David Attenborough joins campaign

[questionmark]

Exactly, but this is about keeping creationism (religion) out of science classes. What's the problem with that?

I would not mind if as introduction the science teacher said something along the lines that certain churches claim that the world was created in seven days, and more to that in religion class. But what we cannot accept is that something uncorroborated by science would be taught in science classes as that would convert it into something arbitrary. And the first thing we teach in science class is that science is NOT arbitrary.

[questionmark]

It's also a fact that the most common way to establish the age of rocks- radiometric dating - is very flawed and can give the ages of rocks to be much older than they actually are.

However, Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. of the Institute for Creation Research has an article called "The Young Earth" on a website. In it, he shows a table of 76 different processes in nature that can be used to estimate the age of the earth. 26 show the earth to be less than 10,000 years old, 15 show the earth to be more than 10,000 up to 100,000 years old and many other natural processes show the Earth to be much younger than if radiometric dating was used.

How Rocks are Dated

Many people think scientists determine the ages of rocks by radiometric dating. Later in this article, we will discuss radiometric dating in detail in its own section. But the fact is that the dating of rocks to a particular time period in the past is not done by any sort of objective measurement. The dating of rocks is done by dating the index fossils which are found in the rocks! The scientist dates the fossils by determining when he thinks those fossils best fit into the assumed general theory of evolution. Any measurement, whether done radiometrically or otherwise, that disagrees with the assumed general theory of evolution is deemed incorrect and is discarded. The scientist then finds that when the rock samples are arranged according to the age he has determined, the fossils in them progress along the time line in accordance with the general theory of evolution. But it was the assumption that the general theory of evolution was correct that was used to date the rocks in the first place. This is circular reasoning, plain and simple. But of course the scientists will conceal enough of the facts and disguise their arguments well enough so that most people will not recognize their circular reasoning for what it is.

Here is an example to show just how illogical this circular reasoning is. A person could assume that no life existed on the earth prior to one hundred years ago. He would then logically conclude that all fossils must be no more than one hundred years old. Then one could use the fossils to date all rocks that contain fossils to one hundred years or less. Then he could say that all of the rocks are evidence that no life existed on the earth prior to one hundred years ago. This argument and conclusion are ludicrous of course. One could prove anything they wanted about the earth's age by this process, but this is just the kind of thinking that is used to support the general theory of evolution.

Evidence of the Young Age of the Earth

There are many natural processes which can be used to estimate the age of the earth. Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. of the Institute for Creation Research has an article called "The Young Earth" at http://www.icr.org/p...mp/imp-017.htm. In it, he shows a table of 76 different processes in nature that can be used to estimate the age of the earth. The table includes processes such as the influx of various elements into the oceans, the decay of the earth's magnetic field, the accumulation of meteoric materials on the earth, and many other processes. Of these 76 processes:

26 show the earth to be less than 10,000 years old

15 show the earth to be more than 10,000 up to 100,000 years old

11 show the earth to be more than 100,000 up to one million years old

5 show the earth to be more than one million up to 10 million years old

13 show the earth to be more than 10 million up to 100 million years old

6 show the earth to be more than 100 million up to half a billion years old

None of the 76 processes show the earth to be more than half a billion years old.

More than half of these processes show the earth to be less than 100,000 years old.

It should be noted that these processes assume uniformity and further assume that none of the daughter component (the substance being formed) was present in the sample in the beginning. If any of the daughter component was present in the sample in the beginning, then that would cause the actual age to be even younger.

The assumption of uniformity, that all conditions remained constant over the period of the measurement, is much more likely to be correct for short time periods than for long time periods. Therefore, the estimates that yield younger ages are more likely to be accurate. Yet the evolutionists say the earth is ten times older than even the longest of the estimates shown above. But they certainly do not say this by preponderance of the evidence.

Radiometric Dating

One of the primary "evidences" that evolutionists like to point to show that the earth is very old is radiometric dating. As the table in the preceding section showed, there are many geological systems which could be used to estimate the age of the earth. But with each of them, there are potential problems that could throw off the results. Radiometric dating is no exception. Picture in your mind a simple hourglass that has half of the sand in the top half and half of the sand in the bottom half. We might assume from looking at it that it has been sitting there for half an hour. This would be assuming uniformity, but would this really be a correct assumption?

(A.) Someone could have poured all that sand in the top shortly before you looked at it. In this case, the hourglass may have really been sitting there for several days before you looked.

(B.) Someone may have poured all of that sand in the bottom shortly before you looked at it. In this case, the hourglass may not have been sitting there but a second or two before you looked.

© Someone could have tampered with the opening in the middle of the hourglass, either clogging or widening it. In this case, the hourglass may have been sitting there either much longer or much shorter than is apparent.

(D.) Perhaps the hourglass has always looked just as it now appears, and therefore gives no real indication of how long it has been there.

Radiometric dating involves the process of a radioactive element, such as uranium, decaying into another element, such as lead. Uranium-lead radiometric dating would be a good clock for estimating the age of rocks if we knew the following.

(A.) The rate at which uranium decays into lead.

(B.) How much lead was in the rock when it was formed.

(C.) All of the lead that was not in the rock when the rock was formed came from decaying uranium.

(D.) There is no way any extra lead or uranium could have gotten into the rock from the outside.

(E.) There is no way any of the original lead or uranium could have gotten out of the rock, such as by differential leaching.

(F.) The process has always been uniform. In other words, A, C, D, and E have each always remained constant throughout the age of the rock.

However, most of these requirements are either unknown, or are known not to be true. But there is a flip-side to the uranium-lead dating method. Uranium decays into lead, which is a very common element on the earth. When the uranium decays, it also produces helium-4 as a by-product. But unlike lead, helium-4 is very rare. Rocks which the uranium-lead dating method estimates to be more than 100 million years old, contain only enough helium to account for a tiny fraction of that time. The evolutionists claim that the helium must have escaped from the rocks. But if that were the case, we should be able to find vast amounts of helium-4 in the atmosphere. But the tiny amount of helium-4 present on the earth indicates only a few thousand years of uranium decay, not 4 to 5 billion years. Even uranium-lead radiometric dating provides evidence that the earth is young when one considers the lack of helium-4 on the planet.

Another radiometric dating method is the Potassium-Argon method. With this method, ages found from samples taken from a single rock may differ drastically. Rocks formed from the active Kilauea volcano in Hawaii were found to increase in age as the depth of the rock increased. Lava flows known to be less than 200 years old yielded dates of up to 22 million years using this method. Part of the problem is that argon, which is abundant in the atmosphere, can be incorporated into the rocks under pressure, making the Potassium-Argon method yield older dates.

The radio-carbon (C-14) dating method is another very inaccurate dating method. Results differ greatly even in the same rock layer. In rocks that are supposed to be 110 million years old, dinosaur bones and wood were taken and dated to 19,000 years old and 890 years old respectively using this method. In addition, the shells of living mollusks regularly date to more than 2000 years old using the radio-carbon method. One other interesting note about C-14 is that its level on the earth is presently increasing exponentially, and is now 30 per cent short of equilibrium. It has been estimated that it would have taken less than 8000 years for the C-14 to reach its present level of concentration.

Rapid Processes

Evolutionists also attempt to support their claim that the earth is billions of years old by saying that the earth's various rock strata each took millions of years to form. For example they say it takes 1400 to 2700 years to form a single foot of limestone. They calculate these formation rates by first assuming how many millions of years, according to the general theory of evolution, that the rock strata must cover. Then they simply divide by the depth (thickness) of the stone layer.

But the evolutionists ignore the overwhelming evidence which strongly supports rapid limestone formation. This includes many fossils which plainly illustrate that the rock was formed very quickly. One such fossil is of a fish in the process of swallowing a smaller fish, with the tail of the smaller fish clearly sticking out the mouth of the larger one. Now following the assumption of uniformity and the speed of limestone formation that the evolutionists calculate, it would have taken hundreds of years to cover this fish. But clearly this fish was covered in much less than one day's time at the very most, perhaps instantaneously. There are also fossils of fern leaves which did not even have time to wilt before they were covered. There are fossils of whole shrimp, dragonflies, and other insects preserved with minute detail. All of the tiny soft parts of can be clearly seen. So these tiny creatures had no time to decompose. Large dinosaurs with the soft parts preserved have also been found. One fossil shows a 30 foot long ichthyosaur (an aquatic fish-like animal) with a baby ichthyosaur visible in the womb. Yet another fossil shows the same type of animal giving birth with half of the baby out of the mother and half still inside the mother. Assuming the uniformity theory of 1400 years per foot of limestone, and a body thickness of about 5 feet for such a large animal, it would have taken at least 7000 years to cover this ichthyosaur. But obviously, that is not the case. It is as if someone suddenly dumped a whole truckload of cement on this animal, causing it to be instantaneously sealed in rock. This was a catastrophic destruction, with no time to finish dinner and no time to finish giving birth, much less time to decompose. If that is not enough evidence, trees over 40 feet tall have been found standing vertically in the limestone. The trees did not decompose in the time it took them to be covered, which would have taken more than 50,000 years by the evolutionists' uniformity processes.

http://www.matthewmc...g/creation.html

Well, as I said my postulate is that the moon is made out of green cheese, that is why it has so many bumps and shines yellow in the orange sunlight.

It does not help your cause to keep on harping on theories based on faulty methodology (which is why the above is not even discussion worthy in mainstream science) and nice data twisting, like the above ichtosaurus. First at the time there was no dump-truck with cement and second, dumping cement over something does not fossilize it.

[Setton]

Radiometric clocks are "set" when each rock forms. "Forms" means the moment an igneous rock solidifies from magma, a sedimentary rock layer is deposited, or a rock heated by metamorphism cools off. It's this resetting process that gives us the ability to date rocks that formed at different times in earth history.

Sorry but that's just dead wrong. Radiometric dating works for igneous rocks, can work for metamorphic rocks (their clocks are only sometimes reset - depends on the grade of metamorphism), and doesn't work at all for sedimentary rocks.

Sed. rocks are made up of fragments of other rocks. As such, if you date any part of a sed. rock, you will just get the date of the rock that piece came from. It allows you to work out an age range but not a precise age.

Dating sedimentary rocks can only be done relatively. If a sandstone is between a layers of rhyolite (30Ma) and a layer of basalt (100Ma), all we can say is that the sandstone is between 30 and 100Ma.

As has been pointed out, the whole idea of radiometric dating hinges on the principle of uniformitarianism - the present is the key to the past. There's no reason to assume that is the case. In fact, the Hadean is a nightmare to understand just because everything was so different. We just assume that the present is the key to the past in geology because, without it, quite frankly, we're screwed

[Rlyeh]

Sorry but that's just dead wrong. Radiometric dating works for igneous rocks, can work for metamorphic rocks (their clocks are only sometimes reset - depends on the grade of metamorphism), and doesn't work at all for sedimentary rocks.

Not necessarily.

http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladage.htm

"Sediments less than about 50,000 years old that contain organic material can be dated based on the radioactive decay of the isotope Carbon 14. For example, shells, wood, and other material found in the shoreline deposits of Utah's prehistoric Lake Bonneville have yielded absolute dates using this method. These distinct shorelines also make excellent relative dating tools. Many sections of the Wasatch fault disturb or crosscut the Provo shoreline, showing that faulting occurred after the lake dropped below this shoreline which formed about 13,500 years ago. As this example illustrates determining the age of a geologic feature or rock requires the use of both absolute and relative dating techniques."

[Setton]

Not necessarily.

http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladage.htm

"Sediments less than about 50,000 years old that contain organic material can be dated based on the radioactive decay of the isotope Carbon 14. For example, shells, wood, and other material found in the shoreline deposits of Utah's prehistoric Lake Bonneville have yielded absolute dates using this method. These distinct shorelines also make excellent relative dating tools. Many sections of the Wasatch fault disturb or crosscut the Provo shoreline, showing that faulting occurred after the lake dropped below this shoreline which formed about 13,500 years ago. As this example illustrates determining the age of a geologic feature or rock requires the use of both absolute and relative dating techniques."

Certainly for sediments that young but that doesn't really help to prove that the Earth is 4.5Ga, does it?

(Just as another point worth making - C14 dating is incredibly imprecise. Certainly it can give you a rough idea but it really shouldn't be relied upon to date anything over a few thousand years.)

[Blackwhite]

First at the time there was no dump-truck with cement and second, dumping cement over something does not fossilize it.

You obviously aren't familiar with metaphors.

[questionmark]

You obviously aren't familiar with metaphors.

I am familiar with metaphors, but a guy discussing paleontology and says something about fossilizing in cement does not know what the shi'it he is talking about. And it is not only that, the whole work by that gentleman is full of "metaphors" of that type.

[ShadowSot]

Didn't Darwin say just before he died that he was wrong about evolution?

No.

Second, the magazine this comes from details how the theory of evolution is different today than what Darwin originally published Origin of the Species 150 years ago.

For those who feel we much teach all sides, must we also teach that the world is flat, that it's held up on the back of elephants who stand on the back of a turtle, that the Sun revolves around the Earth?

Must we teach spontaneous generation, the four humours theory of disease?

That life was wanked into existence by Enki?

Edited September 27, 2011 by ShadowSot

[Setton]

No.

Second, the magazine this comes from details how the theory of evolution is different today than what Darwin originally published Origin of the Species 150 years ago.

For those who feel we much teach all sides, must we also teach that the world is flat, that it's held up on the back of elephants who stand on the back of a turtle, that the Sun revolves around the Earth?

Must we teach spontaneous generation, the four humours theory of disease?

That life was wanked into existence by Enki?

No, but you can teach that people once thought these things and show how a scientific approach disproves them. Still in a science classroom and still very relevant.

[questionmark]

No, but you can teach that people once thought these things and show how a scientific approach disproves them. Still in a science classroom and still very relevant.

Lets see, just because some brainiac comes with the "scientific" idea that we should put out fires with gasoline makes it teach-worthy?

[Setton]

Lets see, just because some brainiac comes with the "scientific" idea that we should put out fires with gasoline makes it teach-worthy?

If that's what you want to think, go ahead. Seeing as it has no bearing whatsoever on what I said.

Try reading the words. It helps.

[Michelle]

It's refreshing to see that this kind of thing is happening outside of the US Bible Belt. There goes one stereotype.

[questionmark]

If that's what you want to think, go ahead. Seeing as it has no bearing whatsoever on what I said.

Try reading the words. It helps.

I read your words, and I know perfectly what you meant: If science contradicts tradition science has to be disregarded, especially if it is religious tradition. To achieve that we can start by teaching superstitions in science.

Edited September 27, 2011 by questionmark

[ShadowSot]

No, but you can teach that people once thought these things and show how a scientific approach disproves them. Still in a science classroom and still very relevant.

You can yes, but that's different than presenting it as what attempted to be done here. Stating that evolution "is just a theory," and that creationism is a equally valid theory.

[Setton]

I read your words, and I know perfectly what you meant: If science contradicts tradition science has to be disregarded, especially if it is religious tradition. To achieve that we can start by teaching superstitions in science.

Obviously not. Seeing as the very first thing I said in this topic was:

There's nothing wrong with teaching about creationism in science classrooms. It can be a good aid to understanding the scientific process.

1. We have a theory - Earth and everything on it was created in seven days by God.

2. There is no evidence to contradict this but some in favour (only a book but it's more than the evidence against) so it is generally accepted.

3. Evidence is found that contradicts the theory. The theory is discarded.

Don't try and tell me what I think. And if you are going to, at least have the courtesy to read what I write and not just give it a cursory glance.

You can yes, but that's different than presenting it as what attempted to be done here. Stating that evolution "is just a theory," and that creationism is a equally valid theory.

But it is the point I was making earlier that I seem to be getting so much stick for. I was making a different point, related to the topic.

Also evolution is just a theory. It just happens to be one where every bit of evidence backs it up.

[questionmark]

Obviously not. Seeing as the very first thing I said in this topic was:

Don't try and tell me what I think. And if you are going to, at least have the courtesy to read what I write and not just give it a cursory glance.

But it is the point I was making earlier that I seem to be getting so much stick for. I was making a different point, related to the topic.

Also evolution is just a theory. It just happens to be one where every bit of evidence backs it up.

Your problem is that, all evidence so far, shows that Darwin may have been wrong in small details but overall his theory is still valid, while creationism and intelligent design still owe us a valid premises to even be considered scientific.

And that everybody seez that there is something beyond heaven and earth, unless you have tangible evidence for it or can bring it by your hand into the room, is not scientific either, it is just popular opinion which sometimes is uncorroborated superstition, therefore not apt to be taught in science class. (But if you must you can teach it in religion).

[Setton]

Your problem is that, all evidence so far, shows that Darwin may have been wrong in small details but overall his theory is still valid, while creationism and intelligent design still owe us a valid premises to even be considered scientific.

And that everybody seez that there is something beyond heaven and earth, unless you have tangible evidence for it or can bring it by your hand into the room, is not scientific either, it is just popular opinion which sometimes is uncorroborated superstition, therefore not apt to be taught in science class. (But if you must you can teach it in religion).

One last try, but I don't think it'll work.

I have not said creationism is right. I have not even said it's more accurate than evolution. I've said it is useful to teach about it to show how the scientific process disproves it. This gives people a better understanding of how science works in the real world.

Have you understood this yet??? It's really not hard.

[questionmark]

One last try, but I don't think it'll work.

I have not said creationism is right. I have not even said it's more accurate than evolution. I've said it is useful to teach about it to show how the scientific process disproves it. This gives people a better understanding of how science works in the real world.

Have you understood this yet??? It's really not hard.

And I have said a hundred times that they can teach whatever they want in religion class, but unsubstantiated postulates have no place in science class.

Have you understood that? Nice.

[Setton]

And I have said a hundred times that they can teach whatever they want in religion class, but unsubstantiated postulates have no place in science class.

Have you understood that? Nice.

So you're idea is for people to go throught their lives assuming that because a scientist says something it must be true and there is no way to challenge it? Because that's what you're going to get if you don't teach them about how things are disproved.

Also, no offence, but I'm going to trust the people who put together my geology A-level syllabus and uni course slightly more than you, I think. They decided it was relevant, along with the theory that the Earth was 6000, 72000, 90000 or 4.5 billion years old.

Slightly different point but maybe it'll help you understand where I'm coming from: The 6000 year old Earth idea comes from tracing back ancestry as given in the Bible through to the start of creation. Since the Bible was seen as a book that accurately documented history, this approach is understandable.

Later on, someone else tried to work out the age of the Earth by using the time it would take to cool. This is actually a really good method but he only came up with 72ka because the earth is heated by radioactive elements inside it.

Another approach was to estimate the age of the earth with the salinity of the oceans. Assuming they started out as fresh water and all salt has been added by rivers. This gives an age of 90ka because rivers change course over time and oceans are younger than the Earth.

They all give the wrong date and are flawed in some way, but they're all worth teaching too. Not only does it demonstrate how the scientific process works, it also gives some idea of how our idea of science has changed throughout history. On top of that, it shows you that, just because somebody in a position of authority says something, it doesn't mean they're right. That's why, if you're doing original research an your results don't match and accepted theory, you should check your results and, if they're right, challenge the othere theory.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Setton

[ShadowSot]

I think Setton's point is how, at least when I was last in class, vitalism and spontaneous generation still got lip service when biology.

The only real issue I see there is that there are a number of people who have problems with evolution being taught at all. Adding how Creationism is wrong would, at this point, cause more problems.

[questionmark]

So you're idea is for people to go throught their lives assuming that because a scientist says something it must be true and there is no way to challenge it? Because that's what you're going to get if you don't teach them about how things are disproved.

Also, no offence, but I'm going to trust the people who put together my geology A-level syllabus and uni course slightly more than you, I think. They decided it was relevant, along with the theory that the Earth was 6000, 72000, 90000 or 4.5 billion years old.

Slightly different point but maybe it'll help you understand where I'm coming from: The 6000 year old Earth idea comes from tracing back ancestry as given in the Bible through to the start of creation. Since the Bible was seen as a book that accurately documented history, this approach is understandable.

Later on, someone else tried to work out the age of the Earth by using the time it would take to cool. This is actually a really good method but he only came up with 72ka because the earth is heated by radioactive elements inside it.

Another approach was to estimate the age of the earth with the salinity of the oceans. Assuming they started out as fresh water and all salt has been added by rivers. This gives an age of 90ka because rivers change course over time and oceans are younger than the Earth.

They all give the wrong date and are flawed in some way, but they're all worth teaching too. Not only does it demonstrate how the scientific process works, it also gives some idea of how our idea of science has changed throughout history. On top of that, it shows you that, just because somebody in a position of authority says something, it doesn't mean they're right. That's why, if you're doing original research an your results don't match and accepted theory, you should check your results and, if they're right, challenge the othere theory.

In plain English, it is not like you know how these theories fit in together (because you would hardly be postulating young Earth ideas if you were) but you know you are against it.

That is your personal choice, but don't show it down the throat of those who rather learn science and of schools who do not train preachers or bible thumpers but future scientist.

[Setton]

In plain English, it is not like you know how these theories fit in together (because you would hardly be postulating young Earth ideas if you were) but you know you are against it.

That is your personal choice, but don't show it down the throat of those who rather learn science and of schools who do not train preachers or bible thumpers but future scientist.

Ha! Sorry but that is just hilarious. I'm mentioning them because they are taught in my Masters course at the third best university in the UK. These people with more letters after their name than in it seem to think it's worth knowing. But no, of course, I should take the word of a random person on an internet forum with no credentials I know of.

As for not knowing how they fit together, that was a fairly major part of one of the modules I did last year. I scored 97%, just so you know. I think I'm going to trust my lecturers more than you thanks.

[questionmark]

Ha! Sorry but that is just hilarious. I'm mentioning them because they are taught in my Masters course at the third best university in the UK. These people with more letters after their name than in it seem to think it's worth knowing. But no, of course, I should take the word of a random person on an internet forum with no credentials I know of.

As for not knowing how they fit together, that was a fairly major part of one of the modules I did last year. I scored 97%, just so you know. I think I'm going to trust my lecturers more than you thanks.

Creationism (including the Young Earth thingy)is taught in theology at any University deserving the name, or can you link us to one where it is taught VS. ridiculed (i.e. Dawkins, Oxford) by people with lots of diplomas outside a religious university ran by the 7th day adventists?

[Setton]

Creationism (including the Young Earth thingy)is taught in theology at any University deserving the name, or can you link us to one where it is taught VS. ridiculed (i.e. Dawkins, Oxford) by people with lots of diplomas outside a religious university ran by the 7th day adventists?

I'm doing a Masters in Geoscience at Durham University. We were taught about it last year in order to, as I have repeatedly said, demonstrate the scientific process and the changing nature of science. That good enough for you?

[aquatus1]

Setton basically you are saying that creationism is used as an example on how to NOT do science, is that correct?