Study: Kids Bullied in Gym, Sports Avoid Future Activity

Study: Kids Bullied in Gym, Sports Avoid Future Activity

by Lois M. Collins, Deseret News     January 2014





AthleticBusiness.com has partnered with LexisNexis to bring you this content.



Copyright 2014 The Deseret News Publishing Co.
Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City)

When kids are bullied during physical activities like PE classes and sports, they tend to withdraw from being physically active -- not just in class, but in general. A year later, kids who are picked on are less active, according to a study led by BYU researchers.

That's true of both overweight and healthy-weight kids, the study found. The research is published in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology.

The research touches on two different factors in child well-being that concern experts. First, physical activity -- or its lack -- and the resulting weight gain have serious ramifications for both present and future health, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics and others. Research suggests that only 8 percent of school-age children get the recommended one hour of physical activity a day that federal guidelines say they need. Obesity is considered by health officials to be a national epidemic that includes children.

At the same time, the U.S. Department of Education's National Center on Educational Statistics noted that at least 13.5 million episodes of bullying were reported in 2011, ranging from insults to threats and physical harm. It's not a count of how many students were actually bullied, since some students were likely bullied in more than one way and other students probably never reported incidents, but it is suggestive.

Intrigued by earlier research that suggested kids who are bullied by peers may become more sedentary, the researchers in the BYU-led study decided to look at what happens when the bullying itself involves physical activity. "Kids may be teased about their physical skills, ostracized when teams are chosen for sports, or criticized for their physical appearance when they wear exercise clothing," said lead researcher Chad D. Jensen, assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at Brigham Young University.

Sitting it out

"Children who have been criticized for their physical skills, chosen last and ridiculed seem to avoid physical activity, perhaps because from previous experience they figure it's punishing and they'll stay on the sidelines," Jensen said.

The researchers asked 108 students from several Midwest grade schools questions that ranged from what their diets were like to how they were treated by peers. The research focused on a "constellation of physical, psychological, emotional and academic functioning," Jensen said.

Using two surveys, they asked about health and activities, feelings, whether the children had problems with other children and how they felt about and performed in school. They also asked about bullying, although they didn't call it that, measuring things like feeling put down and perceptions of how others see them, as well as how upset the child felt as a result of how he or she was treated.

They found that even a year later, children ages 9 to 12 who had been teased during physical activity were less active than those who had not been teased. The finding was especially true for healthy-weight kids a year later, he added. Overweight children who were teased experienced a decrease in their health-related quality of life, including physical, social and academic well-being.

Activity matters

"Children's early experiences with physical activity can influence their exercise habits well into adulthood," Jensen said. He cites the benefits of an active lifestyle: reduced risk for obesity, depression, diabetes, sleep problems and other physical and mental health issues.

The American Academy of Pediatrics "Bright Futures" report notes that "physical activity is an essential component of a healthy lifestyle and must begin in infancy and extend throughout adulthood. Regular physical activity increases lean body mass, muscle and bone strength and promotes good physical health. It fosters psychological wellbeing, can increase self-esteem and capacity for learning and can help children and adolescents handle stress."

Jensen hopes the study will serve as a call to action. It highlights how important it is to prevent bullying in schools and on the playing field. "We encourage educators and other adult leaders to intervene if children are being teased during physical activity and to consider physical education classes and recess important domains for bullying prevention," he said.

The other researchers were Christopher C. Cushing of Oklahoma State University and Allison R. Elledge of University of Kansas.

EMAIL: lois@deseretnews.com, Twitter: Loisco



January 26, 2014

Copyright © 2014 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.

When kids are bullied during physical activities like PE classes and sports, they tend to withdraw from being physically active -- not just in class, but in general. A year later, kids who are picked on are less active, according to a study led by BYU researchers.

Well, actually . . . during the summer months when school was out, I did get my exercise.

I liked riding my bicycle. We lived in a small town up in northern Minnesota, and I liked to ride my bike on the winding road through Jay Cooke State Park which was about a few miles out of town.

And even though my left knee was crippled up, and in constant pain, and I walked with a limp, that still didn't stop me from riding my bike, or hiking in the woods.

I was just lousy at sports, and unable to run, which of course, is considered a crime in our morally corrupt right-wing society.

Oh, but if a football player rapes someone, that's not considered a crime!

Anyway . . . . .

During the summer months, we would go out traveling to get away from that rotten neighborhood to go camping in the state and national parks.

My mother, myself, and my younger brother and younger sister, we would leave town and go camping in the state parks and national parks. My stepfather preferred to stay home, and hang out in the bar, and get drunk.

We had a home built camper trailer, which my mother and I had built. My mother wasn't happy unless she had a hammer and saw in her hands, and we both had fun building our camper trailer. It popped straight up and had canvas sides. We also had a couple of pup-tents.

My mother taught us how to make a camp fire, and I was designated, keeper of the flames. I would bring back firewood, tend to the camp fire, and in the evening it was my job to light the Coleman lamp. We also had a Coleman cook-stove.

We also enjoyed singing around the campfire.

During our camping trips, if we were in a national park, there were nature trails. We would pick up a map of the hiking trail from a ranger station. In some parks, there was organized hiking lead by a park ranger.

We were members of the NCHA, the National Campers and Hikers Association when we lived up in Minnesota.

But, I was 13 years old, when we moved down from Minnesota to New Mexico.

Anyway . . . . .

During our camping trips I enjoyed swimming in a lake, and sometimes I would rent a rowboat for a couple of hours.

I would take my telescope with me, and I would sit up late at night looking at the moon and whatever planets were visible at the time. Sometimes I liked to spread a canvas on the ground, and lay my sleeping bag on top of the tarp, and just sleep under the stars when it wasn't raining, otherwise I would go into my pup-tent if it was raining.

There was this one park, the Pines Campground not far from Cloudcroft, New Mexico, altitude over 9,000 feet in the Lincoln National Forest. Not far from the campgrounds, there was a stone quarry, and I had a geologist pick, and I would chip away at the rock face looking for fossils. Found lots of small seashell and small clam fossils.

Also, we went on a guided tour of the big solar observatory at Sunspot, New Mexico.

Here are some pictures.


Solar Observatory at Sunspot, New Mexico, Lincoln National Forest


Inside one of the observatory domes

One summer we went camping at the Prescott National Forest in Arizona. There we went on a tour of the Lowell Observatory, not far from Flagstaff Arizona.

Here are some more pics.


Lowell Observatory near Flagstaff Arizona.
Notice the odd shaped dome.


Inside the Lowell Observatory. Notice the car tires on which the dome sits.
The car tires are driven by electric motors causing the dome to rotate.


A blueprint design for the Lowell Observatory.

The reason for the dome's odd shape is because, when Percival Lowell hired someone back in the 1880s to build the dome, the guy didn't know how to build a hemispherical dome out of wood. He only knew how to build railroad water towers that serviced the old steam locomotives, hence, the dome's strange shape. But it works just fine!

That telescope is over 130 years old, and it's still in use.

We have also been to many other places.

Here's some more pics.


The Badlands of South Dakota

Badlands National Park along Interstate 90. The Badlands is one of the rickets Oligocence epoch fossil beds dating back 37 million years. YES! The fossil beds are 37 MILLION years, and NOT a mere 6,000 years! And NO, it was NOT the result of the Genesis flood of Noah! Get over it Republican retards!!!


Mount Rushmore in The Black Hills of South Dakota.


The Devil's Tower in the Black Hills of Wyoming.

Yes, while the Black Hills are mostly in South Dakota, the Black Hills also extends across the border into Wyoming.

I have also been to Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming.


Great Fountain Geyser in Yellowstone National Park.


The Old Faithful Geyser, Yellowstone National Park

And in Arizona, I have been to the Grand Canyon, Saguaro National Park, and also, the Organ Pipe Cactus National Park.

Here are some more pics.


Saguaro National Park in Arizona


Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument.


The Grand Canyon in Arizona

And NO!!! The Grand Canyon was NOT carved out in just five minutes during the Genesis flood, which NEVER actually happened! Ya got that all you right-wing Republican RETARDS??? GET OVER IT!!!

And I have also been to the Meteor Crater not far from Winslow Arizona.


Meteor Crater not far from Winslow Arizona

I was about 17 years old when I saw the Meteor Crater. It was the result of a meteorite impact about 50,000 years ago. Yeah! FIFTY-THOUSAND years ago, and NOT 6000 years! Ya got that, ya sports-loving science-hating Republican retards??? GET OVER IT!!!

Anyway, when I was 17 years old, I was about 100 pounds overweight, weighing about 275 pounds.

And although my left knee was constantly in pain, and I walked with a limp, it didn't stop me from hiking down the winding footpath from the museum on the crater rim down to the center of the crater. I had a stock broken off from a yucca plant which I would lean on as a walking stick. It was a really cool looking walking staff, which I had sanded down real smooth, and varnished with dark wood stain. Yeah! Kind of makes it fun to be a partial crip!

Oh! But my younger, and much taller, skinny brother, he chickened out when we were only halfway down along the footpath, and he turned around and went back to the museum on the crater rim.

It took me about a half-hour to hike to the center of the crater, and about 45 minutes to hike back out because it was obviously downhill on the way in and uphill on the way out. And my left knee was really hurting by the time I got back up to the museum on the crater rim.

I had no real problem hiking about despite the pain in my left knee. It's just that I could not run, or climb a stupid rope in a gymnasium. But hiking was no real problem. And I course I had my really cool looking walking staff made from a yucca stock.

So, during the summer when school was out, I did get some exercise. But I walked at my own somewhat-slow pace limping on my left leg as I went.

Oh! But now . . . all the fucking retarded sports fans and coaches believe that kids should all go to sports camp during the summer, and now, many parents (I call them, helicopter parents) are hovering over their kids constantly, and now, they also advocate "structured" playtime.

NO! My mother, she was not a Helicopter Mama, who was constantly hovering over me and supervising me every step of the way. During the summer, I was allowed to be creative and explore around on my own. I had plenty of free time during the summer months when school was out.

When we lived in that small town in Northern Minnesota, there was a railroad track that ran past our neighborhood. I enjoyed hiking along the railroad track picking wild raspberries from the bushes the grew along the track.

Also, there was some woods across the track, and a ditch you had to climb down into and back up to get into the woods. Sometimes that ditch would get flooded after the rains. So, when the ditch was dry, I built a wooden footbridge about 25 feet long crossing the ditch. That was my little bridge.

Then I would go into the woods and pick wild blueberries, and red rhubarb, and my mother would make rhubarb pie.

So, when I was a kid, there was no "structured" playtime for me. I was a free spirit during the summer months.

I got out in the nice clean fresh air.

But NNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Now, kids must be constantly supervised and hovered over by their Helicopter Mamas and Helicopter Daddies who send their kids to sports camps.

So, instead of getting fresh air, kids are forced to breath the rank musty air of a football locker room!

PEEEEEEEUUUUUUUUU!!!

When I was in school, during Gym class, I always hated the smell of a locker room! That rotten sweat-sock smell was aggravating! That smell made me angry! I hated it!  

Yeah! A lot of kids now-a-days are not allowed their own free time anymore. No, now it's "structured" playtime, doing "reps"! Uh huh! Repetition is what it's all about now. No creativity, and no originality. No! It all about doing reps!

You only have to be able to count to four while doing reps!

ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR! ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR!

No wait! I forgot! The first number is HUT! Yeah! Stupid me!

Yeah! it's HUT, TWO, THREE, FOUR! HUT, TWO, THREE, FOUR!

Uh huh! That's it! I get it now! I stand corrected.

Why don't more parents send their kids to Science Camp during the summers?

They'll still get some exercise, hiking in the woods looking for specimens to examine under a microscope, or climbing rocks digging for fossils, and going out at night in the sweet clean fresh air, setting up telescopes.

Oh! No, I keep forgetting! It's not really exercise unless you're playing with balls! Yeah! Stupid me!

And breathing locker room air is healthier than getting fresh air, I guess. Well, yeah . . . they still get some fresh air while playing sports outdoors.

But then, it's back into the locker rooms to breath in some more of the foul sweat-sock air!

Anyway . . . . .

I actually got a far better education during our summer vacations on our camping trips to the national parks, a far better education than I ever got going to that crummy school in that dirty little town.

Hey! Science is beautiful!!!

Astronomy is a beautiful science! And . . . GEOLOGY ROCKS!!!

Science is really cool and, like, awesome!

SPORTS SUCKS AND SPORTS IS UGLY AND IT SMELLS BAD!!!  
 
I'm outta here!!!

Mrs. Earl wrote:I'm a bit confused, Big Fat Heretic. Are you saying that this scientific study that says that teasing and bullying has a detrimental effect on the physical activities of nonathletic children is wrong because of the personal experiences of one individual? In other words, are you saying that sports lovers are right? Or did you misread the title of this thread and think it said “Big Fat Heretic's Vacation Slides?”

Mrs. Earl wrote:By the way, since you see fit to rant about Creationists every single time you post, regardless of the topic, I would like to point something out to you: Earl is a Creationist. Earl is not a sports lover. Earl is not a Republican. Earl does, however, know more science than you will ever know. You may have started reading children's astronomy books in the third grade because you liked the pretty pictures, but Earl started reading high school biology textbooks in the first grade and has never ceased to love science. He has been known to carry around a chemistry textbook to read while waiting in line. And what he doesn't know about herptiles isn't worth knowing. So stop acting like you are the only person at this website who loves science. If you truly loved science, you would respect the scientific study described in the article that Earl posted.

Fitman's Brother wrote:Mrs. Earl

Not many people know that all babies really are born with tails. That conspiracy was proven to be true when Dr. Toboggan, MD blew the whistle and had the relevant documents to prove it

Thanks for bringing this up again and shining light on this very serious issue though. Not enough people are away!

Well, you've put it on the Internet; so, it must be true!     

Mrs. Earl wrote:I’m sorry I didn’t respond to your post earlier, BFH; but our younger daughter got married this weekend, and things have been kind of hectic around the Earl household for the last few weeks.  I want to thank you for being so civil in your response to my post.  I realize that it is very difficult to keep one’s temper when the topic is as close to one’s heart as science is to yours.

Mrs. Earl wrote:So, you do agree with the findings of the study described in Earl’s OP.  Perhaps this would have been more obvious in your original post if – instead of saying, “Well, actually . . . during the summer months when school was out, I did get my exercise” -- you had said, “There’s a solution to this problem.”  Regardless, your position is now clear.

Mrs. Earl wrote:I understand why you have the mistaken idea that you know more science than Earl does.  It’s because when you say “science,” you mean astronomy, geology, paleontology, and evolution.  When I say “science,” I mean biology, chemistry, and physics as well as astronomy, geology, etc.  If you are limiting the definition of “science” to astronomy, then you definitely know more than Earl because he has no interest in it.  But if you mean science in the sense that most people mean science, he does know more than you do.

Mrs. Earl wrote:One reason I say this is because you evidently have no idea of what constitutes scientific proof of a theory.  This is illustrated by your so-called “proof” of the evolution of the eye.  You list eyes from several different animals, line them up from simplest to most complex, wave your hands and say, “Thus I have proved that eyes have evolved.” Mathematicians call this the Hand-Wavy Method of proof. When one comes to a step for which one has no proof, one says “Clearly” or “Obviously” and waves one’s hands and hopes that no one notices you made a statement with no supporting evidence. Using your Hand-Wavy Method of proof, I could “prove” that Big Ben in London evolved from my old Cinderella watch I had as a kid.

Evolution of the Eye:

When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?

If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?

Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

So, if the human eye was the result of "intelligent design" then God did a rather poor job of "designing" the human eye!

Evolution is not actually a "random" process. Mutations are random, but natural selection is not random.

Small variations (mutations) will occur from one generation to another, and if a mutation gives even a slight advantage, that organism is more likely to produce offspring, and pass that mutation down to the next generation.

All primates except humans have 24 chromosome pairs. Humans only have 23 chromosome pairs.

Now, why is that?

Well . . . for a while, it looked like there was a crises in evolution. But then, the answer was found in chromosome #2.

"Chromosome #2 is one of the 23 pairs of chromosomes in humans. People normally have two copies of this chromosome. Chromosome #2 is the second largest human chromosome, spanning more than 243 million base pairs (the building material of DNA) and representing almost 8% of the total DNA in cells.

Identifying genes on each chromosome is an active area of genetic research. Because researchers use different approaches to predict the number of genes on each chromosome, the estimated number of genes varies. Chromosome #2 likely contains 1,491 genes, including those of the HOXD homeobox gene cluster."



Each chromosome has a Telomere on each end and a Centromere in the middle, except Chromosome #2, which has two Telomeres fused together in the middle and  a Telomere on each end, and two Centromeres.

Human chromosome #2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.

The correspondence of chromosome #2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome #2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.

The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere. The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome #2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.

Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favor of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome #2"

This was from a Wikipedia article at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29

So, this is not from "waving" my hand!!!

Also, as for the "gaps" in the fossil record, many transitional fossils have been discovered, and the "gaps" are closing. For example: the discovery of Tiktaalik, a transitional from, from fish to amphibian!

Another article from Wikipedia;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

"Tiktaalik is a monospecific genus of extinct sarcopterygian (lobe-finned fish) from the late Devonian period, with many features akin to those of tetrapods (four-legged animals). The Tiktaalik is understood as representative of the evolutionary transition from fish to amphibians. It is an example from several lines of ancient sarcopterygian fish developing adaptations to the oxygen-poor shallow-water habitats of its time, which led to the evolution of tetrapods. The Tiktaalik and animals similar to the Tiktaalik are understood to be the common ancestors of a wide swathe of all terrestrial fauna: amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Well-preserved fossils were found in 2004 on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada."

Yeah! This was recently discovered back in 2004.

Over a hundred and fifty years ago, the number of primate fossils found could only cover a pool table.

Now you need a whole swimming pool!!!

So, the gaps are closing!

Yeah! Hand waving???

I'm sorry, but I feel insulted again!

Anyway . . . to continue . . .

Mrs. Earl wrote:Another way in which you show a lack of knowledge of scientific method is your insistence that one or two examples constitute a case study.  For example, you frequently refer to the ridiculous things your Sunday school teacher said and then conclude that all Bible believers are as ignorant as she was.  If I used your reasoning, I would cite the example of my daughter’s biology professor.  He has more than one degree in science, he is an atheist, and he believes firmly in the theory of evolution. He also believes that all human babies are born with tails.  Apparently, these tails are surgically removed by the doctors before the parents can see their babies because these doctors are all part of a giant worldwide conspiracy.  Using your method of reasoning, I would conclude that all atheists with degrees in science who believe in evolution are ridiculous ignorant yahoos.

Mrs. Earl wrote:By the way, your contention that the fact that you and every other male on earth has twelve ribs somehow disproves the story of Adam and Eve also illustrates your ignorance of science.  When Earl was a child, his tonsils were surgically removed; but when both of our daughters were born, they both had tonsils. This was not due to a miracle.  This was due to the fact that surgery does not alter one’s DNA.

Mrs. Earl wrote:One final point: If you knew as much about evolution as you claim to know, you would know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. No one with any sense disbelieves in microevolution.  A great many of us, however, don’t believe in macroevolution.  To illustrate the point, let me return to a young Earl in junior high.  At this time in his life, he was well on his way to becoming an agnostic.  But as he read about mutations in fruit flies, his reaction was “What’s the big deal about these mutations?  They’re still fruit flies!” The mutating bacteria studied by the CDC are still bacteria.

Actually, Macro Evolution is a whole lot of Micro Evolution. Many many small changes eventually add up to big changes, given enough time.

To say you accept Micro Evolution, but not Macro Evolution, is like saying that one can walk 10 feet, but you can not walk a mile.

Anyway . . . earlier I had mention the transition from fish to amphibian. Oh! And birds are decedent of dinosaurs.

Archaeopteryx, sometimes referred to by its German name Urvogel, is a genus of early bird that is transitional between feathered dinosaurs and modern birds.



This was a transitional form between reptile and bird. It had the bones typical of reptiles and it had teeth, but it also had feathers. No, it was not just a bird, but, a transitional form between reptile and bird.

Also, small multi-cellular organisms evolved into larger organisms during the Precambrian era about 500 million years ago.

No, I can not accept the story of creation in the Genesis account! I'm sorry!

Even as a kid, only 8 or 9 years old, I could not believe that plants and animals just miraculously appeared POOF out of nothing!

And I can't believe that the earth is only 6000 years old.

I'm inclined to take the word of a professional geologist and paleontologist, who goes out doing geological surveys, digging for rock samples and fossils, and getting their hands dirty out in the hot desert heat, and the professional astronomers, working in a cold unheated observatory dome, freezing their asses off.

No, you can't heat the inside of the dome. Whatever temperature it is outside, it has to be the same inside.

So, I'm not going to take the word of some multi-millionaire television evangelist, thumping his Bible and pounding his pulpit while preaching in his multi-million dollar mega-church, sitting in a nice comfortable office, and riding around in his limousine, and flying around in his Lear jet, and getting all kinds of tax exemptions, and bribing politicians to take away more of our civil liberties in the process.

I really don't care what people believe. You all can believe anything you like.

I just don't want anyone to impose their beliefs on me!  

You say I'm ignorant of the scientific method???

OK, a "theory" in science is based of observations and facts.

First, one makes observations, or does experiments, and them, proposes a hypothesis to account for the observation. The experiment must be repeatable, and have predictable results.

After it's been tested many times, than you have a workable theory.

Also, any hypothesis or theories you have, must be subject to peer review, and really strict scrutiny, and must be repeatable by others, before it can be published in a peer reviewed journal, which eventually gets published into the text books.

So, scientific "theories" are passed by strict peer review, and NOT by legislation!!!  

Oh! But the Creationists, NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOO, they want their beliefs to be inserted into public school science textbooks. They want to bypass the peer review process, and appeal directly to the politicians for legislation to have it taught.

Sorry! But that's NOT how it's done.

Evolution was NOT put into our textbooks by legislation, but by peer review before it could be written up in science journals, and eventually into our textbooks.

Oh! I have a question?

In the geological column, the fossil record shows, as you go deeper, the rock layer are older, according to radiometric  dating. The fossil remains of organisms are more primitive in the deeper layers, while in the upper younger rock layers, the fossil remains are of more advanced organisms.

We have plant and animal species that exist now, that did NOT exist millions and millions of years ago.

For example: You are NEVER going to find bunny rabbit fossils in the Precambrian rock layers.

Also, you will NEVER find primate fossils in the same rock layers were dinosaur fossils are found. Humans and dinosaurs NEVER existed in the same geological time period.

Yet, many creationists believe that Noah had baby dinosaurs aboard his ark!

I don't care what people like Ray Comfort, or Ken Ham, or Eric Hovind (Son of jailbird, Kent Hovind) have to say about it!!! They're all liars by the town clock! As far as I'm concerned, they're all child molesters! NO! I don't mean sexually, like pedophiles, but rather, they screw with the minds of young children, trying to brain-wash kids before they are old enough to start thinking for themselves. And that is child abuse!!!

Also, Kent Hovind is in prison for TAX EVASION, and NOT because he's being persecuted for his religious beliefs. He's due to get out sometime in 2015 after serving 10 years.

Oh! And you should see the federal penitentiary in which Kent Hovind is presently residing! IT IS BEAUTIFUL!!!



Yeah! Nice jail!!! Eh?

OK, getting off topic for a moment . . . . .

Recently, a black teenage girl in a Florida high school was charged with "domestic terrorism" because of something that went wrong during a SCIENCE EXPERIMENT!!!

She had an 8 ounce water bottle, and she put some household chemicals into it, and screwed on the cap. She did her little experiment outdoors is a park across the street from her school sometime before classes were starting. Well, something went wrong, and the cork blew off with a loud POP!

I use to do stuff like that at home when I was a kid.

Anyway . . . she was charged with domestic terrorism, and was facing a possible two years in a federal penitentiary, if found guilty.

But, her science teacher spoke out in her defense, saying that she is one of his best and brightest students, a straight A student, however, she was facing possible prison time, just because a cork went POP!!!

Also, she was also expelled from school!

Well . . . a petition was circulated online, and over 200,000 people signed the petition to have the charges dropped. I was one of the signers of that petition!!!

I'm always signing petitions online, and donating an average of $30 per month supporting my Democratic candidates.

Anyway . . . the charges were eventually dropped. But the last I have heard, she is still not allowed to return back to here school.

Oh! But there is some good NEWS! People donated money so she could spend the summer in a SCIENCE CAMP!!!

Well . . . when I was a kid, as I had mentioned earlier . . . I had a REMCO science kit. It included a red plastic rocket that you fill with baking soda and distilled vinegar. You mount it to the red octagonal launching pad, shake it up, and set it down, and walk away. It would take off rising into the air about 200 feet. I loved my little red rocket! I would take it to school with me, and play with it out in the field during recess. One day, it exploded on the launching pad with a loud crack, and one of my lowers legs was cut by a piece of red plastic shrapnel. It hurt like Hell, but I was more upset about losing my little red rocket. I didn't have that anymore.

This was back in the early 1960s. If I had been a kid going to school today, I probably would have been charged with domestic terrorism, and facing a possible two year prison sentence!  

See how far America has advanced since we stopped putting astronauts on the moon!!!

And of course, we poor people usually end up is some crappy dump running the risk of getting beaten and raped!

Oh! But Creationists, like Kent Hovind, they get to go to nice comfortable luxury prisons!!!  

Now, getting back on topic again . . . . .

. . . the subject of evolution . . . . .

Anyway . . . . .

The plant and animal species that exist at the present time are far out-numbered by the many plant and animal species that became extinct. About 90 percent of all species that have ever existed on this planet, became extinct, during many different geological periods, to be replaced by newer species in later geologic time periods.

So, my question is . . . . . how did newer species of plants and animals appear on this planet as the older species were becoming extinct???

Did the newer species just magically POOF into existence out of nothing as the older species became extinct?

OK, that was two questions instead of one.

It only makes sense that new species evolved from the older species.

I suggest you look up some science articles on how speciation occurs, how a particular species can branch off into two or more different species.

Well, I think I have said enough for now.

Editing this topic has left me feeling really depressed . . .

Oh! By the way . . . . . I now have a rather interesting project going right now.

You all remember, in some other topics, I had mentioned that I have a friend who has duel citizenship in both the USA and Israel, and that he served seven years in the Israeli Army, and he is now a case worker in our local VA Hospital, counseling the Iraq war veterans.

Well, between the two of us, we have a project going.

We're going to take somebody down who has been practicing medicine without a license. This guy is not a licensed clinical psychologist.

His name is Malcolm Bowden, and he is a Christian Fundamentalist, and a GEOCENTRIST!!!

Yeah! This idiot believes that the earth is at the center of the universe, and that everything revolves around the earth.

But, that's not why we want to take this guy down.

He's free to believe any damn thing he wishes. He could believe that the moon is made of cheese for all I care.

But, he has been making medical claims, saying the mental illness, and depression, is caused by selfishness and narcissism, and his therapy is based on his religious beliefs that have no bases in scientific fact.

It is no different than saying that diseases are caused by demons and not by germs or viruses.

Malcolm Bowden is a QUACK!!!

And he could do a lot of harm!

He lives in England, and I'm sure that the UK has a medical board that ought to be informed.

Yeah! It would be amusing to hear Malcolm Bowden telling American war veterans who fought in Iraq, that their severe depression and mental illness is cause by being selfish and narcissistic!

He would probably get his teeth shoved down his throat, and get kicked in the balls!

Well . . . as much fun as that might be, instead . . . we are going to see if we can legally take this guy down.

Then, he can preach his Geocentrisim in prison.

Being in prison can be very depressing. So, I'm sure the inmates will get a much needed good laugh from him!    

But somehow, some way, this idiot is going to go down!!!

Anyway . . . . .

Now, excuse me, while I to respond to Fitman's Brother

========================================

Fitman's Brother wrote:Mrs. Earl

Not many people know that all babies really are born with tails. That conspiracy was proven to be true when Dr. Toboggan, MD blew the whistle and had the relevant documents to prove it

Thanks for bringing this up again and shining light on this very serious issue though. Not enough people are away!

Sorry, you’re too late.  The cake’s all gone.  Would you like some ice cream, though?  Anyway, thanks for the congratulations!  

Whew!  Well, I certainly feel like I know more of your life history, BFH.  And that was some review of biology you gave, too.  But I’m not sure what most of it has to do with the points I made.  I will try, however, to respond to the parts of it that are concerned with my points.

First, though, I would like to apologize to you for implying that all you read in the third grade were children’s astronomy books.  Thanks to Ray, there’s no way to check this; but I was sure that in the old forum you had stated that your love affair with astronomy began when you found a children’s book on the subject in the third grade.  Since you assure me that you were reading high-school books on astronomy, I will take your word for it.  It looks like both you and Earl were interested in certain aspects of science at an early age.

I learned the term “hand wavy” from a mathematician, not a textbook.  So, I can’t name a textbook for you to read about the term.  If you go to the Math Department of any university, the mathematicians there will tell you that “hand wavy” is a term.  However, since that might be hard for you to do on your JAZZY scooter, I’ve asked Earl to provide a link to a website where you can read about the term.  Evidently, it’s a term used in many fields; but I tend to notice the mathematical usage because math is my field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving

You spent a great deal of time talking about the evolution of the eye, but you evidently didn’t notice that one of your articles supported my claim.  

The Wikipedia article wrote:Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.  .  .  .

Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

You wrote:First, one makes observations, or does experiments, and them, proposes a hypothesis to account for the observation. The experiment must be repeatable, and have predictable results.

After it's been tested many times, than you have a workable theory.

You wrote:Actually, Macro Evolution is a whole lot of Micro Evolution. Many many small changes eventually add up to big changes, given enough time.

To say you accept Micro Evolution, but not Macro Evolution, is like saying that one can walk 10 feet, but you can not walk a mile.

Weltall wrote:Thread is about Mandatory P.E. and your reply is:
RED = YOUR AGENDA
BLUE = EARLS TOPIC

Big Fat Heretic wrote:

Weltall wrote:Thread is about Mandatory P.E. and your reply is:
RED = YOUR AGENDA
BLUE = EARLS TOPIC

Yeah! I have an agenda . . . TO SPEAK OUT FOR THE TRUTH AND FOR ACADEMIC FREEDOM!!!

Like, who appointed you the forum nanny?

Look here Mary Poppins!

Why don't you just take your spoon full of sugar and your God damn umbrella and shove BOTH up your ass!!!

OK???

Weltall wrote:

Big Fat Heretic wrote:

Weltall wrote:Thread is about Mandatory P.E. and your reply is:
RED = YOUR AGENDA
BLUE = EARLS TOPIC

Yeah! I have an agenda . . . TO SPEAK OUT FOR THE TRUTH AND FOR ACADEMIC FREEDOM!!!

Like, who appointed you the forum nanny?

Look here Mary Poppins!

Why don't you just take your spoon full of sugar and your God damn umbrella and shove BOTH up your ass!!!

OK???

Don't get so pissed when you get called out on your thread hijacking bullcrap.
The first thing Earl said was about you hijacking his thread, and you reply with another issue not related to the topic. you already made a topic concerning your Helicopter and Free range parenting. Why do you need to inject it to this thread even though Earl asked you not to?

To all those participating in this thread:  I have little time to post tonight, and I can't stay up anymore because of health reasons.  I probably will have more to say about our little controversy tomorrow.

Weltall, your first post -- you know, the red-and-blue one   -- made me laugh.  You need to post far more often.

Big Fat Heretic, I've only glanced at your first post; but the following comments in your post above caught my attention.

Has it ever occurred to you . . . that maybe . . . just maybe . . . the reason why so many kids feel too discouraged to engage in another other physical activities, after having been bullied in the school gym, is that because, these kids are being probably raised by helicopter Mommies and helicopter Daddies, hovering over them and watching their every move?

Have you ever thought of that? Can you get that into that shit you're using for a brain?

We are NOT all alike.

Mrs. Earl wrote:Big Fat Heretic, you have told us countless numbers of times that when you were in the 3rd grade, you were reading on a high-school level.  So, what happened to lower your level of comprehension?  This topic is about a scientific study that shows the results of bullying in P.E. on nonathletic children.  You responded with childhood anecdotes about your vacations when you went about vandalizing state and national parks with your geologist’s pickax.  When Earl recently pointed out that this topic is about a scientific study on the effects of bullying on nonathletic children and that you had derailed the topic, you responded with your views on child-rearing techniques.  Are you really so incapable of understanding what Earl has written, or is it that you really are just a self-centered hypocrite?  You prattle on and on about how much you love science and scientific facts and then ignore a scientific study because its results differ from your own personal experiences.

Mrs. Earl wrote:You won’t like to hear this, but there are consequences to your actions.  And I’ve begun to believe that most of the bad things that have happened to you in your life are a direct result of your own actions.

Earl wrote:Big Fat Heretic, I've only glanced at your first post; but the following comments in your post above caught my attention.

"Has it ever occurred to you . . . that maybe . . . just maybe . . . the reason why so many kids feel too discouraged to engage in another other physical activities, after having been bullied in the school gym, is that because, these kids are being probably raised by helicopter Mommies and helicopter Daddies, hovering over them and watching their every move?"

That's hogwash.  You're making a broad generalization that in many cases doesn't hold true.  I speak as someone who would be a subject case.  My parents certainly weren't of the "helicopter" variety.  If anything, I received far less guidance and supervision than I should have.  You also don't take into account the fact that some nonathletic boys might have needs that differ from those you had when you were a child, but you don't seem to have much regard for the needs of others when they don't coincide with your own.  The fact remains that you derailed my topic since, according to you, everything said in a forum must conform to your likes and dislikes.

Earl wrote:The problem is that you often don't respect others' differences.  I strongly suspect that you wish everyone were like you.  For example, even though you knew I was committed to a bodybuilding program, you once said I should grow a paunch.  It was like hearing a blackboard being raked by fingernails.

Mrs. Earl wrote:You do not seem to understand what the phrase “consequences to your actions” means.  So, let me try and explain it to you.  The consequence of your cussing out the coach when he told you to climb the rope was being expelled from school.  The consequence of cussing out your 5th-grade teacher when he told you you couldn’t read the astronomy book was your being thrown against a wall.  The consequence of your cussing out your roommate when he got mad at you for being on the Internet was being attacked by a psychopath with a machete.  And as for the famous incident when you wanted to build a telescope, I’d like a few more facts.  Did your mother buy it for you?  Did you save up your money for it?  Or did you, perhaps, just take some money you found lying around and go out and buy it because you felt your parents were always spending money on your brother and not on you?  If the third scenario is the true one, then, once again, your brother’s reaction was a consequence of your actions.  The word “consequence” is not a synonym for the word “deserve,” but it is the word that describes a principle in real life:  When you do something, there is a reaction to your actions.

Big Fat Heretic wrote:When it was my turn to climb the rope, I tried very hard. I wanted to get at least 1/3 or 1/4 of the way up, but I was not able to climb at all because of my crippled up left knee.