Should evolution be taught in schools?

[afro-elf]

But it is the only dating method they have for things that date back to before humanity, so that's what they use. The totally illogical thing is that even though this inaccuracy is known, they use it mostly for the farthest points of time in history. It's because it's the only dating method that they have for things back then, but that doesn't make it correct.

Damn it Jim....You don't use carbon dating for things after a certain period. You will use things like urainium.

No, it is because no THINKING person would believe that oveer millions and millions of years, people evolved from animals.

That was argubaly the most philistine comment on the subject of evolution that I have heard in a LONG time if not ever.

I guess that makes people who believe in talking snakes tempting people are genuises.



If you really wanna learn and like entmoot comb through the old these threads

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...?threadid=1780

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...ght=antitheist

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...?threadid=1757

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...?threadid=2186

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...ghlight=theism

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...ight=evolution

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by IronParrot
Well, humans are actually a bit of an aberration in terms of pure physical fitness, as the development of tools gave them an advantage of survival... if humans were released into the wild with nothing, and no knowledge of tools, they wouldn't survive.

It is true that humans appear to sit outside the equation in terms of physical fitness. Our sucess as a species has depended more on our ability to adapt than a dependence on physical fitness. However, you will note that I wasn't talking strictly physical fitness; I was talking about the best possible fit - in which our adaptability comes into play.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I also disagree with carbon dating, for the reasons I stated in an earlier post . . . But it is the only dating method they have for things that date back to before humanity, so that's what they use. The totally illogical thing is that even though this inaccuracy is known, they use it mostly for the farthest points of time in history. It's because it's the only dating method that they have for things back then, but that doesn't make it correct.

I'm sorry. Bullshit.

Radiocarbon dating can only be used from 1950AD - 50-60,000 years ago. There ARE other absolute radiometric dating methods that are used to go back further.

Have we got this straight, people?

Radiocarbon dating. ONLY 50-60,000 BP. ONLY on organic material. ONLY on dead organic material. No rocks, no live samples, no going back further than 60,000 years.

If you go back further then use rubidium, uranium, or something similar.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Aeryn
No, it is because no THINKING person would believe that oveer millions and millions of years, people evolved from animals. again I bring up devolving, if something can go forward it can roll right back.
If we evolved from whatever you 'scientics' are saying now-a-days why aren't those creatures evolving today?
You base alot of things off of rock, a rocks age is based on years, thats how you know the earth is so old. Tell me WHAT METHODS do you take to know what a million year old rock looks like?

There is no such thing as devolving. A species can be at a disadvantage, in which case they will go extinct, but sorry, no devolving.

Those creatures as you call them, are not around today because they went extinct. We are the only species to have survived.

The earth "rocks" can be dated using Rb-Sr isochron, 207Pb-206Pb isochron, U-Pb discordia, Th-Pb discordia, or Lu-Hf isochron sequences.

[Lief Erikson]

I apologize, BeardofPants. I just double checked my source about the length of radio carbon dating, and you are right about the length of time it goes backward. But radio carbon dating is really the only dating type that shows how far back human beings go. Isn't that correct?

And I do not withdraw my statement about the margin of error. There is a strong argument for error in the radio carbon dating process within the last three thousand years, but before that, there is little argument for radio carbon dating's being right. It doesn't line up with historical or archaelogical records from the time periods at all. Since it doesn't during times where they can put it beside such records, and assuming it keeps consistently getting less accurate the farther back in time you go, then there is little reason why Christians should believe, on the basis of that, that mankind is as old as evolution says it is.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
But radio carbon dating is really the only dating type that shows how far back human beings go. Isn't that correct?

Well, considering that A. afarensis is said to be a few million years old, and the limit on carbon dating is set at 60,000 BP, I'd say NO.

And there ARE other dating methods for "young" dates. Remember that there are relative dating methods, as well as radiometric.

Lief Erikson:
And I do not withdraw my statement about the margin of error. There is a strong argument for error in the radio carbon dating process within the last three thousand years, but before that, there is little argument for radio carbon dating's being right.

I can tell you know very little about the process from this post. Radiocarbon dating DOES have a degree of error, yes. But, when you conisider that it is probably only +/- 1-2%. Now what is 2% of 60,000? I rest my point.

And have you not heard of callibration? Obviously not, since you fail to mention it.

More....
then there is little reason why Christians should believe, on the basis of that, that mankind is as old as evolution says it is.

Based on what? You have demonstrated a complete ignorance for the process of radiometric carbon dating. Have you not perhaps heard that more than one method is used to date sites? I'm sorry, but unless you can get your facts straight, I'm not going to take you seriously.

[Ms. Undomial]

BoP- do you believe in evolution??

[Lief Erikson]

BeardofPants, I do realize that there are other dating methods for recent dates. And radio carbon dating does have a relatively good success rate for recent things. But that's because radio carbon dating is assuming that the C14 isotope in all living things is at a constant. It is breathed into a creature throughout their life, and at death it stops being breathed in. The C14 isotope decays at a steady rate, and they can use the rate of decay to judge how old the creature is.

I realize there are other ways as well, like when they tried to match their radio carbon dates with those given using tree rings. But their original radio carbon dates, when tested with earlier historical data, have not shown to match up at all. They showed everything to be a good deal older. And when compared with tree rings, everything appeared to be older yet.

You're right, I don't know about very many of those other dating methods, but I am largely talking about radio carbon dating here. And I realize that evolution assumes that man was a gradual creation, so radio carbon dating certainly can't go before man. But Christians believe that man was a quick creation, and that there was a first man: Adam. Evolutionists would probably say that apes slowly evolved into man, and that if Adam was the first, then he was only the first because he was very similar to how we are now, but his predecessor was only a hair different then him.

Radio carbon dating demonstrates dates of man preceeding Adam, and because it does discuss organic material, it is the dating method that I am picking on.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Lizra
Ms Umdomnial, What happens when you die? Not much! (ha ha) Your body rots. Your "soul" was nothing more than energy supported by your functioning body parts. When your heart stops beating, your brain gets no oxygen, everything stops functioning, and your so called "soul" goes pffft. There is some energy in the organic components that make up your body, and these will go back to the soil, (or wherever) waiting to nourish something else.

Lizra, that is entirely a matter of opinion. Every other religion on Earth would disagree with you, and science doesn't say what happens. Sure, science says that your body rots and turns to dust. Doesn't the Bible say that too? Your brain gets no oxygen and everything stops functioning . . . we know that too. But that your so called soul goes pffft . . . well, all that is proven by science is that your so called soul doesn't remain within your body. Whether it goes pffft or not is a matter of opinion, although I could give you some accounts that it doesn't. There are people who have died and then been revived after death, quickly after, (By doctors, not miracle workers ) and these people tell of brief moments after death. They don't simply not remember things that were happening, they weren't pffft. However, as I said, that is all a matter of opinion and what you choose to believe. Not extremely many people, I expect, have come back after death like that by medical means.

[Earniel]

Earniel, I think it's a mistake to judge the Bible the way you are, just as it might be a mistake for some Christians to hold too rigidly to the interpretation they have held of it up till now. Creation and Evolution don't necessarily disagree. Sometimes God uses natural means to bring about divine ends, like when he used Assyria to punish the Israelites in the Old Testament. Notice that he didn't use an army of angels or demons. He may have used evolution to create life.

I believe I said somewhere that evolution and the idea that god created the world could be entwined since I have no evidence to rule it out. Well I believe I did say that. I think I did. Anyway I meant to. The thing is, I don't think god created the world as described in the bible. Beings did evolve over a long period of time. But I never said a god couldn't be the starter of life down in the 'primeval soup' to put it bluntly.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
But that's because radio carbon dating is assuming that the C14 isotope in all living things is at a constant. It is breathed into a creature throughout their life, and at death it stops being breathed in. The C14 isotope decays at a steady rate, and they can use the rate of decay to judge how old the creature is.

Yes, I know this. I ask again: have you not perhaps heard of callibration?

But their original radio carbon dates, when tested with earlier historical data, have not shown to match up at all. They showed everything to be a good deal older. And when compared with tree rings, everything appeared to be older yet.

Dendrochronology is now a standard part of the callibration process. We now know that the radiocarbon dates need callibration - we didn't then. We also use deep sea cores as well.

Evolutionists would probably say that apes slowly evolved into man....

We did NOT come from apes. We share a common ancestor.

Radio carbon dating demonstrates dates of man preceeding Adam, and because it does discuss organic material, it is the dating method that I am picking on.

No. All radiocarbon dates show is that the earth is a lot older than 6000 years. Other dating methods, ie rubidium and uranium are the ones you should be picking on, since they demonstrate that "man" is a lot older than creationists' suppose. I'll bet you're only picking on carbon dating because that's the only one you know, and the only one mentioned on those creationist sites. I've seen where they dated a live worm trying to disparage carbon dating.

[Lizra]

LE, my remark to Ms Umd. was MY belief of what happens after you die. She asked, I answered!! The near death experience is simply the way a brain shuts down. (IMO) That's why so many people who have almost died (they weren't totally dead, or they wouldn't have been able to be revived, unless a miracle was involved) have similar experiences. The brain shuts down pretty much the same way for everyone.

[emplynx]

Originally posted by Lizra
Emphlyx...What is the theory of interchangable parts?

Some guy once decided that if the made the some parts on different products the same they could be interchanged and not hvae to be specially made for each product. (So every handle could work on any shovel blade.) That way was much more efficient.
I'm saying that us having 99% of the same DNA as monkeys makes since because we are so similar.
I don't think it says anything against Intelligent Design or Evolution.

Starr Polish and all others interested in Theistic Evolution please read this http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-111b.htm which I agree with 100%.

[Starr Polish]

Originally posted by Lizra
The near death experience is simply the way a brain shuts down. (IMO) That's why so many people who have almost died (they weren't totally dead, or they wouldn't have been able to be revived, unless a miracle was involved) have similar experiences. The brain shuts down pretty much the same way for everyone.

Yet, more and more scientists are leaning toward a possible "life after death", though it isn't necessarily religious. Not all people see the white tunnel...I think about half of those who have had NDEs have had visions of hell.

[afro-elf]

well, all that is proven by science is that your so called soul doesn't remain within your body

science doesn't support ANY belief in a soul.

You are your brain. Your emotions are in your frontal lobe.

Love is not sacred



Stage 1: LUST
Lust is driven by the sex hormones testosterone and oestrogen. Testosterone is not confined only to men. It has also been shown to play a major role in the sex drive of women.

Stage 2: ATTRACTION
This is the truly love-struck phase. When people fall in love they can think of nothing else. They might even lose their appetite and need less sleep, preferring to spend hours at a time daydreaming about their new lover.

In the attraction stage, a group of neuro-transmitters called 'monoamines' play an important role:

Dopamine - Also activated by cocaine and nicotine


Norepinephrine - Otherwise known as adrenalin. Starts us sweating and gets the heart racing


Serotonin - One of love's most important chemicals and one that may actually send us temporarily insane

Stage 3: ATTACHMENT
This is what takes over after the attraction stage, if a relationship is going to last. People couldn't possibly stay in the attraction stage forever, otherwise they'd never get any work done!

Attachment is a longer lasting commitment and is the bond that keeps couples together when they go on to have children. Important in this stage are two hormones released by the nervous system, which are thought to play a role in social attachments:

Oxytocin - This is released by the hypothalamus gland during child birth and also helps the breast express milk. It helps cement the strong bond between mother and child. It is also released by both sexes during orgasm and it is thought that it promotes bonding when adults are intimate. The theory goes that the more sex a couple has, the deeper their bond becomes


Vasopressin - Another important chemical in the long-term commitment stage. It is an important controller of the kidney and its role in long-term relationships was discovered when scientists looked at the prairie vole

Your thoughts dreams hopes etc are part of your brain.
And its all chemistry and physics

No soul

[afro-elf]

Starr WHO are these scientist?

[Lief Erikson]

Afro elf, the soul is spiritual, and you cannot prove or disprove the existence of spiritual things with science. I disagree with you that you are your brain, and there's no way that science can show that my disagreement is wrongheaded and that there are no souls. You can say that all the emotions we feel and thoughts we think are chemical reactions, but regardless as to whether this is true or not, this doesn't destroy the idea of a soul.

Also about love. Simply because love is a chemical reaction doesn't mean that it isn't sacred. If God put chemicals in you purposely to react a certain way, and then he gives spiritual and moral reasons for you to use them only a certain way, you are obligated to obey those rules. Whether love is a chemical reaction or not. God does frequently create or do things in a natural way. In the Bible, he uses natural as well as miraculous ways to fulfill his perfect designs. Simply because there is a scientific explanation for something doesn't prove that God didn't make it.

BeardofPants, when you get into calibration, that really depends also on the reliability of the things they compare the dating to. I know they have done it with tree rings, but water density within the tree messed with their methods. Because of that, they started using the trees at really high altitudes because these were deemed to be more reliable, as the mountains are counted as extremely old, and the water couldn't reach them there. However, Christianity assumes a flood not thousands of years ago, and this flood would have affected these trees as well, making them impossible to use for dates. The archaelogical and historical dates I don't know as much about, so if you want to enlighten the thread, you can.

All of those different methods, uranium dating, etc. all use radio activity, assuming that this amount in the atmosphere remains at a constant. However, there are things that can affect this atmospheric amount, making it unstable and thus unreliable. If you want to describe to me more about uranium dating and those other methods, you can do that as well if you wish. They are outside of my main realm of knowledge, but I'd be happy to learn more.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I know they have done it with tree rings, but water density within the tree messed with their methods.

Fires pose a problem as well; not to mention that the oldest trees are only about 5000 years old. This is why we rely on other methods as well, such as studying the geomagnetic reversals on deep sea cores.

All of those different methods, uranium dating, etc. all use radio activity, assuming that this amount in the atmosphere remains at a constant. However, there are things that can affect this atmospheric amount, making it unstable and thus unreliable. If you want to describe to me more about uranium dating and those other methods, you can do that as well if you wish.

Again: deep sea cores can allow us to callibrate. Appropriate material from within a certain timeframe between strata, can be associated with the amount of uranium, etc, during a particular time period. Basically. Obviously, it is a lot more complicated than that.

[afro-elf]

Afro elf, the soul is spiritual, and you cannot prove or disprove the existence of spiritual things with science. I disagree with you that you are your brain, and there's no way that science can show that my disagreement is wrongheaded and that there are no souls. You can say that all the emotions we feel and thoughts we think are chemical reactions, but regardless as to whether this is true or not, this doesn't destroy the idea of a soul

The idea may exist true but the evidence for it is lacking.

Preternatural feelings can be produced in the lab. There is no need for superaltive agencies. If it can be expalined naturally.

"isn't it enough to see the garden is beautiful without having to add faeries?"

The point is that when there is nothing to support a preternatural claim believer retreat to the unassailable.

I will take reasonsable evidence over faith/hope any day


Also Leif thank you, for having the composuer to discuss without fighting.

[Lief Erikson]

Well Afro elf, I'm going to change my argument a bit. Let's go to the quantum level, shall we? Not everything is governed by mechanics when you go to the level of quantum mechanics. There, there is chance. Chance isn't part of the rule that things can happen only one way, and that chemical reactions are the brain. And when you get into probability mechanics and things at the quantum level, things are irrational and depend upon chance. There is no way of saying that that chance isn't design.

There is no way of disproving that the thought which the soul thinks causes the brain activity that is observed, and the chemical reactions that follow. The soul or spirit can have a will and have thoughts of its own, and when it thinks one of those thoughts, chemical reactions go on in your head and you think that thought. People can go brain dead and then their brain cannot function, making their soul not able to act through the body. But we believe that the reverse is also true, and that when the soul is captured or suppressed, the brain is no longer capable of acting as the soul guides. This we believe is demon possession. It acts rationally, but a different soul is speaking through it, and what is you no longer commands.

There isn't any proof for these things, or against them. There doesn't have to be any proof for them, because God intended that we rely upon faith. How can you have faith in something you can't see? All you can do is seek God and find out if he does exist. If you find that he does, because he reveals himself to you the way that he has to me, then you will have something to base your faith on. And it will become a daily walk with God, a life full of miracles and wonder as he teaches you new things.

Alas, BeardofPants, I have a lot less to say on the subject that we have gotten into on deep sea cores and uranium dating, for I know little about these things. Because of this, I don't feel myself as capable of entering into an argument/discussion with you. Although if you wish to PM me about these things, I can only repeat that I am (obviously) interested in these subjects, and would be happy to increase my knowledge.