities.)
The only reason people are afraid of nuclear is because when it does go wrong, it's bad and all the anti-nuclear propaganda that has been spread since the cold war. A properly maintained plant with no corners cut will never break down, never produce hazardous waste and shut down completely automatically and safely if something went wrong.
Coal, Gas, even Wind kill more people every year than the top three combined on average.
Some interesting points here. Solar power currently may be second still, but I feel that the constant advancements we're getting in solar panels can only bring it up.
I question geothermal being on your list though. Geothermal is just very difficult to find enough good spots that would support it. The sheer lack of good locations would nearly put it off the list for me.
Have you considered clean oil at all? I find it very, very difficult to defend the use of fossil fuels, but it provides a much better alternative to the obsession we still have with burning coal.
You know, the "never" part is quite misleading. If by "never" you mean "never," then you're actually wrong. If by "never" you mean "incredibly statistically improbable," then we're getting somewhere. You have to know that no single form of power generation is 100% safe, but modern engineering makes them pretty damn close. Nuclear reactors would be in my top 3 engineering marvels with like oil platforms and massive ships (oil tankers, aircraft carriers, etc).
The investment it would take to make enough of these solar panels to, as you claim, "provide enough power for the world" is... staggering. This would be one of those cases where investment into research before diving in is much better.
I've seen some creative solutions to wind power. My favorite ones are hanging turbines off the sides of buildings in big cities, using the natural draft between buildings to power them even more. Still, as you say, wind is not very efficient and would take an incredible amount of turbines to make a decent dent in power consumption.
Speaking of personal dangers in power plants... did you know that you get much more radiation in your own house than you would if you lived inside a nuclear power plant? (not inside the reactor obviously though)
Your computer didn't have java? That **** is standard for linux. Anyway, i now understand you are using a different OS variation of linux, like gnome. I again, use ubuntu, out of personal preference, and it has a neat software center, like the app store, which holds old games like Globulation 2, or (not so old) Cube 2.
EDIT: you changed the topic, :tongue.gif:. i am blind.
TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOAlso, there are things we can do to help keep nuclear power safe. Have you guys ever heard of LFTR?
That's also a nice video if you don't know much about nuclear power.
Also, fm87:
I disagree with you in your stance on wind power. I actually recall wind turbines being more efficient than solar panels, but this is from my freshman intro to engineering class, and things may have changed/I remember incorrectly.
But these types of energy production techniques really depend on where you are. I live in Buffalo, NY, and solar panels here would be a bad idea given we have snow for nearly half a year. That means every time it snows, someone/some people need to go out and clean the panels. If you only had a couple, that's not a big deal; my school recently purchased a whole freaking array of them, and I'm wondering how that's going to work out for them.
Wind turbines work any time of the year, although they do require more maintenance than solar panels, being more complicated. In windy areas, a small cluster of them could (I think) produce a very large sum of power.
You completely ignored WHY they chose nuclear.
Solar farms are not an option, it's a small island.
Hydro is not an option, there are no large enough rivers.
Wind farms are not an option, again it is a small island and constant earthquakes would make upkeep more than it's worth (considering how inefficient they are).
Coal is extremely pollutive.
Geothermal is not an option due to only a couple hotspots on the island of which they are not very strong hotspots in the least.
So what's left? Nuclear.
Their efficiency has gone down since Solar improvements.
But the main problem is cost per kilowatt. Wind is extremely expensive to maintain and while is is efficient in itself, it is NOT efficient in terms of finding a solution that is along the same cost as the others.
Wind turbines are like hard drives in a server farm. 24/7 there is always something wrong. It might be something little or the whole thing might need a week's worth of maintenance on it, worst case scenario it would need to be replaced completely.
I could actually tell that you were studying something that had to do with nuclear power. I'm guessing you just got past why an RBMK sucks as well? You have an interesting mix of using technical jargon and a more common language. Peticularly this part.
Your lack of description of what an RBMK is kinds hints that you don't fully know. and your use of the term "high void coefficient" means you did one of 2 things, just looked it up on Wikipedia or its something related to the technical jargon of something you have studied. If you looked it up on Wikipedia and posted it in an attempt to sound smarter than you are then you would have paraphrased what Wikipedia says. You just stated the important part. I know its off topic but I had to point that out. Its good to have someone who understands the topic better than most people here. Plus technical jargon leads right into my next, somewhat off topic reply.
First off, these:
I wanted an image here.
Are not "hot spots" they are areas of increased geothermal energy. Hotspots relate to the theory of plate tectonics and are areas where for some "unknown" reason reason, magma is flowing to earths surface. Hawaii is an example of a hotspot. And as best I can tell the idea is to pour water on them to create steam. If you were to do this to an actual hot spot then you are a moron. Hot spots have one thing in common, effusive eruptions which kinda flow out wherever they leave. Areas of normal activity tend to be on subduction zones, which only happen when an oceanic plate collides with a continental plate section. They drop down onto the crust and melt. But they bring water with them. The result is a build up of steam in the magma as it rises to the surface. These erupt explosively. Shards of molten rock rise and solidify then when there isn't enough heat to hold them up, the fall to the earth in a pyroclastic flow. Essentially its a bunch of little rocks, some as small as grains of sand, flowing at hundreds of miles per hour. And all they want to do its shred everything to little bits, like sandblasting the environment. So yeah, adding water to a safe hot spot would be stupid because it could build up and explode on you. Though it is less likely. As for active volcanoes, you realy don't want to drill them an exit... And yes I am aware that you don't drill to the lava, but it still seems like a lesson from bad idea 101.
Oh and, I did some research a while back after hearing that you could enrich uranium with a washing machine. You could but it wouldn't be very effective. Also, the "junk" uranium that's left over gets sent to Boeing, or other airplane manufacturers for use in passenger planes. Because so many people enter the back end of the plain the front needs to be counter balanced and they need a heavy material. Apparently uranium is cheaper than led.
Umm.. anyone else want to answer this. Ill leave a reply but it is a counter argument and should be responded to, being the only serious counter argument. The material came from somewhere, we aren't going to "run out" of places to put it. Coal also is an environmental hazard and we cant control its waste. There are better counter arguments to your point but I will leave them for other people.
But that said, source? I've never heard of them using such materials to counterbalance airplanes, being that they are already fairly balanced as it is.
I'm not saying Nuclear Energy is bad, I'm just saying we need a place to throw it away when we're done. From what I understand, it's a growing issue in the U.S., not sure about other countries though.
And like coal and oil, we are going to run out of Uranium, especially at the rate we are consuming it. Renewable energy is optimal.
Depending on the fuel used, it is completely harmless once it is used by the power plant and can no longer generate energy.
And like coal and oil, people have been saying this for close to 70 years, yet we have not run out.
By the time we do, renewable energy will be so prevalent that we won't need to think twice.
Besides, uranium is barely being mined, and barely being used. We're fine on that front. (Coal and oil not so much, but we all already know about that.)
There are numerous references to depleted uranium trim weights here.
Radioactivity is far from safe (depending on the type of decay). Some types of waste may be harmless, but the waste that is lethal is what we need to worry about.
We have enough coal, oil, and natural gas in the earth to last us about 300 years, but uranium will last us about 200 years. Now there does lay a vast wealth of inaccessible uranium under the ocean, that if we can figure out how to harvest will last us 60,000 years (at current consumption rates). Right now it is not needed nor economical to harvest this untapped region under the sea, but it will become necessary if we become reliant on nuclear energy.
I personally think we need to balance our consumption of energy so that we don't completely shut down once we run out of one type of energy.
So it's not being used anymore/won't be used for much longer.
"Harmless" and "safe" as in no longer radioactive.
I personally think we should have put massive investments into solar power for the deserts of the world 10 years ago, and solved this problem almost completely.
A decent sized farm in the deserts in the western/midwestern US could provide a literal metric assload of power. Of course distributing it properly and over long distances might be a problem.
Some that say its still in use, some say it stopped in the 80s. I suspect that's because Boeing claims to cut back or use very little as more of a politic thing to keep anti nuclear protesters away.
*****
The bartender says "We don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here"
A neutrino walks into a bar.
Oddly enough, I'm trying to decide what you're trying to say about me. I'll admit that I've not gone very far along my studies, mainly having only taken an intro course that covers the basics. The deeper details come in time. It was due to this cursory knowledge that I can throw out a few nice terms here and there, yet perhaps not explain them all to the utmost.
When this first came out, this was pretty damn hilarious. Nice.
Ill start I suppose. I dont think there is enough evidence in support of the theory. I could go on an entire page rant to state why but I wont.
I also dont think It is right to teach in schools. Essentially it is claiming you will agree with this or you will get a bad grade. I remember taking biology tests and despite knowing enough that almost the entire class asked me for help when they needed it, the teacher came up with lame reasons to fail me. One was not crossing a t. It was because I spoke up about what I believed.
Yeah, there's actually huge amounts of evidence in support of the theory and extremely little against it. Please do go on a one-page rant as to your misconceptions about both it and all of science so we can tell you the ways in which you're wrong.
Creationism is pretty stupid. I don't really think I need to explain, but the South Park episode on Scientology makes the good points.
As for being taught in schools, evolution is not religious, it is a scientific theory, why the hell would it be unacceptable to teach it in schools? Hell, my catholic school (turned me into an agnostic, true story) taught us evolution back in 2nd grade.
There is no reason for evolution not to be taught in schools, but there is a reason creationism is not taught in schools.
Can you explain why you think there isn't enough evidence? Even the pope agrees evolution is fact (though still believes it was 'guided by god')
Also, what other theory do you suggest happened other than evolution?