Private Schools and evolutionary theory

[flower]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/40#post_3531235
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.

I have always liked your point of view on this subject. It has always been my opinion, that no matter how it happened...God did it. All science can prove is how long it took him, and the sequence of events.

I never considered the two as having a TRUST issue. Evolutionists always seemed to try and nullify creation, and in so doing try to nullify that there is a God who is in control. Creationists (religious folks) always stood flat footed on their beliefs regardless of science, or even scripture.

 

[geridoc]

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?

No, it won't matter. Part of the process is to check the ratio of radioactive carbon 14 to non-radioactive carbon 12. So, even if there is more carbon in the atmosphere, the ratio is the same.

 

[beaslbob]

Quote:Originally Posted by SnakeBlitz33 http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory#post_3531005
As some of you regulars know... I am in school to be a Biology teacher. Currently, I am taking a class that requires me to go to many different types of schools and observe many different grade levels. I had the opportunity to observe a Biology class at a Christian private school.

During the lecture, the teacher is discussing the basic parts of a flower and their functions. A student asked, "but how have flowers become so specialized?"

Now, this is where I dive into a discussion about evolution - convergent evolution, genetics, cohabitation, speciation, geologic time scales etc. etc.

The teacher in this Christian private school, whom I hope has been taught something about evolution says "Flowers are not a product of evolution, but designed by God for many different purposes."

Jaw dropped.

Are private school kids at a disadvantage when it comes to the sciences? Would you want your child to be taught evolution? Would you want your child to know evolutionary theory and explain it as...you want your child to know that God invented evolution and his time is different from ours. I don't know what I would have said to this man, given the opportunity.

I know I know. LOL
perhaps already discussed
Science assumes that whatever we observe now came from something else. (among any other things)
Religion assumes there is one ultimate thing (God) which there is nothing beyond. (again among other things)
Kinda hard to reconcille such basic differences.
Evolution (in general) is one assumption that makes a given explanation scientific.
And anything being created in not the relm of science and has no validity in a science textbook.
I do feel sorry for kids being an any educational system that does not recognize that basic difference. They are doomed to a lifetime of pointless arguments.
But as usual that is just my .02
Which can also evolve. LOL

 

[mantisman51]

Geridoc, you are completely wrong. There have been numerous scientific articles written on the fallicy of the notion that carbon dating is reliable. When I get home, I will post a few-from evolutionists, not creationists. Just because you can write crap well, doesn't make it stink any less. I am out on business, so it'll be awhile before I can post some FACTS. But, I'm glad you jumped in whole-hog with your dismissive and demeaning posts, because in a short bit, I am going to post ACTUAL FACTS that will show your complete ignorance(albeit very literate ignorance) on the subject. And I'm glad so many people have patted you on your back over your posts, because I am going to demonstrate with FACTS that your THOUGHTS and everyone's reactions are exactly why evolution has gained acceptance. It ain't science.

p.s. Sorry I am not so literate. We creationists are quite obtuse, you know.

 

[mantisman51]

In 1981, Dr. Robert Lee wrote an article for the Anthropological Journal of Canada, in which stated:

"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected

This is the first of dozens of articles, this one from the un-Creationist Anthropological Journal of Canada. Just wait, there's more, including links to the atheistic, er scientific journals themselves. Here's a warm-up: The Carbon 12 and Carbon 14 used for "dating" is so erratic in the upper atmosphere that it can't be counted on to measure from last Tuesday, much less "millions and millions of years ago".

 

[darthtang aw]

 In 1981, Dr. Robert Lee wrote an article for the Anthropological Journal of Canada, in which stated:
"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected
This is the first of dozens of articles, this one from the un-Creationist Anthropological Journal of Canada. Just wait, there's more, including links to the atheistic, er scientific journals themselves. Here's a warm-up: The Carbon 12 and Carbon 14 used for "dating" is so erratic in the upper atmosphere that it can't be counted on to measure from last Tuesday, much less "millions and millions of years ago".
How many years ago was that? I can post an article from the same time era about how cells phones are not practical and never will be cost effective for the general public as well.

 

[mantisman51]

The methods and carbon haven't changed. Don't worry, I have a current(2011 as I recall) Scientific American article where they measured the C12 and C14 in the atmosphere(which is what causes the radioactive decay-half life) fluctuates so widely that there is no accurate way to use carbon dating for anything over, maybe, 5000-6000 years ago, and that such things as volcanic eruptions make it all but impossible to trust ANY carbon dating. So, the next question is WHY then do "scientists" use it? Ah, now we will touch on the BUSINESS and RELIGION of evolutionism. I have several links already on my home computer.

 

[geridoc]

The Carbon 12 and Carbon 14 used for "dating" is so erratic in the upper atmosphere that it can't be counted on to measure from last Tuesday, much less "millions and millions of years ago

I fully agree. Carbon cannot be used to establish dates "millions and millions of years ago", and nobody in the field tries to do so. And...the upper atmosphere is not in the biosphere, so there is no issue with biological uptake at those altitudes. How about at sea level where the ration of carbon isotopes is quite regular?

I would like to know some more about the Anthropological Journal of Canada since it is no longer published. All I can find out is that the article that mantisman quotes is written by the publisher, but I cannot find out if it is an opinion piece, or a peer-reviewed article. I would like to read the article so, mantisman, if you have the entire thing please email it to me.

Here's the problem - one opinion piece doesn't offset the multiple ways that radiocarbon dating has been validated. Using tree rings, coral growth and several other indices, they all overlap and agree. That is why we give credence to this method of dating biological specimens that are thousands of years old (but not last Tuesday, since insufficient time has passed for statistical reliability).

And, by the way, just which were my "dismissive and demeaning posts"? I usually try very hard to respect everybody, even if I don't agree with them. I would never disrespect them to the point of saying that "Just because you can write crap well, doesn't make it stink any less.", and even if I feel that someone is ignorant, I would never accused them of being so.

 

[geridoc]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/60#post_3531255
No, it won't matter. Part of the process is to check the ratio of radioactive carbon 14 to non-radioactive carbon 12. So, even if there is more carbon in the atmosphere, the ratio is the same.

I need to qualify this answer. Radiocarbon dating is not useful for biological samples formed since the late 1940's since the nuclear detonations of that time injected additional carbon 14 into the atmosphere, shifting the ratio and making dating of materials formed since then unreliable. The industrial revolution did alter the carbon ratio too, but that effect can be calculated.

 

[mantisman51]

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v10i10f.htm

I'll get the links when my wife gets off the computer, but this is a good start for the conversation. But it is a Christian website, but the science is all documented. Dadgum Farmville.

 

[mantisman51]

Here's one of the links I normally use. Funny thing is in all these articles, including this one, only a NOAA article from about 5-6 years old only takes into account the vast variations of carbon in the atmosphere that takes place from this like sun bursts, volcanoes and even things like drought and flooding, which all greatly impacts how fast carbon decays.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2001/may/10/carbon-clock-could-show-the-wrong-time
To limit the amount of posts, I'll add them here. Here is an article that shows(though they try to minimize the effects, of how anything from minerals in the soil, to sun energy can throw off the "carbon clock".
http://www.ncsu.edu/project/archae/enviro_radio/overview.html
But even with these few examples, it really hides the forest for the trees. The fact remains that with the absolute best and clearest carbon dating, it can in no way support James Hutton, and thus modern evolutionists theories on things supposedly millions, even hundreds of millions and billions of years ago. It is ALL conjecture. There is NO PROOF of evolution and the time frames evoked by the pious priests of evolution. It is all speculation.
.http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/how-reliable-is-radiocarbon-dating
Next, the PROOF of the lie of species to species evolution-or at least the non-existence of any scientifically provable species to species evolution.
http://lib.gig.ac.cn/local/nature/450,277-280.PDF
So here's a retardedly scientific explanation of how drought and moisture effects carbon levels in the soil, which you will see in 2 of the other links IS directly responsible for the rate of decay. In one study in the Bahamas, crabs digging through the sand caused a change (and even reversal) of the rate of carbon decay in seashells.

 

[bang guy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/60#post_3531313
Here's one of the links I normally use. Funny thing is in all these articles, including this one, only a NOAA article from about 5-6 years old only takes into account the vast variations of carbon in the atmosphere that takes place from this like sun bursts, volcanoes and even things like drought and flooding, which all greatly impacts how fast carbon decays.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2001/may/10/carbon-clock-could-show-the-wrong-time

There is nothing there that says anything about the decay rate of Carbon-14 changing due to drought or flooding. Did you even read the article?

 

[mantisman51]

That is one piece of the puzzle. Keep reading. But nice of you to focus on one small piece of the proof, even though there are several, including the last one I posted, scientific explanations of carbon dating's unreliability. But, I can post more.

 

[bang guy]

I was commenting on your synopsis of the article you posted. Should I not be reading your posts?

Quote:
which all greatly impacts how fast carbon decays.

There is nothing in the article that mentioned what impacts how fast carbon decays. Why did you say it did?

 

[pezenfuego]

Why so much crap about carbon dating? The exponential decay formula is a model. Like all scientific models, it is based on a bed of assumptions which have been shown to be valid under certain (specifically macroscopic) circumstances. If you have two radioactive carbon atoms, do you really think that only one will decay after 5700 years? No, because testing the model like this violates one of the assumptions which was made. It is also a probabilistic model, so it is far from explanatory. If you are not working with the model and testing its validity, then why are you going to argue that it is a poor model? What do you hope to accomplish here? This is a kind of a straw man that is diverting us from the actual issue. Yeah, carbon dating isn't perfect, so what?

Have you ever heard of the Theory of Heliocentricity? What about the Theory of Gravity? Those were never made into laws. Do you know why? Because that isn't how things work. Further, have you ever heard of Newton's Law of Cooling? There are a lot of exceptions to that "law." I'm not saying that it isn't a good tool in certain circumstances, but sometimes it just doesn't work and therefore lacks universality (which is necessary above all else for laws and lawlike statements).

Let's take this a step further. Who decides whether or not something should be a theory or a law? Do we take it to the God of Science? Oh, or is science a democracy? I don't remember there being a ballot.

Just think about these things, it isn't difficult. When you attack science, what are you attacking? Who are you attacking? What are you hoping to accomplish?

If we value teaching science to our youth, and we should, then we need to teach them science. We needn't jam science though a cross-shaped cookie cutter.

The power of a theory lies in its explanatory power, resistance to exceptions, relation to the world, strength, truth, and empirical adequacy. In this sense, intelligent design just doesn't cut it. It isn't science and it never will be. It is religion and hey, what's wrong with that? But evolution is science. Evolution has more support than intelligent design could ever hope to. You cannot prove evolution. Hell, you can't prove anything. And once we stop looking and asking questions, that's when we are in trouble.

 

[mantisman51]

Because it is mentioned in regard to other aspects of the conversation. I have since corrected the oversight.

 

[bang guy]

Your synopsis of the article is wrong. You should actually read it and then correct your synopsis.

 

[mantisman51]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/60#post_3531318
Why so much crap about carbon dating? The exponential decay formula is a model. Like all scientific models, it is based on a bed of assumptions which have been shown to be valid under certain (specifically macroscopic) circumstances. If you have two radioactive carbon atoms, do you really think that only one will decay after 5700 years? No, because testing the model like this violates one of the assumptions which was made. It is also a probabilistic model, so it is far from explanatory. If you are not working with the model and testing its validity, then why are you going to argue that it is a poor model? What do you hope to accomplish here? This is a kind of a straw man that is diverting us from the actual issue. Yeah, carbon dating is perfect, so what?

Have you ever heard of the Theory of Heliocentricity? What about the Theory of Gravity? Those were never made into laws. Do you know why? Because that isn't how things work. Further, have you ever heard of Newton's Law of Cooling? There are a lot of exceptions to that "law." I'm not saying that it isn't a good tool in certain circumstances, but sometimes it just doesn't work and therefore lacks universality (which is necessary above all else for laws and lawlike statements).

Let's take this a step further. Who decides whether or not something should be a theory or a law? Do we take it to the God of Science? Oh, or is science a democracy? I don't remember there being a ballot.

Just think about these things, it isn't difficult. When you attack science, what are you attacking? Who are you attacking? What are you hoping to accomplish?

If we value teaching science to our youth, and we should, then we need to teach them science. We needn't jam science though a cross-shaped cookie cutter.

The power of a theory lies in its explanatory power, resistance to exceptions, relation to the world, strength, truth, and empirical adequacy. In this sense, intelligent design just doesn't cut it. It isn't science and it never will be. It is religion and hey, what's wrong with that? But evolution is science. Evolution has more support than intelligent design could ever hope to. You cannot prove evolution. Hell, you can't prove anything. And once we stop looking and asking questions, that's when we are in trouble.

Pointing out the errors, deceit and lies of scientists is "attacking science"? Do you realize you just espoused the unthinking "take it by faith because they said so" attitude Christians are attacked with? The difference is the high priests of this doctrine are "scientists" and their doctrine is "theory". You have replaced faith in God(which our country was founded on) with faith in pseudo-science. Science says a scientific law must be measurable and repeatable. You say their own definition of science is attacking science. You don't have the slightest qualm or discomfort that these people are making stuff up whole-cloth? Read up on James Hutton-the man-not the scientist. You will find, and not from Christian sources, he said he made up the "millions and millions of years ago stuff", specifically to attack and refute the Biblical account of Creation. He made it up and so-called scientists today continue to regurgitate his lies. And devotees of evolution don't even take 1 damned second to question it. THAT is religious faith and fervor unprecedented even in most Christian communities.

 

[mantisman51]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/60#post_3531320
Your synopsis of the article is wrong. You should actually read it and then correct your synopsis.
It is talking about the relationship of drought and moisture content on carbon in the soil. One of the other articles states that is a factor on the rate of carbon decay. Is there other data in the study? Yes, but it does not change the finding on carbon in the soil and the items in the soil. Parse away. Evidence has been given.

 

[bang guy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/60#post_3531322
It is talking about the relationship of drought and moisture content on carbon in the soil. One of the other articles states that is a factor on the rate of carbon decay. Is there other data in the study? Yes, but it does not change the finding on carbon in the soil and the items in the soil. Parse away. Evidence has been given.

No, it doesn't. Either you didn't read it, you don't understand it, or you are trying to be deceptive.