Jump to content

Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

It doesn't matter, I watched some more videos with Richard Dawkins, thought some more, read some more articles and got convinced that Evolution is actually fairly represented in the science world. I re-take my post where I said a lot of it is philosophical, I find it very much proven.

 

I think if Socrates or Leaonardo Da Vinci lived today they would have a different view of the world. (Not that it matters)

 

Oh man that was a long argument with me, ah it doesn't matter, everyone benefited from it, I want to thank the guys here who had this argument with me and provided some good links and facts.

 

All of evolution weak points have been re-proven as I've seen and they make more sense as I got better understanding of them.

 

I also very much like Richard Dawkins' logic. How did I miss this guy?????

 

Alright thanks for the debate. :geek:

 

Religion may coexist with evolution but really if there is deist he has as much of a chance to do with the bible or koran or any other ancient book religion as to personally preferred Pantheism, Panentheism, Pandeism, Panendeism.

 

It could be Atheism but that's just not my current position.

 

As to the Big Bang theory, I've heard a lot of scientific skepticism about it so I do not know.

I guess more article reading for me.

 

Alright, guys take care, seek truth and wisdom, peace and rest.

"When a son is born, the father will go up to the newborn baby, sword in hand; throwing it down, he says, "I shall not leave you with any property: You have only what you can provide with this weapon."

Share this post


Link to post
It doesn't matter, I watched some more videos with Richard Dawkins, thought some more, read some more articles and got convinced that Evolution is actually fairly represented in the science world. I re-take my post where I said a lot of it is philosophical, I find it very much proven.

 

I think if Socrates or Leaonardo Da Vinci lived today they would have a different view of the world. (Not that it matters)

 

Oh man that was a long argument with me, ah it doesn't matter, everyone benefited from it, I want to thank the guys here who had this argument with me and provided some good links and facts.

 

All of evolution weak points have been re-proven as I've seen and they make more sense as I got better understanding of them.

 

I also very much like Richard Dawkins' logic. How did I miss this guy?????

 

Alright thanks for the debate. :geek:

 

Religion may coexist with evolution but really if there is deist he has as much of a chance to do with the bible or koran or any other ancient book religion as to personally preferred Pantheism, Panentheism, Pandeism, Panendeism.

 

It could be Atheism but that's just not my current position.

 

As to the Big Bang theory, I've heard a lot of scientific skepticism about it so I do not know.

I guess more article reading for me.

 

Alright, guys take care, seek truth and wisdom, peace and rest.

 

+ Respect.

That's all I can say really.

Share this post


Link to post

Good for you smartguy, respect for admitting you were wrong(or semi wrong)

 

Anyways, on the big bang theory; new thread?

Scientific or philosophical or both?

 

(Also tell me if i used the semi-colon correctly, never really used them.)

Share this post


Link to post

Scientific, as it is a scientific theory. However if you would like to get more viewpoints I'd probably suggest something like- "Origin of the universe" or something along those lines.

Share this post


Link to post

Just thought I'd drop this link here since it kinda messes with the C14 dating method that Evolutionists always seem to be using...

 

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp057/ndp057.htm

 

Before nuclear bomb testing during the 1950s and early 1960s, radiocarbon levels in the atmosphere had been in decline. Suess (1955) demonstrated that forests grown between 1930 and 1950 had 14C values 20-40 per mil below those of pre-1890 woods as a result of anthropogenic 14C-free CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution.

 

In other words younger stuff can have a lower C14 rating than older stuff, and since we don't know what caused the obvious increase that we were declining from, we can't know when it happened or how it has affected fossils/etc and their C14 rating.

 

In much fewer words, C14 dating is inaccurate, and can't be fixed in the foreseeable future.

Don't insult me. I have trained professionals to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
In much fewer words, C14 dating is inaccurate, and can't be fixed in the foreseeable future.

 

Thankfully, multiple dating methods are used. Some of the dating methods used:

  • Argon-argon
    Helium
    Isochron
    Lead-lead
    Potassium-argon
    Rhenium-osmium
    Rubidium-strontium
    Samarium-neodymium
    Uranium-lead
    Uranium-thorium
    Uranium-uranium

 

There are more, but that should give you a pretty good idea. All these radiometric data agree.

The Official Accursed Farms Subtitles Compendium: https://goo.gl/aTBvzj

--

Project Manager for Ross's Movie

Share this post


Link to post
Thankfully, multiple dating methods are used. Some of the dating methods used:

  • Argon-argon
    Helium
    Isochron
    Lead-lead
    Potassium-argon
    Rhenium-osmium
    Rubidium-strontium
    Samarium-neodymium
    Uranium-lead
    Uranium-thorium
    Uranium-uranium

 

There are more, but that should give you a pretty good idea. All these radiometric data agree.

These are available methods, but rarely if ever used for fossil dating.

 

 

C14 is only effective to a certain limit anyway so it isn't that useful when dealing with geological time scales.

And what would that limit be exactly?

Don't insult me. I have trained professionals to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Just thought I'd drop this link here since it kinda messes with the C14 dating method that Evolutionists always seem to be using...

 

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp057/ndp057.htm

 

Before nuclear bomb testing during the 1950s and early 1960s, radiocarbon levels in the atmosphere had been in decline. Suess (1955) demonstrated that forests grown between 1930 and 1950 had 14C values 20-40 per mil below those of pre-1890 woods as a result of anthropogenic 14C-free CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution.

 

In other words younger stuff can have a lower C14 rating than older stuff, and since we don't know what caused the obvious increase that we were declining from, we can't know when it happened or how it has affected fossils/etc and their C14 rating.

 

In much fewer words, C14 dating is inaccurate, and can't be fixed in the foreseeable future.

 

Why are creationists always so transfixed on carbon dating? It only goes back 50.000 years which is an incredibly minuscule slice of time on the geological time scale.

 

Since you basically did a huge copy/paste on the first page I think I'm allowed a simple copy/paste as well

 

The variability of the C-14/C-12 ratio, and the need for calibration, has been recognized since 1969 (Dickin 1995, 364-366). Calibration is possible by analyzing the C-14 content of items dated by independent methods. Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings) has been used to calibrate C-14/C-12 ratios back more than 11,000 years before the present (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991). C-14 dating has been calibrated back more than 30,000 years by using uranium-thorium dating of corals (Bard et al. 1990; Edwards et al. 1993), to 45,000 yeas ago by using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments (Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998), and to 50,000 years ago using ocean cores from the Cariaco Basin which have been calibrated to the annual layers of the Greenland Ice Sheet (Hughen et al. 2004).

In other words, scientists calibrate carbon dating by using other dating methods.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_1.html

 

In fact I suggest you check out this entire website and see if your favorite arguments are in here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Why are creationists always so transfixed on carbon dating?

Because it is the foundation of 99.999999% of dates used in supporting Evolution.

 

It only goes back 50.000 years which is an incredibly minuscule slice of time on the geological time scale.

What makes you think that it can accurately go back farther than recorded history?

 

Since you basically did a huge copy/paste on the first page I think I'm allowed a simple copy/paste as well

 

The variability of the C-14/C-12 ratio, and the need for calibration, has been recognized since 1969 (Dickin 1995, 364-366). Calibration is possible by analyzing the C-14 content of items dated by independent methods. Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings) has been used to calibrate C-14/C-12 ratios back more than 11,000 years before the present (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991). C-14 dating has been calibrated back more than 30,000 years by using uranium-thorium dating of corals (Bard et al. 1990; Edwards et al. 1993), to 45,000 yeas ago by using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments (Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998), and to 50,000 years ago using ocean cores from the Cariaco Basin which have been calibrated to the annual layers of the Greenland Ice Sheet (Hughen et al. 2004).

In other words, scientists calibrate carbon dating by using other dating methods.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_1.html

 

In fact I suggest you check out this entire website and see if your favorite arguments are in here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

You addressed nothing that was stated in the article provided.

 

C14 levels fluctuate, and at unknown times, so much so that there is no way to accurately calibrate with any test beyond recorded history that covers atmospheric C14 fluctuation data.

Don't insult me. I have trained professionals to do that.

Share this post


Link to post

@Rover Thanks for posting those links, some funny stuff claims with some more serious ones.

 

:)

 

+rep.

"When a son is born, the father will go up to the newborn baby, sword in hand; throwing it down, he says, "I shall not leave you with any property: You have only what you can provide with this weapon."

Share this post


Link to post
Why are creationists always so transfixed on carbon dating?

Because it is the foundation of 99.999999% of dates used in supporting Evolution.

 

Now, where did you get that?

The Official Accursed Farms Subtitles Compendium: https://goo.gl/aTBvzj

--

Project Manager for Ross's Movie

Share this post


Link to post
Because it is the foundation of 99.999999% of dates used in supporting Evolution.

 

Where do you get this? Danielsangeo listed a whole bunch of other dating methods, where on earth did you read they're rarely if ever used? You say this, but simply asserting it as to be true doesn't mean it is.

 

What makes you think that it can accurately go back farther than recorded history?

Because it was tested by comparing the results from carbon dating to results gained from other dating methods. I explained this.

http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/research/radiocarbon.htm

 

You addressed nothing that was stated in the article provided.

 

C14 levels fluctuate, and at unknown times, so much so that there is no way to accurately calibrate with any test beyond recorded history that covers atmospheric C14 fluctuation data.

 

That is why calibration is done using objects of known age (acquired through different dating methods) from different time periods

Also the article you provided is about how atomic bomb testing introduced extra amounts of C14 into the atmosphere. As well as extra C12 since the industrial revolution. It does not state that therefore any object from before this period cannot be dated accurately anymore.

 

http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A637418

 

Videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5369-OobM4 - Age of the world made easy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4 - "Carbon dating doesn't work!" - Debunked.

Share this post


Link to post
Why are creationists always so transfixed on carbon dating?

Because it is the foundation of 99.999999% of dates used in supporting Evolution.

 

Now, where did you get that?

 

I believe it's called "making up facts." Some creationist probably lied to him and told him that. They tend to do that a lot.

He just kept talking and talking in one long incredibly unbroken sentence moving from topic to topic so that no one had a chance to interrupt it was really quite hypnotic...

Share this post


Link to post

I think to most creationists, it's like this:

Evolution has never been witnessed. It has only been theorized. But no one has actually seen any of the so-called missing link species. But creationism to them is very obvious, making it very hard for them to see evolution as real fact. It's just my theory at least.

Game developments at http://nukedprotons.blogspot.com
I also write content at http://www.bagogames.com

Check out my music at http://technomancer.bandcamp.com

Share this post


Link to post

The problem is: Evolution HAS been witnessed. And it's witnessed every day by every single person on the planet.

The Official Accursed Farms Subtitles Compendium: https://goo.gl/aTBvzj

--

Project Manager for Ross's Movie

Share this post


Link to post

That's what creationists believe about creationism so convincing them of anything else is an exercise in futility. I think all we can do in the end is agree upon that we still don't really know why we are here. I think that's what separates creationists and evolutionists (forgive the term), is that creationists are more interested in the philosophical "why" question while evolutionists center around "how", since evolution only really explains how we became what we are today, which does make sense but doesn't really offer any philosophical satisfaction, and I think that all creationists want philosophical satisfaction and a purpose. They're not interested in whether we have evolved or not, but more about why we are here. Creationism to me just feels more satisfying because in a way it explains a lot more, even if evolutionists, who often are atheists as well, might see it as total bullshit. It's not like I am trying to ignore the evidence, in fact I think it's very likely we have survived as a species because through evolution we have developed skills that we couldn't live without, but evolution does not explain where or why it started or why it works like it does. It's not philosophically satisfying to me.

 

That's why I think we need both religion and science in school, because science alone is not existentially satisfying to some people, and inherently people are different and have different needs. And I don't think the school system should treat everyone like a standard, but rather give something for everyone so people can develop their own tastes and personalities and find out who they are through learning different things. In the end it's all up to us who we want to be. I think this thread has skewed off as a battle between creationism and evolutionism but I think what it's really about is that people are different and that's what schools should take into consideration, and we should have the right to think for ourselves. If people don't believe in God, then that's fine, as long as it's their choice and not the school's.

Game developments at http://nukedprotons.blogspot.com
I also write content at http://www.bagogames.com

Check out my music at http://technomancer.bandcamp.com

Share this post


Link to post

I believe schools have the right idea, by teaching it as a theory and not fact. Almost every online resource of teaching materials refers to things supporting evolution as evidence and not proof or fact. For example: one of the largest printers of educational textbooks in the world (Glencoe/McGraw-Hill) never once refer to evolution as fact, but instead refer to it as a concept or theory. Here's some samples of their study guides:

 

http://www.glencoe.com/sec/science/biology/bio2000/pdfs/bdol15-1.pdf

http://www.glencoe.com/sec/science/webquest/content/dinobirds.shtml#introduction

http://www.glencoe.com/sec/science/webquest/content/hominidfossils.shtml

 

They even encourage students to debate and decide for themselves their own ideas and if the evidence presented supports their ideas. It never questions the faith of students

100 percent average every time, all the time.

Share this post


Link to post

Whoa this thread is tl;dr :lol:

I agree with The_Doctor on the idea of teaching evolution as a theory and not as a fact, but I disagree with him on almost every online resource calling evidence for evolution proof. For me it has been the unfortunate opposite with almost every reference or text book being heavily polarized to either criticism or more often simply stating evolution as fact. People have the right to freedom of opinion, and the government should protect that by making sure that people aren't influenced by the (potentially) wrong people when they are most vulnerable, no matter how difficult it may be to suppress your own opinion.

 

The theory of evolution also says "why" we are the way we are, too. :)

Even as an evolutionist myself I disagree. Most evolutionists forget to ask "why" in any other sense but the literal

 

I think that's what separates creationists and evolutionists (forgive the term), is that creationists are more interested in the philosophical "why" question while evolutionists center around "how"

 

Interesting view, I agree

 

That's why I think we need both religion and science in school

 

I can't agree simply because there isn't really a general religious consensus in the way that there's a general scientific consensus. There are just to many religions with conflicting viewpoints to teach, and secularism in public school teaching is important to avoid a clash between a kids personal life and school life.

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.