Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Cirdan]

LE, carbon dating is not used much in geology. It is mostly a tool for archeology. Radiometric dating is used to confirm the ages of formations, but the age of rock formations is determined by the relative stratigraphy. Without going into a long dissertation it basically means the order and rate at which formations can occur based on rock type and superposition (which can first and why). For the earth to be much younger some parameter would have to defy physics to excced rates of formation, deformation, and weathering. An example would be sedimentary rocks. If the time were speeded up in the deformantion process they rocks would melt and become igneous, crystalline rock.

As to mass extinctions, the is a great deal of evidence of these. The dinosaurs are the most well known example. The three major ages of the earth in terms of geology (Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic) are defined with mass extinctions as the starting points for each. A mass extinction you can see is the one being caused be humans. Many species has disappeared since human became such good hunters.

You can claim deus ex machina but you cannot claim a young earth without defying all reason. The same holds true for the great flood story. If you are interested in learning about geology there is an author named John McPhee who does a reader-friendly synopsys of US geology. If you are near some mountainous or rocky areas I would reccomend a field trip after visiting a local office of the USGS for info on local geology.

[Rían]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Guys, if you want to talk about praying and stuff, I suggest that you open up a new thread, because I am rather sick of having to plow through all these off-topic comments. I know that some people asked questions, but I now feel they have been answered. Can we get back to the topic at question? Evolution?

OK, fine by me I like to answer questions that people ask (especially when I am named in the post), and because they are questions about complex matters, they take awhile to answer (and I haven't even finished answering them, I was still trying to define some background info so that my answer would be better understood). So starting a new thread is fine, if anyone would like to. I won't finish my answers, though, unless anyone requests me to (and then I will be glad to), because I've probably already bored you guys to tears with my long posts!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
LE, carbon dating is not used much in geology. It is mostly a tool for archeology. Radiometric dating is used to confirm the ages of formations, but the age of rock formations is determined by the relative stratigraphy.

Most of these dating methods, however, still rely upon steady amounts of radioactive material in the atmosphere/sea. If some event has taken place which causes a shift in the balance, then these amounts are no longer steady and you cannot be certain of your dating method.

Originally posted by Cirdan
As to mass extinctions, the is a great deal of evidence of these. The dinosaurs are the most well known example. The three major ages of the earth in terms of geology (Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic) are defined with mass extinctions as the starting points for each. A mass extinction you can see is the one being caused be humans. Many species has disappeared since human became such good hunters.

The main reason for the assumption of a mass extinction, however, is that a number of species no longer exist. The dinosaurs are certainly a well known example, but science only assumes an astroid collision because it seems a likely possibility. They haven't proved how the dinosaurs were wiped out. Only they know that the dinosaurs aren't here anymore, and humans are, and a good explanation for that is the mass extinction of their species.

This doesn't mean that further or different evidence won't turn up. For these mass extinctions there aren't an enormous amount of evidence for, but they can see that there have been several major shifts in the animal populations of the Earth. There is good reason to believe in these extinctions, if you aren't assuming a young Earth.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
You can claim deus ex machina but you cannot claim a young earth without defying all reason. The same holds true for the great flood story. If you are interested in learning about geology there is an author named John McPhee who does a reader-friendly synopsys of US geology. If you are near some mountainous or rocky areas I would reccomend a field trip after visiting a local office of the USGS for info on local geology.

We have several geology books here, for my Dad is studying the likelihood of an early breaking up of the continents, and the flood's happening. I could give you his theories, but they are unpublished as yet, so to do so would be wrong. I will certainly refer you to them once they are published.

The historical evidence for the flood is there in the traditions of the peoples of the Earth. All of them differ from each other in one way or another, but they are there. And that is logical, considering that we believe all people came from Noah. His people would have spread out, and it makes sense that they carried on traditions (Obviously slightly alterred over time and changing circumstances) of such a momentous event.

If you close the time frame and assume a young Earth, also all of the dragon traditions in all of the cultures of the world make more sense, for these people would have encountered dinosaurs. There are other accounts also in history of the break up of the continents, like that written by Plato of the disappearance of Atlantis.

Let me remind you of our reference frame. We are looking from a tiny bit of time, just a tiny piece of all that has been and will be. And although science can show us a lot, and what we can see from this reference frame is constantly going, it can be very wrong to make assumptions based upon that reference frame. Simply because we can see the continents moving at a slow rate now, we extrapolate and assume, based on these dating methods and our own observations, that they have always been moving at a constant rate. The continents have moved a long way away from their original location in one whole, which was Pangea. In passages in Genesis it describes all of the land being in one place, all together. That would be Pangea.

When something is observed, in history of other places, one cannot simply always dismiss it if it contradicts the current views of science. The observor, simply because he lived several hundred years ago, shouldn't be dismissed. As a matter of a fact, some attention at least should be put on what he's saying, for he had another reference frame than we do now. Certainly things have been added onto original truths, and a true story can get twisted to become more exciting, and other things can happen to it to alter it from its original form and distort the facts. But on the inside of most legends, there is usually at least a grain of truth. And it is interesting when looking from a Christian or Biblical standpoint, to see the truth emerge from many of these things that are thought of as legends, and come to life.

It appears, because of the evidence that currently is available to science, that there cannot have been a flood and that the continents are steadily and slowly moving apart, as they have been doing for millions of years. All that I have shown is what is readily available in tradition and history, and I am confident that that won't have changed your opinion much. My Dad has much more, but unfortunately I cannot show that until it is published.

[BeardofPants]

LF: If there was a global flood, there should be evidence of this in the geological strata. There isn't. Deep sea cores do not show uniform "mud" layers where there should have been if there was a global flood. Nor does the disperal of the fossil record support a global flood hypothesis.

As it stands, most of the "flood stories" centred in societies whose lives were governed by the flooding seasons of the rivers, etc that they lived near. Remember, these stories predate irrigation, so they lived right near the water sources. Egypt is a prime example of this; their whole seasonality revolved around the flooding of the nile. Of course there are going to be stories within early cultures of flooding. Their very survival depended on the flood seasons.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson

The main reason for the assumption of a mass extinction, however, is that a number of species no longer exist. The dinosaurs are certainly a well known example, but science only assumes an astroid collision because it seems a likely possibility. They haven't proved how the dinosaurs were wiped out. Only they know that the dinosaurs aren't here anymore, and humans are, and a good explanation for that is the mass extinction of their species.

There is evidence of a giant crater in off the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. Also there is evidence in the rock formations around the time of the dinosaurs death that there was a lack of sunlight and that plant life also died out. Theories are educated guesses by looking at evidence and is similar to fitting the pieces of a giant puzzle together. This is in stark contrast to Creationsim where it is solely based the ideas presented in a book that no one knows who wrote.

Science isn't always right - but at least it attempts to search for the truth. Withouth science - we would still think the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Many scientific people that were looking for the truth were excommunicated and put to death by religious people that refused to give up their beliefs. This is similar to what is going on regarding evolution (although I don't think people are being put to death).

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Most of these dating methods, however, still rely upon steady amounts of radioactive material in the atmosphere/sea. If some event has taken place which causes a shift in the balance, then these amounts are no longer steady and you cannot be certain of your dating method.

The amount of uranium in the earth is stable and no mechanism has been found to remove it from earth. Also, as I stated the radiometric dating only confirms field observations on the age of the earth.

The main reason for the assumption of a mass extinction, however, is that a number of species no longer exist. The dinosaurs are certainly a well known example, but science only assumes an astroid collision because it seems a likely possibility. They haven't proved how the dinosaurs were wiped out. Only they know that the dinosaurs aren't here anymore, and humans are, and a good explanation for that is the mass extinction of their species.

This is wrong. The actual impact crater has been identified. There were other factors such as increased volcanism and the break-up of the supercontinent which pushed many species to the brink as well. The climate change was recorded in many different ways besides the extinction. There is an immense body of evidence for extinction and none against, save saying it may be wrong without a basis in fact.

[Lief Erikson]

BeardofPants, you are speaking of different floodstories than I am. There are stories in China, and worldwide which describe the whole nation being covered by a flood, and only a tiny amount of people surviving, frequently on a boat. They aren't limited to groups that lived on the waterside.

Also, if you are going to continue to refer to these sea cores as evidence against what I'm saying, I'd appreciate it if you gave me a bit more detailed of an account as to how it works.

One further question: Do you think that, if the continents, as I have theorized, have been moving at a fast rate, this would have any effect upon the stability of the mud level? That's simply an idea I thought of just now, I don't know much about the sea cores, and you're welcome to shoot that one down .

Originally posted by jerseydevil
There is evidence of a giant crater in off the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. Also there is evidence in the rock formations around the time of the dinosaurs death that there was a lack of sunlight and that plant life also died out. Theories are educated guesses by looking at evidence and is similar to fitting the pieces of a giant puzzle together. This is in stark contrast to Creationsim where it is solely based the ideas presented in a book that no one knows who wrote.

Jerseydevil, I've heard about the crater, and I'm not denying that astroids or meteors haven't hit the Earth at different times in Earth's history. I realize that there is evidence to suggest that dinosaurs might have died off at the time that they are suggesting. I've heard the theories and seen the videos. These don't prove the dinosaurs' death, they give an educated guess, based upon the assumption (Based upon different dating methods which rely upon a constant amount of radioactivity in the atmosphere or sea) that the Earth is old. If it isn't so old, there isn't room for the dinosaurs' extinction, unless you say that God wiped them out before creating Adam, something that I think isn't extremely likely, as pain and death hadn't entered into the world at that point.

That statement simply states that from the Biblical perspective, a mass extinction of the dinosaurs doesn't seem extremely likely. Even though I know none of you were moving from the Biblical perspective.

It is known who wrote various books of the Bible, and I don't think that Creationism can be proved. However, I think that various things that the Bible says God did, did happen and can be shown.

Originally written by jerseydevil
Science isn't always right - but at least it attempts to search for the truth. Withouth science - we would still think the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Many scientific people that were looking for the truth were excommunicated and put to death by religious people that refused to give up their beliefs. This is similar to what is going on regarding evolution (although I don't think people are being put to death).

Here I agree with you. Science isn't always right, it attempts to search for the truth, and it frequently finds it. It has errors in it, which are currently unobserved but most likely in the future will be. There are evidences for all of the things that they have established. Sometimes these evidences are faulty, or are extrapolations.

But science does seek to know the truth and puts its best leg forward at finding it. I know that many wonderful scientific people have been badly treated by the Church for 'heretical' views. I'm not trying to defend the Church hierarchy, and I think that religious people shouldn't shy away from things that go against their views, but rather should come to the forefront of knowledge about them. If what they believe they know to be true, as I do, they should become familiar with the things that go against it, so that they can discuss such topics from a basis of knowledge.

[Cirdan]

As for the flood, there is nothing inthe was of eviidence. BoP is right about the flood story. It was recorded in Sumeria as old, old, tale. It was merely picked up by the Hebrews when Abraham was there. There have been suggestions of a cataclysmic flood in the Black Sea area dating to 10,000 BC. The research is incomplete and a true link may never be found since the tale probably existed as oral tradition until writing was invented. Tales of Atlantis and the Loch Ness monster are fine stories for children but they hold no real historical value.

[Cirdan]

The pressure and temperature problems of very fast moving continents are insurmountable. Basically they would melt and all life would be incinerated.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan

The amount of uranium in the earth is stable and no mechanism has been found to remove it from earth. Also, as I stated the radiometric dating only confirms field observations on the age of the earth.


This is wrong. The actual impact crater has been identified. There were other factors such as increased volcanism and the break-up of the supercontinent which pushed many species to the brink as well. The climate change was recorded in many different ways besides the extinction. There is an immense body of evidence for extinction and none against, save saying it may be wrong without a basis in fact. [/B]

I know that they have a crater, and I know that there is evidence to show that his is likely the one that killed off the dinosaurs. More of it was brought up by jerseydevil. But the fact is, there is no proof that this accumulation of events, which is dated by methods that I disagree with, wiped out the dinosaurs. Certainly the amount of uranium of the Earth is stable; they wouldn't have used a dating method based upon it if it wasn't. Personally, I think that the dramatic changes caused by the movement of the continents, the changing of the atmosphere and the solar rays penetration, all around the same time as the flood, could easily have caused changes, even if there aren't ways of showing them yet.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I know that they have a crater, and I know that there is evidence to show that his is likely the one that killed off the dinosaurs. More of it was brought up by jerseydevil. But the fact is, there is no proof that this accumulation of events, which is dated by methods that I disagree with, wiped out the dinosaurs. Certainly the amount of uranium of the Earth is stable; they wouldn't have used a dating method based upon it if it wasn't. Personally, I think that the dramatic changes caused by the movement of the continents, the changing of the atmosphere and the solar rays penetration, all around the same time as the flood, could easily have caused changes, even if there aren't ways of showing them yet.

Solar rays are dodgy at best but there is plenty of evidence that volcanism was high during the breakup. There are also other extinctions much futher back in the geologic record. It's fine if you disagree with radiometric dating. The stratigraphy of the world doesn't allow even the possibility of a young earth. Fine sediments and limestone reefs cannot be laid down rapidly. There is also no source for a global flood. There is evidence that sea level has changed significantly over time for low lying coastal areas. To cover the earth so that only Mt. Ararat is visible is just not possible. How did Noah get the kangaroos to Australia? Why would god give you one story and show so much consistent evidence to the contrary? (rhetorical) It is not a matter of belief of one or another. It is a matter of fact versus fiction.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The pressure and temperature problems of very fast moving continents are insurmountable. Basically they would melt and all life would be incinerated.

Depends how fast you're thinking of. One mile per hour, I'd say you're right . But simply because they say a gigantic amount of volcanic and superheated activity accompanied the break up of the continents (No doubt supported by some evidence) means that that was certainly the time when it did. (Lief prepares to be given a science lesson) There weren't any human observors to record the event, and I think that some of our dating methods are flawed.

Originally posted by Cirdan
As for the flood, there is nothing inthe was of eviidence. BoP is right about the flood story. It was recorded in Sumeria as old, old, tale. It was merely picked up by the Hebrews when Abraham was there. There have been suggestions of a cataclysmic flood in the Black Sea area dating to 10,000 BC. The research is incomplete and a true link may never be found since the tale probably existed as oral tradition until writing was invented. Tales of Atlantis and the Loch Ness monster are fine stories for children but they hold no real historical value.

Actually, it's only if you twist the Bible story that you get that Abraham wasn't there before the Sumerians, and that Hannurabi's Code wasn't taken from the Israelites, rather than the other way around. There we get into Chronology, a major part of my Dad's first book which is actually called "The Ultimate Chronological Question." I think that current Christian historians are being too willing to go along with what scientific views are at the present.

The account of Atlantis was written by Plato, and personally I'm a little surprised that you're willing to ignore his account so readily. Remember that at that time they didn't know that the world was round, therefore it makes sense that if he saw the continent drifting away over a period of time, he would assume it was sinking.



You know what, all of you, I realize that there is evidence for the accepted theories that science has so far proposed. They are reasonable theories, and contradicting it with a Biblical theory requires evidence as well. Unfortunately, I am not capable of giving what I believe, as it is taken from my Dad, a scientist who has studied this area extensively. You have acknowledged that there are errors in science. These errors are usually supported by evidence, and upon them other theories are built. Thus, they are made very painful to correct.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to continue on this strain or give you my full opinions, as they are my Dad's. I know that they go against the way Christian scientists have been speaking in general, because they are trying to conform the Bible to science. I think it is much better to look more closely at scientific theories than to twist what the Bible says, as it is God's Word. Obviously, a nonChristian wouldn't come from that perspective, but I think that it is Christians' duty to learn, to question, and to be open to new things that they didn't expect.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Solar rays are dodgy at best but there is plenty of evidence that volcanism was high during the breakup. There are also other extinctions much futher back in the geologic record. It's fine if you disagree with radiometric dating. The stratigraphy of the world doesn't allow even the possibility of a young earth. Fine sediments and limestone reefs cannot be laid down rapidly. There is also no source for a global flood. There is evidence that sea level has changed significantly over time for low lying coastal areas. To cover the earth so that only Mt. Ararat is visible is just not possible. How did Noah get the kangaroos to Australia? Why would god give you one story and show so much consistent evidence to the contrary? (rhetorical) It is not a matter of belief of one or another. It is a matter of fact versus fiction.

I realize that there is evidence for scientific theories, otherwise they wouldn't be accepted.

You're not realizing that I'm suggesting the continental divide hadn't happened yet at the time of the flood. Continental plates moving are what cause mountains, thus Mount Ararat didn't have to be that large, at least not at that time. How did Noah get the kangaroos to Australia? Noah didn't do that . Species migrate, just like humans moved to inhabit over the whole Earth. They couldn't all stay in one place, especially not as there were so many different species competing for life. They had to move. Besides, it is possible that kangaroos hadn't even evolved yet.

There is evidence against the belief of a flood, based on science. I don't think, however, that any of you have examined closely the possibility that some of these theories are wrong, based upon the Bible. That is only logical, as you are not Christian. Theories have evidence, but they can be found to be wrong. Even if other theories are built upon them, and also have to support them. These difficulties have been found in the past, and can be found in the future.

As for the young Earth . . . I'm actually going to drop discussing that. The Bible, anyway, doesn't say one way or the other as to whether the Earth was created swiftly or is old or new, (Unless you take each day to have been twenty four hours, an assumption that we haven't any right to take) and it could have been old.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Depends how fast you're thinking of. One mile per hour, I'd say you're right . But simply because they say a gigantic amount of volcanic and superheated activity accompanied the break up of the continents (No doubt supported by some evidence) means that that was certainly the time when it did. (Lief prepares to be given a science lesson) There weren't any human observors to record the event, and I think that some of our dating methods are flawed.

The rates could vary, at most, a few inches a year. Miles a year would be needed to account for the difference, and that can't happen with the kind of rock that exists on earth. If you are going to choose the strict theological view why not just say that god made it as it is, instead of by process? There is no need, then to replace science with a made up story. This is Creationism's greatest weakness. It is designed to ape (I couldn't resist) science. What is the big attraction to (pseudo-)science if the bible has the answers? Is it a public relations effort to bring in fence sitters by muddying the water? It's fine to think the dating methods are flawed but the only reason you give is that if nothing is like it was then things would be different. This, however, is not supported by any fact or even the bible.

Actually, it's only if you twist the Bible story that you get that Abraham wasn't there before the Sumerians, and that Hannurabi's Code wasn't taken from the Israelites, rather than the other way around. There we get into Chronology, a major part of my Dad's first book which is actually called "The Ultimate Chronological Question." I think that current Christian historians are being too willing to go along with what scientific views are at the present.

Except the hebrews were not as advanced at that time as the Sumerians so it makes little sense to think they just dropped into Sumeria to give laws and headed back to Israel. Eh, whatever...

The account of Atlantis was written by Plato, and personally I'm a little surprised that you're willing to ignore his account so readily. Remember that at that time they didn't know that the world was round, therefore it makes sense that if he saw the continent drifting away over a period of time, he would assume it was sinking.

Plato also wrote some ridiculous stuff about mythology. Books written before 1200 AD are 90% fiction. The was no real structured, referenced writing and most was done to please the nobiles that commisioned it. It is rare to find accurate texts from the time.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to continue on this strain or give you my full opinions, as they are my Dad's. I know that they go against the way Christian scientists have been speaking in general, because they are trying to conform the Bible to science. I think it is much better to look more closely at scientific theories than to twist what the Bible says, as it is God's Word. Obviously, a nonChristian wouldn't come from that perspective, but I think that it is Christians' duty to learn, to question, and to be open to new things that they didn't expect.

I only set out to explain how the date of the earth is determined scientifically. The creation story is not threatened by science until someone tries to prove it scientifically. There is a reason the ansewrs don't match and it's not because the scientific world is bent on debunking the story. Quite the opposite. Many spent years trying to support the story with fgacts but if doesn't work that way. Whether god made everything appear different as a way of concealing his presense or whether the authors of the bible stories had no frame of reference with which to write the true story. What I do know is what the facts tell us.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I realize that there is evidence for scientific theories, otherwise they wouldn't be accepted.

You're not realizing that I'm suggesting the continental divide hadn't happened yet at the time of the flood. Continental plates moving are what cause mountains, thus Mount Ararat didn't have to be that large, at least not at that time. How did Noah get the kangaroos to Australia? Noah didn't do that . Species migrate, just like humans moved to inhabit over the whole Earth. They couldn't all stay in one place, especially not as there were so many different species competing for life. They had to move. Besides, it is possible that kangaroos hadn't even evolved yet.

Yes, but it isn't often you see kangaroos in Asia building boats.

Your magic mountain theory also presumes immpossible geologic rates.

[Lief Erikson]

I know that all of you have been giving the scientific views of the now, and that there are good reasons why science believes the way they do. The reason that my arguments are so apparently lame is because I have only given a few of the outcomes of the main theory, and I cannot reveal the main theory. It was stupid of me to even try challenging what is generally believed based on a small part of what is known. Very stupid indeed, actually.

Not that I take back anything that I have actually posted, however foolish it might appear. Some scientific views go against the Bible, and some Christian views which attempt to connect it to science go against the Bible as well. Many views that are assumed by Christians to contradict the Bible actually don't.

I agree that science is one source from which a lot of correct information comes, but I think that some of the views and evidences concerning this subject that are commonly upheld now actually are incorrect.

Anyway, I must be going now to eat supper. I'll talk to the rest of you more later.

[jerseydevil]

I want to know - if Noah took only two of each species - what did the carnivores eat? Did they just starve? If a lion ate a goat after getting off the ark - then there wouldn't a pair of goats to have kids. Or was there breeding on the ark - so there were a lot more animals that left than went on. Of course - still there was only so many animals the ark could have carried and I'm not sure if many of the carnivores could have survived while their prey gestated.

[Aeryn]

Floods? I like rain.

[Rían]

I think that it would be pretty reasonable to assume that Noah brought extra animals for the carnivores to eat - Noah is instructed to bring food for his family and the animals, and I think that it is reasonable to assume that he knew the carnivores ate meat. He was probably partial to a steak occasionally, himself! They definitely bred on the ark - the Bible says that they went off by families. I guess they weren't TOO seasick ...