Private Schools and evolutionary theory

[geridoc]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/20#post_3531194
Exactly. My comment about afterlife was just an example of faith vs. science. That is all.
I do have a question. How do we know the half life of carbon? Honest question.

You can calculate the number of carbon atoms in a sample, then measure the rate at which beta particles are emitted. Each beta represents an atom of carbon decaying to nitrogen. Knowing the starting mass and the rate of loss it is easy to calculate when 1/2 of the atoms will be converted to nitrogen. In the case of carbon 14, that's about 5700 years.

 

[geridoc]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/20#post_3531203

My understanding is (and I am also not a scientist) that known dates are used to extrapolate. For example, if a piece of furniture from the 1600's is well documented then the amount of Carbon-14 can be compared to a freshly harvested piece of wood. Get enough of these comparisons and they actually give a fairly nice chart that is statistically useful for plotting out older dates. Nobody will argue that it's perfect.

Pretty close, Bang. Living things fix carbon from the atmosphere. After they die they no longer take up carbon, but the carbon they do have decays so that in 5700 years they lose about 1/2 of the carbon. So, if you know the carbon abundance in the environment at death (which will be the same in the cadaver), and the carbon abundance now, you can calculate how many years have passed from the time of death up to the day the sample is analyzed. This does require that the carbon abundance in the past be known, and to do that known dates, such as furniture (for fairly recent dates) or overlapping tree rings, etc. are used to establish the initial carbon value. Alternatively, there are mathematical methods to reach the same estimate. Lest you think this is some kind of loose process, over the years many different systems have been utilized to establish the chronology, and they all agree to a high level of precision, so we are very sure of the estimates for radiocarbon dating up to about 60,000 years ago.

 

[flower]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/20#post_3531180

It isn't about whether the student agreed with me or not. It is about the total failure on the student's part to marshal facts to support an argument. "The bible says it is so" is not making an intellectual argument. I have more respect for creationists who sometimes try to find facts to support their claims than I do for those who reflexively quote authority, as if that were a meaningful argument. BTW, this problem of not knowing how to support an intellectual position is not confined to creationist students, but is a finding on the exams I give. Students seem to think that if they think it is so, then it is so. It never occurs to them that no matter how much they believe that, for example, gravity does not exist, that anvil is going to crush their skulls when it falls. There is nothing wrong with being wrong (I am wrong most of the time), but understanding why you might be wrong is the key to education.

I just love how you worded this...so true. What we personally believe, does not make it a real fact.

 

[bang guy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/40#post_3531208

Pretty close, Bang. Living things fix carbon from the atmosphere. After they die they no longer take up carbon, but the carbon they do have decays so that in 5700 years they lose about 1/2 of the carbon. So, if you know the carbon abundance in the environment at death (which will be the same in the cadaver), and the carbon abundance now, you can calculate how many years have passed from the time of death up to the day the sample is analyzed. This does require that the carbon abundance in the past be known, and to do that known dates, such as furniture (for fairly recent dates) or overlapping tree rings, etc. are used to establish the initial carbon value. Alternatively, there are mathematical methods to reach the same estimate. Lest you think this is some kind of loose process, over the years many different systems have been utilized to establish the chronology, and they all agree to a high level of precision, so we are very sure of the estimates for radiocarbon dating up to about 60,000 years ago.

I defer to your wisdom

Thank you!!

 

[darthtang aw]

Memorizing facts is easy, and does not reflect successful education beyond the most elementary level (read - middle school, maybe high school).  Beyond that, education is defined as learning how to use facts to think.  This does not mean agree, but to be able to use facts to think.  In a science course "What is important is passing the course and students' understanding of the material taught, not convincing students or expecting them to scientifically defend their belief system" is incorrect, it is precisely important to expect students to scientifically defend their beliefs.  Otherwise, the course belongs in a philosophy, or (shudder) theology department. Modern education (rant alert) has become too much about acknowledging and respecting a student's belief system, and not enough about breaking belief systems so that a new, better educated belief system can develop.  This new system might parallel the instructor's, but not necessarily, or even desirably.  Just so the (mental) pot is stirred a bit.
Then why give an "A" if they didnt truly learn anything?

 

[darthtang aw]

Oh, geridoc, are you stating a person of high school education isn not educated to a leel to provoke thought or research at the level a college student is?

 

[beth]

In a classroom setting where evolution is the subject, I can't see a scenario where a creationist view will reconcile with a scientific view. A belief system about God has nothing to do with proof, its about faith, not proof. Therefore a creationist has little argument to use in presenting facts, and few people of faith feel the need to prove anything about their beliefs. This is a spiritual discussion, not a scientific method fact finding expedition. When spirituality colloids (and that is what it is) with what is commonly accepted about evolution, then a person of creationist faith can not really argue with scientists. Faith is not about facts or science. Just like apples are not rocks. The fact is, that person has faith. And that faith is an absolute truth to them.

You won't find too many creationists who go to school to become an evolution scientist. Students in a classroom need to take certain classes to get whatever degree they are seeking. Mostly they take away some information that is useful to them in the process, and there is some info that is actually totally useless to them. I wouldn't think less of someone if they are profound creationists, though I personally don't believe in the literal translation of the Bible. However, I would not expect a science teacher to pass someone taking Anthropology 101 if they were unable to do the coursework and meet expectations. Very likely, you won't find too many creationists taking Anthropology, however. I also don't feel it appropriate for an anthropology teacher to challenge their students to prove their faith. As said, that is about philosophy, not science.

 

[darthtang aw]

Pretty close, Bang.  Living things fix carbon from the atmosphere.  After they die they no longer take up carbon, but the carbon they do have decays so that in 5700 years they lose about 1/2 of the carbon.  So, if you know the carbon abundance in the environment at death (which will be the same in the cadaver), and the carbon abundance now, you can calculate how many years have passed from the time of death up to the day the sample is analyzed.  This does require that the carbon abundance in the past be known, and to do that known dates, such as furniture (for fairly recent dates) or overlapping tree rings, etc. are used to establish the initial carbon value.  Alternatively, there are mathematical methods to reach the same estimate.  Lest you think this is some kind of loose process, over the years many different systems have been utilized to establish the chronology, and they all agree to a high level of precision, so we are very sure of the estimates for radiocarbon dating up to about 60,000 years ago.
Thanks. That explains it. So it is fairly accurate when we know carbon levels of the time. My question is how do we reach carbon dating to a million years ago? I assume we dont have a large sample of items containing items from that era.

 

[bang guy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/40#post_3531219
Thanks. That explains it. So it is fairly accurate when we know carbon levels of the time. My question is how do we reach carbon dating to a million years ago? I assume we dont have a large sample of items containing items from that era.


Again, I'm not the scientist so whatever GeriDoc says should overrule me. Since half life is, by definition, predictable it can be interpolated out to infinity. Every 5700 years it gets halfway gone. By 1,000,000 years there should be about 3.0^-51 percent of the original carbon-14 left. As a guess, I'd say there is some degree of difficulty measuring such a small amount of Carbon-14 so I'd think the accuracy suffers considerably, perhaps as much as thousands of years. Especially considering that the amount of C-14 available for consumption is not a constant.

Question for Dr. Geri: Will the amount of CO2 currently being pumped into the atmosphere cause issues for future generations trying to carbon date things or will it have no effect since the amount is clearly documented and can be calibrated against?

 

[flower]

According to the Biblical creation story, the sun, and the moon...both of which we use to measure time, were created on the fourth day, along with all the heavenly stars and planets. How then can anyone claim that the Earth is only 5000 years old? Carbon dating doesn't disprove creationism. It simply proves that we don't fully understand creation, nor even the account of it. The stand of evolutionists is not any better off, you folks find new stuff to be in awe of and OOO about all the time.

 

[snakeblitz33]

Forgive me if i am wrong , but time periods beyond the measure of carbon dating is measured with other isotopes like uranium, potassium-lead, strontium, etc in other radiometric dating techniques that give a better degree of accuracy in geologic time scales.

 

[2quills]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBlitz33 http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/40#post_3531224
Forgive me if i am wrong , but time periods beyond the measure of carbon dating is measured with other isotopes like uranium, potassium-lead, strontium, etc in other radiometric dating techniques that give a better degree of accuracy in geologic time scales.

I think you're right, but the methods and inaccuracies seem about the same. A lot of it seems to be based on assumptions about conditions that we have no actual proof of. I am however curious to hear what the creationists have to say about the astronomers calculations of the universe being 13 billion years old.

Something tells me that what you heard in that class room is becoming less and less the norm. Seems like many modern Christians and even the Vatican has begun to embrace science not so much as the enemy but perhaps an ally in supporting how god worked his magic for those who wish to know. Doesn't make the idea of creation any less magnificent IMO.

 

[beth]

Indeed, there are Christian denominations that are not hard-core about the dating nor the interpretations of creation--including some Catholic parishes.

 

[geridoc]

Then why give an "A" if they didnt truly learn anything?
My course policy defines the grading scheme based on exam performance, and testing thinking skills is extraordinarily difficult to do in a non-science course.

 

[geridoc]

Oh, geridoc, are you stating a person of high school education isn not educated to a leel to provoke thought or research at the level a college student is?
I certainly hope not. That's why there is a college level.

 

[darthtang aw]

I have always been of the thought that biblical history a scientific discover can work hand in hand. I do not and never have adhered to the belief of only a few thousand years of development. Even cells multiy at a set rate for the most part. Otherwise we would have figured out how to shorten pregnancies by now and speed up the development.
I do not disbelieve evolution nor do i disbelieve creation. And yes there are creationist scientists that share my belief. The two can go hand in hand. And each can assist each other in the explanation. Problem is science and religion do not trust each other.

 

[2quills]

See even religion evolves.

 

[darthtang aw]

See even religion evolves. 
Is it the religion revolving or is it humans evolving to greater understanding? Remember. I go to no church, i hold to no single denomination, this is just how i view things. Has religion evolved or has our understanding through the aid of science?

 

[beth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/40#post_3531238
See even religion evolves.
It most certainly does. 500 yrs ago there was no conflict between religion and science, religion always took precedence and if you thought otherwise you were burned alive. Now, not only do people have faith, but many also embrace science, including evolution. And there are also others who conflict with science because the world is only a few thousand yrs old and humans were created from dust or ribs. There is no greater diversity then the human mind.

 

[2quills]

Has religion evolved or has our understanding through the aid of science?
Take your pick.