Due to lack of solid evidence, it’s debated since long by paleontologists whether dinosaurs were warm-blooded like birds and mammals known as ‘endotherms’ or cold- blooded like reptiles, fish and amphibians known as ‘ectotherms’. But now this age long question has an answer. Scientists from the University of New Mexico (UNM), published a study in this week’s issue of the journal Science which says that the dinosaur blood was neither warm nor cold but had the in-between, ‘Goldilocks’ nature.

Researchers say that Dinosaurs who roamed the Earth for 135 million years who became extinct in a cataclysmic event had a blood that ran neither hot nor cold, but was a kind of in-between that’s rare in the present age. Modern day animals are either warm-blooded endotherms, like humans, dogs and birds who are able to keep a near-constant level of heat, or cold-blooded ectotherms, such as snakes and turtles who constantly move in and out of sunlight, trying to maintain their body temperature.

During the study 21 species of dinosaurs, including the predators Tyrannosaurus and Allosaurus, the long-necked Apatosaurus, the duck-billed Tenontosaurus and the birdlike Troodon as well as a range of mammals, birds, bony fish, sharks, lizards, snakes and crocodiles were assessed. Scientists evaluated the metabolism of numerous dinosaurs using a formula based on their body mass, as revealed by the bulk of their thigh bones and also by using a method that’s akin to studying growth rings in trees estimated they their growth rates as reflected by the rings seen in fossilized bones.

According to lead researcher and graduate student John Grady, most dinosaurs followed an intermediate metabolic path between being warm-blooded or cold-blooded and hence they were mesothermic or goldilocks. A mesotherm body system is believed to have allowed the dinosaurs to move quickly, due to which they didn’t require to constantly eat to maintain body temperature.

“Most dinosaurs were probably mesothermic, a thermally intermediate strategy that only a few species – such as egg laying echidnas or great white sharks – use today”, said John Grady. Evolving a mesothermic metabolism may have helped dinosaurs to grow much larger than was possible for any mammal. Warm-blooded animals have to spend a lot of their time eating to maintain their high metabolic rate. This makes it “doubtful that a lion the size of T. Rex could eat enough to survive,” Grady told Reuters. These findings could help shed light on how warm-blooded animals such as humans evolved.

44 Responses

  1. Michael_B

    Here’s an excerpt from the article in your #2, which your 1 and 3 are both based on:

    “Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

    This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

    Hmm, seems like your “source” doesn’t even agree with what you’re saying. And her work had nothing to do with carbon dating, it was about examples of exceptional preservation. Young Earth Creationists are always pulling stunts like trying to carbon date fossils to prove they are only a few thousand years old. You can’t carbon date something that is fossilized, because there is no carbon in it. The dates they get are from the substances paleontologists coated the fossils in to protect them, not from the actual fossil, which doesn’t contain carbon. To determine the age of these fossils, you use radiometric dating of uranium and potassium, which have longer half-lives, on the rock layer you found the fossil in. The rock layer that your example was found in was dated to 68 million years. The T.Rex fossil didn’t burrow through solid rock from a 40,000 year layer down to a 68 million layer

    And on your solar system dust disc article, did you even read this? The dust disc was NOT created and then gone in 2 years. It was first observed in 1983, and then was gone in 2010. That’s at least 27 years, and they have no idea when it was actually formed. It absolutely did not form into a planet, like you tried to assert. They don’t know if it was consumed by the star or blown away by some outside influence.

  2. Jim Carroll

    You know how most people of a certain age say “I remember Pluto when it was a moon!”? Well, I remember Apatosaurus when it was a Brontosaurus!

  3. Dinosaurs: cold-blooded or warm? – Albuquerque Journal | Newssplash.net

    […] Were 'In The Middle' Of Warm-Blooded And Cold-Blooded, Scientists …Huffington PostDinosaurs were Mesotherms, neither warm nor cold bloodedThe Westside StoryDinosaur metabolism: not too hot, not too coldOman Daily ObserverLos Angeles […]

  4. Dinosaurs were Mesotherms, neither warm nor cold blooded – The Westside Story | Internet News 247

    […] Dinosaurs were Mesotherms, neither warm nor cold bloodedThe Westside StoryDue to lack of solid evidence, it’s debated since long by paleontologists whether dinosaurs were warm-blooded like birds and mammals known as ‘endotherms’ or cold- blooded like reptiles, fish and amphibians known as ‘ectotherms’. But now this age long …Dinosaur metabolism: not too hot, not too coldOman Daily ObserverDinosaurs Were Neither Warm Nor Cold BloodedThe EscapistNew study looks into metabolism of dinosaurs. Here’s what they found outTech TimesRegisterall 121 news articles » […]

  5. noname

    Very interesting article good info but the ending is a bit off. There is enough research and concrete evidence to show that humans or any other animals do not evolve but only adapt to there surroundings. Good info though

    • prof rumblesnore

      uhhh….what? Trolling I’m assuming? Or simply hallucinating us living in the Flinstones world?

    • Michael_B

      And what would you call a continual adapting to changing environments over the course of millions of years? Because that’s exactly what evolution is…

  6. 38chrysler

    Evolving a mesothermic metabolism may have helped dinosaurs to grow much larger than was possible for any mammal… unquote

    I wonder what happened to the Whales that are MUCH larger than any T-Rex ever was.’ Bill Gradwohl is correct to be a skeptic and will probably go through life having to recant much less statements than todays Materialistic Natural Humanist bunch. In most of our recent memories some Major Theories have been done away with. It wasnt too long ago that we had a Steady State Universe instead of the Big Bang, Continental Drift instead of Plate Tectonics, Fountains of the Deep was a Myth now we know there is more water under the surface than above it, That Soft Tissue in Dinosaurs couldnt survive for Millions of years and still be found today and Carbon14 Dated to less than 40,000 years. It was said that it took Dust Rings around Suns millions of years to fall into the Sun or to form a Planet, now NASA has seen it done with their own eyes in less than 2 years. That a Canopy of Water up in the Atmosphere was a physical impossibility yet today, NASAs AIM Probe is collecting data that confirms that its true and it is currently forming above our heads and has reached as far south as Denver Colorado already.

    So… Mr.Bill… you just go own being the ONLY Rational, Logical and Clear Thinking Person on these WebSites… You are just Ahead of Your Time. Science doesnt deal in Absolutes…. THATs why Science is such a lousy thing to base your Life on. Science is only a tool and tools wear out over time. Theres so much more we have yet to discover.

    • Michael_B

      Wow, you are so out of your mind…
      First of all, the article was clearly talking about LAND mammals. Aquatic species are more easily able to grow to larger sizes for various reasons. The largest land mammal is the African elephant at about 6 or 7 tons, while there were sauropods that were over 100 tons.

      You’re correct, the soft tissue in dinosaurs can’t survive millions of years and still be found today. That’s why it’s not found today. And carbon radiometric dating is not valid for anything older than 50,000 years because carbon14’s half-life isn’t long enough. That’s why things with longer half-lives like uranium and potassium are used for fossils and the sedimentary rock layers that surround them.

      You’ll have to point me to a source for your claim that NASA watched a planet being formed in 2 years. That seems pretty incredible, and probably something I would have heard about on the news. Odd that I didn’t.

      Again, please, show me a scientific article showing how a water canopy is forming around the Earth. The water canopy theory actually is impossible for several physical reasons, including atmospheric pressure and entropy.

      Science will never “wear out.” You sit here and say “there’s so much more we have yet to discover,” but who do you think is going to be making those discoveries? Science. Science doesn’t deal in absolutes, because when you do that and are later proven wrong, you look like an idiot, kinda like what happens when religions make predictions based on interpretations of biblical prophecies. Science gathers evidence, and then works out a framework that explains the evidence. When new evidence is gathered that doesn’t fit their previous framework, they adjust the framework so it fits the new evidence. Science isn’t going anywhere.

  7. Donn Irving

    Well now we’re getting some place. Those old Dinosaurs were bi’s . . . or mezo’s. 🙂

  8. disqus_GS46e5I0h0

    hey. a big part of the problem is the people who call themselves reporters take scientific theories and possibilities and report them as confirmed facts. scientists speculate. they say what they think so somebody else can find the holes. no scientist worth his salt would state dinosaurs absolutely were mesotherms. reporters would, and do. they don’t know the difference. a fact would be measuring the metabolism of a living creature. it’s very possible they were mesotherms. it would be a stretch to say it was probable. it would be foolish to say dinosaurs were in fact mesotherms as the headline states. remember the blind men and the elephant? that’s a better story. they, at least, were touching a live elephant.

  9. Mary McCrary

    Oh Bill, I so agree. I mean, dinosaurs roaming the earth for 135 millions years when the earth is only 5000 years old?!? Pshaw! 😉

    • Bill Gradwohl

      Build up a straw man and then knock it down. Is that a credible debating technique in your mind?

      • DrSnake - also an elec. eng.


        You are attacked because people need to believe in something. No one likes unexplained phenomenon. It happens in science all the time, from black holes providing “balance” to the weatherman who gives you a 50/50 chance of it raining. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. But it is comforting to “prove” that balance with nifty theories. But, you certainly are correct. If it weren’t we wouldn’t have so many conflicting theories on the same phenomenon. It startes with lightwaves and particles of light and went on from there.

      • Bill Gradwohl

        I never understood how people could believe in anything that can not be rigorously proven to be true. Most of what passes for science today is closer to religion. Only the engineering disciplines show a strong determination to seek the truth, but that’s because they have to produce something that can’t fail.

        The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind. – H. L. Mencken

        For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false. – H. L. Mencken

      • matthew nosar

        Nice job Bill, you’ve proven you can use someone else’s opinion as your own yet again! How about you learn to think for yourself and don’t care what other opinion’s on stuff matters. The most important thing is keeping your nose out of stuff you don’t believe is true. The problem in today’s society is nobody has a brain anymore! They are all pre-programmed robots!

  10. Bill Gradwohl

    More pure speculation masquerading as scientific research.

    We need to get rid of degree programs that are little more than opinions. When someone can’t definitively prove something, they should just keep quiet and if they like, keep working on it till they actually KNOW something.

    The world is awash in misinformation provided by pseudo scientists that boldly proclaim their knowledge about a given topic, when in fact all they have is their guess.

    • Calladus

      And what qualifications do you bring to this, that gives you the ability to poo-pooh all the scientists in the world?

      • Bill Gradwohl

        I’m an Engineer. I live in the real world where things must work or else people die. Other “professions” get away with outrageous statements that require no proof beyond their word which is worthless.

        Assembling a skeleton proves that the animal lived once upon a time. What it does not prove is when, for example. If the paleontologists simply stated that they are guessing about some X number of millions of years ago, that would be fine. When that guess becomes the basis for another disciplines statement about what they think they’ve discovered, then that becomes a problem. Paleontology is one guess atop another, stated in such a way as to give the impression that they KNOW what they are talking about. That’s fraud.

        Most people have heard of the big bang and take it for fact, when it’s actually a theory and a poor one at that. There’s a branch of Plasma Physics that refutes the Big Bang and all the other bogus entities which it spawned. People aren’t aware that a Belgian priest invented the Big Bang Theory and that there isn’t a shred of proof for it. Astronomers ran with it because they weren’t required to prove it.

        Since that guess, the theory has had to be refined to include the existence of Black Holes, Neutron Stars, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and countless other things required to keep the Big Bank Theory from collapsing. None of these entities exist except as mathematical constructs required to keep Big Bang alive a bit longer.

        When an Astronomer states categorically that he knows there’s a Black Hole at a given location, he is telling a bold face lie. There is no proof for the existence of Black Holes and consequently there’s no way for anyone to state categorically that there is one at a certain place.

        I could go after Psychiatry, Economics and many other areas where the information out there is nothing but supposition and guesswork. These fraudulent areas of study need to be cleaned up so that they clearly state their lack of knowledge and have to admit that what they are giving is their opinion.

      • Calladus

        Speaking as one engineer to another (I’m an electronic engineer) I will remind you that engineering doesn’t give you the qualifications to make any of the statements that you’ve just made.

        You’re a piss-poor engineer if you think that scientists are the incapable clods that you describe. As someone who uses cutting edge SCIENCE based technology in my designs, I find your statements to be ignorant, and filled with hubris.

        You, sir, are the fraud here.

      • Artoo45

        But surely, Bill could save us all with his towering intellect if only “they” would listen to him.

      • DrBob

        Well, Bill, I was with you for a bit in that I think the study above is a bit speculative. That’s the nature of the study of long-term processes where it’s necessary to gather forensic evidence and build and test models, because you can’t conduct lab experiments. They are puzzles, and in working on those puzzles we move from conjecture to preliminary work and then on to more definitive work, all while we hopefully maintain a degree of thoughtful skepticism. I would call this preliminary work.

        Unfortunately, you then wandered off into scientific denialism, and conflated a number of different disciplines. Big bang cosmology and astrophysical black holes are independent phenomena. The presence of black holes, which have been identified by their unique X-ray signature and gravitational lensing, has nothing to do with cosmological models like the big bang. It’s simply a product of General Relativity, which has thus far been well-tested. Similarly, the existence of neutron stars is equally unrelated to Big Bang theory, but is rather a product of our understanding of quantum mechanics and particle physics, theories that have been very thoroughly tested.

        Your approach is very similar to that of the tobacco companies that denied a causal connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. The correlation is just a “mathematical construct”, you can’t “categorically” state that smoking was the cause in every circumstance, you only have models or theories about the mechanism for causation, etc. I’m not sure that’s the sort of position you want to embrace as an engineer. Healthy, open-minded skepticism is one thing, but scientific denial is a different thing.

        Gathering data and evidence and constructing models is how science is done, and done reasonably well, when we are investigating phenomena that we cannot replicate in a laboratory environment. That includes most of the phenomena in the universe that are interesting.

      • Bill Gradwohl

        Black Holes were invented to supply the enormous point source mass needed to allow gravity to remain the predominant force in the universe. When an astronomer points at a spot and says he knows there’s a black home there, it’s because he can’t think of anything else that would provide the solution to the problem. That’s not proof of Black Holes.

        It is terribly convenient for the astronomical community to have things that can’t be seen or measured, and use them to proclaim their scientific brilliance. If you can point to actual proof that Black Holes, Neutron Stars, Dark Matter or Dark Energy exist, please provide a reference. To infer they exist because few can think of an alternative explanation, doesn’t constitute proof.

        BTW – Plasma Physics can explain the things that astronomers keep inventing modern day epicycles for. There’s no need for Black Holes, etc to explain what can be seen.

        Now I know how innocent people get convicted of crimes. The jury sees proof where none exists.

      • gopher652003

        Given the level of ignorance, intellectual carelessness, and general lack of knowledge you’ve displayed in these posts, I can only assume you’re the engineer they use when they don’t care if the bridge falls down.

        Your reference to plasma physics scares me, given your profession. That’s the kind of thing I expect from teens who don’t know any better. Seriously, list the products, devices, or structures you’ve been involved in designing or testing. I want to make sure I don’t buy or use anything you’ve been involved in.

        Anyone so lazy that they can’t look up the reasons why the electric universe model or plasma universe model doesn’t work shouldn’t be involved in anything other than burger flipping.

      • Dave Ryerson

        If plasma physics explains it better then the community would use plasma physics. Occam’s razor would apply.

        In any case, the universe is full of unknowns under the progress of ongoing research and observation; dark energy and dark matter are simply placeholders- they are not claimed to exist in the literal sense.

        If you have a system that can solve all these enigmas under global scrutiny and testing then it would instantly become the new standard. However, since that has not occurred it would seem that plasma physics is not viable.

      • o.d.d.

        just the facts: the existence of neutron stars is incontrovertible and empirically proven in the 20th century.
        You can even observe 8 known neutron stars referred to as “the magnificent seven” and calvera with the proper equipment. They are so constant and predictable they are used to calibrate equipment.
        Pulsars, which are neutron stars, were even used as “landmarks” in star maps on pioneer and voyager.

      • Johnmichael Monteith

        You are aware that black holes were a theory (based on calculus) long before anyone ever detected them, right? They were something that Einstein predicted should theoretically happen in nature due to a dying star of a certain mass and decades later we discovered evidence. Are they “real”? Scientists still debate that – as they should. Nothing in our world is an absolute.

        Science is not about certainty – it is about being open to the possibility that you are wrong which then leads to further discovery. The devices modern society lives by today are based on theories, and it can upset you that they are not “proven” but that does not stop society from advancing based on them.

      • Michael_B

        Proof that black holes exist:

        Besides the fact that they were theorized mathematically many years before their discovery, we’ll go with Sgr A*, the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. If you look at the orbital eccentricities and speeds of the stars near the center of our galaxy, WHICH WE CAN PHYSICALLY SEE, it can be determined that they are orbiting an object with about 4 million solar masses THAT WE CANNOT SEE. The limits on the mass of the object can be obtained through very simple calculus, because we know the masses of the stars, and we know their orbital eccentricity, thus we know the mass of what they are orbiting. Second, the radius of this object must be less than 17 light hours, or else the closest orbiting star, S2, would collide with it. Current estimates are at about 6 light hours. So this is an incredibly massive object in a relatively small volume that we cannot see. What do you think this is?

        Proof that Neutron stars exist:

        First, I suggest you do some research on the topic of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and degeneracy pressures. Degeneracy pressures are just outward forces that counteract the gravity of a star. I doubt you question the existence of stars. What keeps the gravity of a star from causing it to crush itself is electron degeneracy pressure. When iron begins to be fused in the center of the star, the gravity will overcome electron degeneracy, and it will collapse until it hits neutron degeneracy. This is what a neutron star is. So, you believe in stars that are held up by electron degeneracy, but you don’t believe in stars that are held up by neutron degeneracy? That seems somewhat disingenuous to me. Or maybe you just didn’t understand what a neutron star was, and how it’s a consequence of rather simple and well understood physics? In terms of physical evidence of their existence, we can detect them by the x-ray radiation they admit. Not only have we found neutron stars, we’ve even found neutron stars that have planets orbiting them!

        Dark Matter:

        Dark Matter is actually a very broad term. The facts are that we can see stars, and we can know how massive they are by their luminosity. By extension, we can estimate the mass of the galaxy, when you assume that the majority of the mass is tied up in stars and things we can see. This is actually a great example of a time where scientists predicted something, and what they observed was completely contrary to what they had predicted. By using their estimates of the galaxy’s mass, based on the mass of the luminous objects they could see, they expected the orbital speeds of stars to decline the further away from the center of the galaxy that they were. An example of this is the solar system: planets further from the Sun orbit at a slower velocity. What they found instead was that the orbital velocity of stars was almost the same, like they were dots on a spinning vinyl disc. What this means is that the mass of the galaxy is not mostly in the center, it is more spread out throughout the disc. Since most of the OBSERVABLE mass actually is in the center, that means that there is a large amount of unobserved mass throughout the galaxy. This is what Dark Matter is. It is mass that we can not see or detect in the electromagnetic spectrum. There are various hypotheses as to what Dark Matter actually is, the most likely one being that it is made up of massive subatomic particles that don’t interact with light, called WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles). But once again, the actual existence of Dark Matter is not debated, we just don’t really know what it actually is yet.

      • Bill Gradwohl

        You’re confusing inference with proof.

      • Michael_B

        You’re confusing what science does. You don’t formulate proofs in science. The only disciplines that do so are mathematics and logic. In science, you do one of two things: 1) you observe things and do experiments, and then create a mathematical or theoretical model that fits your observations, or 2) you use mathematics and known laws of nature to derive new consequences of physics and predict something that should be observed in the future.

        Black Holes were theorized mathematically through process 2 almost a hundred years ago. We know the value of neutron degeneracy pressure, so we can calculate how massive a star would have to be to overcome that outward pressure, and sure enough, there are stars above the required mass for this to occur during their supernovae. Mathematically, these objects should exist in nature, and we have found evidence of their existence. We’ve seen how their gravity effects nearby stars, we’ve seen their effects by gravitational lensing, and x-rays being admitted by the gases spiraling into them. No one can ever show you a picture of one, because light doesn’t escape them, so I feel sorry for you if that’s what you’re waiting for to jump on board, it’s never going to happen.

        And Neutron stars? There doesn’t even need to be inference. Besides the fact that they should exist according to quantum mechanical laws, YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THEM. There are several that can be directly observed. You have absolutely no excuse for denying their existence, it’s just as absurd as denying the existence of the Sun.

        But beyond that, you need to get back to your engineering and stay out of internet discussions about physics and science, because you are terribly misinformed and ignorant on these topics. I’m really not trying to be mean, I’m just giving you the hard truth. I’m a physicist, and I’m telling you that you would be laughed out of the building if you tried to propose any of the points you have said here to a group of theoretical physicists. And they wouldn’t be inclined to educate you, as I have tried to do, because you aren’t approaching this as a person seeking knowledge, you approach it as someone who thinks they already know all the answers, and that is arrogant. You need to study these topics and have a firm understanding of them before you can criticize them. Saying, “black holes are bull because I can’t see them” is a laughable argument.

      • Michael_B

        Except gravity is not the predominant force in the universe. The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, which means that gravity is losing to an unknown repulsive force, which is referred to as Dark Energy, the “Dark” part being a reference to how we don’t really know what it is.

        And even if scientists had some hidden agenda to convince everyone that gravity was the predominant force in the universe, it wouldn’t need to be in the form of point source mass. If you are familiar with Gauss’s Law, then you would know that you can calculate a Gaussian sphere at the edge of the universe, and the gravitational flux integrated over the surface of the sphere from the entire mass of the universe is completely independent of the distribution of that mass. It makes no difference if all the matter is in a single point, or if it’s spread out completely homogeneously. There is no need for there to be “point source mass” to prove anything.

        So your entire theory as to why astrophysicists have made up Black Holes is to provide point source mass that you incorrectly think is necessary to prove something that astrophysicists are actually saying the opposite of. Are you starting to understand why I keep telling you that you don’t understand the topics you are discussing, and that you should do a lot more study on them before you try to criticize them? The first step in learning is admitting that you do not know.

      • Ender Wiggin

        How successful would you be as an engineer without scientists/mathimaticans having made ‘theories’ that allow engineering to even exist as a profession?

    • Robert Kister

      I have to agree somewhat with Bill here. A lot of what we learned in school back in the 70’s has been changed, often 180 degrees. (The universe is not collapsing?) The biggest problem is when the science community proclaims someone’s hypothesis as ‘fact’ when they clearly have a lack of conclusive evidence to support it in truth. As evidenced by the story changing once new facts become available. It’s alright to keep searching for the truth but stop trying to shame the rest of us for not buying it. (global warming?)

      • gopher652003

        Your problem is that you (or your teacher) read a newspaper article on a subject, which laid out the basis points of the research in question. Popular level books and articles give you only the most cursory understanding of the subjects in question.

        If fact, the researchers involved well know that their models are just that. They know (and, in fact, often convey) the level of certainty they have about various hypotheses. That kind of thing doesn’t make it into newspapers, nor does it make it into a “science” class that was taught by a gym teacher (or, at best, a biologist… which is hardly better:P).

      • bigg_brother

        Loved your point, you are spot on about the problem of people who ‘skim’ science headlines and/or misinterpret what they read.

        Robert here spent more time writing this critique up than he spent reseaching the point he is discussing.

        But hey, I was a gym teacher! Even us jocky types can appreciate the scientific method and critical thinking, I used to tell kids to run, but I also had a perfect score on my ACT science boards….. 😉

      • gopher652003

        I guess I’ve just had too many unqualified teachers to be happy with anything other than a specialist.

        I took an astronomy class in high school, and the teacher admitted that her sole qualification for teaching the class was that she’d taken a beginners astronomy course in college. I knew more than she did, and I didn’t know much about astronomy at the time. We literally watched movies for the whole semester because she didn’t know enough to be able to teach the class.

        My grade 8 math teacher was a hockey/football coach, and he spent a large portion of every class updating us (as if we cared) on what his son had done in the NHL the previous night (he was an NHL player. A bad one).

        My grade 9 computer teacher was great with literature (she mostly taught English, which she was pretty good at), but barely knew how to turn a computer on.

        I could go on and on. I can’t speak about your situation specifically, but I can say that in general teachers are unqualified to teach the subjects that they teach, and that’s a bad thing. Education degrees are so generalized as to be pretty useless.

        And, just in case you’re thinking that I just got stuck at a rotten school, I went to school in both Canada and the US, in multiple different schools (we moved a lot). Some were better than others, but they all shared at least a few common failings. The best school I went to was supposedly ranked as one of the top ones in the state (at the time), and even it had serious issues with hiring unqualified teachers, like my astronomy teacher. But it had a huge, beautiful, expensive pool:P.

      • Nathan Schroeder

        It has been known that the universe is expanding since 1929. If you were taught it was collapsing in 1970 then you were taught wrong.

      • gopher652003

        Admittedly, in the 70s through 90s they were hypothesizing that the universe might collapse at some point. But models change over time as new evidence comes in. That’s a strength, not a weakness. It’s strange that the hyper-religious among us *points up* can’t see that dogmatically sticking to an idea that has been proven incorrect would be a bad thing.

      • bigg_brother

        Let’s dissect this.

        Who taught you that the universe was collapsing? Was that science, or did you just read someones hypothesis and confuse it for a sweeping scientific fact?

        On the other hand, we have religion that offers about 4,000 creation stories, presents them as absolute fact, and they are all correct, just ask them and they will tell you.

        These internet attacks on science are funded by people who feel threatened by science. Mostly, the people who profit from ignorance and superstition, and then people who see science as in their way of a profit. Such as the tobacco industry. They attacked the very credibility of science and any scientist who dared suggest that tobacco was poison. For years, and years, and years.

        Sorry that you misunderstand the difference between a hypothesis by one person and a sweeping, accepted scientific fact. But they are a lot closer to the mark than anyone else. For instance, your computer works on quantum theory that they got exactly fucking right.

    • laloo73

      An article on a falsifiable scientific discovery is an opinion. incredible

    • Johnmichael Monteith

      Yes! Stupid scientists! What have they ever given us?! Sure – light bulbs, television, cell phones, power plants, computers, satellite communications and so on and so forth. But who needs their stupid “theories” and “research”? It has never amounted to anything! /s

    • bigg_brother

      But Mr. Anonymous intrernet religion guy is so much more credible. Your outstretched finger is all the proof we need of what you say!

      Your matter-of-fact opinions carry much more weight than these so-called scientists, because your opinions are on the internet, and everyone that people in the internet comments section are always right. About everything.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

I accept the Privacy Policy

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.