Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180300 comments on the www.scientificblogging.com story from Feb 24, 2008, titled Should evolution be taught in high school?. In it, www.scientificblogging.com reports that:

Microbiologist Carl Woese is well known as an iconoclast. At 79 years of age, Woese is still shaking things up. Most recently, he stated in an interview with Wired that...

"My feeling is that evolution shouldn't be taught at the lower grades. You don't teach quantum mechanics in the grade schools. One has to be quite educated to work with these concepts; what they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teachers don't understand."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

Russell

Canberra, Australia

#126323 Apr 3, 2013
Do read the refutation by John Woodmorappe to your quoted site at your leisure here-->

http://creation.com/does-geologic-column-exis...

I had provided it previously, but you blithely ignored it, due to your strong bias against anything that has creation.com in the url

For goodness sake

Get over it!

----------
Now, I must mention the nasty circular reasoning issue of dating rocks using index fossils and dating fossils with alleged ages of the rocks

Altho' the fossils always seem to win

Except when they are inconvenient as mentioned by John Woodmorappe in the link provided above, and then they are referred to as long ranging fossils

Also see
http://creation.com/fossils-wrong-place

-----
From Science News, October 17, 1998, page 255--->

"Scientists had formerly dated both the limestone and sandstone to be about 1.1 billion years old, but the shells in the limestone indicate that layer is only about 540 million years old. "

As soon as fossils were discovered, the 1.1 billion-year old age had to be discarded. Fossils have the final word when it comes to dating rocks.

--------
So how does one date rocks?

You can't tell the age of a rock from the thickness of the sediment.

The geology textbook used at Cerro Coso Community College explains why this doesn't work.

"If sediments accumulate continuously at a steady rate, if they compacted a constant amount as they lithified, and if they did not erode, then a stratigraphic sequence might also provide a measure of absolute time. If we knew that muddy sediments accumulated at a rate of 10 m per million years, for instance, then 100 m of mudstone would represent 10 million years of deposition.

"In practice, however, there are complications that make it impossible to gauge absolute time from stratigraphy with any accuracy. First, sediments do not accumulate at a constant rate in any sedimentary environment.

"During a flood, a river may deposit several meters of sand in its channel in just a few days, whereas in the years between floods it will deposit only a few centimeters of sand. Even in the deep ocean, where it may take 1000 years to deposit 1 mm of mud, sedimentation is unsteady, and the thickness of sediment cannot be used for precise timekeeping. In addition, the rate at which sediment is deposited varies widely in the different sedimentary environments.

"Second, the rock record does not tell us how many years have passed between periods of depositions. Many places the floor of a river valley receives sediment only during times of flood. The times between floods are not represented by any sediment. Over the course of Earth's history in various places, there have been long intervals, some lasting millions of years, in which no sediments were deposited at all. In other places and at other times, sedimentary rocks have been removed by erosion. Although we often can tell where a gap in the record occurs, we rarely can say how long an interval it represents."

---Press & Siever, Understanding Earth, 1994, page 190

----------

How about radiometric dating?

Dr. Andrew A. Snelling collected three rock samples (he called them A, B, and C) from the June 30, 1954 Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zeland, lava flow.

He broke two of these rocks in half, so he would have five samples to send to Geochron Laboratories, in Boston. He did not tell the laboratory where the samples came from. Here are the results:

Sample Age (million years) Uncertainty (million years)
A1 Very young
A2 1.3 +/- 0.3
B1 3.5 +/- 0.2
B2 0.8 +/- 0.2
C 1.2 +/- 0.2
----------

So, which lab are YOU going to trust with rocks of unknown age?
----------

How about C14?

----Cont-----
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#126324 Apr 3, 2013
---Cont----

In fact, Allosauraus/A-5810 from Liberty University (found at Grand Junction, Colorado) has been dated at 16,120 years Before Present (BP)± 220 years.

Camarasaurus/A-6339 and Camarasaurus/A-6340 from the Carnegie Museum (found in Johnson County, WY) have been dated at 11,750 ± 150 and 17,420 ± 330 years BP, respectively, using the carbon 14 beta-counter method.

Bone scrapings from Accrocanthosaurus AA-5786 (from Glen Rose, TX) yielded measurements of 23,760 ± 270 years BP using the AMS method.

---- Garbe, et al. "Direct Dating of Cretaceous-Jurassic Fossils", 1992, page 8

----------
Naturally I do not believe these "dates" either

I believe that fossils were laid down in the Great Flood of Noah around 4,500 years ago

The Noachian Flood nicely explains the ipistotonus position that many fossils are found in, eg Archeopteryx---> rapid burial causing asphyxiation
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#126325 Apr 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
I wonder what "inconvenient" questions rusty is talking about?
I know I have answered some of them several times. For example the fool can't seem to understand that when if beds are laid down at sea level and then eroded while at sea level that the nonconformity will be flat. This is such basic geology it is almost like 2+ 3 = 5 . Slightly harder than 2 + 2 = 4 but immeasurably so.
This was not what I was referring to

But never mind

Your explanation is entirely unsatisfactory and I am not at all convinced
-------
Kindly explain this using evo-tardism, if you can--->

http://creation.com/images/journal_of_creatio...

Figure 9. View of the Morcles Nappe in the valley of the Rhone in Switzerland. The 45 Ma gap (probably more) is at the bottom of the slightly darker layer you can follow across the figure from the tip of the arrow. Here much of the Upper Cretaceous and Paleocene are missing. Due to the recumbent folding of the Morcles Nappe, the layers at this locality are in reverse order but the contact is still flat.

So

Did those layers form at sea level too?
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#126326 Apr 3, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have no argument?
You lie, you get caught lying and make yourself look even more foolish
It must be time for your mommy to tuck you in
Christine
In the 'looking foolish' stakes....I'm left in the dirt when compared to certain others........

Good night

Here's a nice article for you to mull over

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/feb/19...

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#126327 Apr 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
One site refutation of your refutation
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html
<quoted text>
No mate
You are quite wrong
I have the increasing doubt that you are a Christian at all, however, that's between you and God
Your theology is repugnant and erroneous
You simply do not believe the Bible
Please see
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/noother.html
"Harvard Law professor Simon Greenleaf, whose biography and credits are presented online here:
http://28.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GR/GREENLEAF... ,
.....is one of history’s greatest legal authorities. His principle work, the three-volume Treatise on the Law of Evidence, served as a resource for attorneys for years, even endorsed by Abraham Lincoln. The London Law Journal wrote of him in 1874,“It is no mean honor to America that her schools of jurisprudence have produced two of the finest writers and best esteemed legal authorities in this century—the great and good man, Judge Story, and his eminent and worthy associate Professor Greenleaf.
"Upon the existing law of evidence (by Greenleaf) more light has shown from the New World than from all the lawyers who adorn the courts of Europe.”
----------
Greenleaf fully supported the testament of the Gospel writers as being entirely acceptable by a jury
----------
"In examining the veracity of the Scriptures, Greenleaf applies the rules of legal evidence as administered in courts of justice."
From The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administrated in Courts of Justice, available online here:
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx... .
After applying the legal rules of evidence, Greenleaf concludes:
“The narratives of the evangelists are now submitted to the reader's perusal and examination, upon the principles and by the rules already stated. For this purpose, and for the sake of more ready and close comparison, they are arranged in juxtaposition, after the general order of the latest and most approved harmonies.
"The question is not upon the strict propriety of the arrangement, but upon the veracity of the witnesses and the credibility of their narratives.
"With the relative merits of modern harmonists, and with points of controversy among theologians the writer has no concern.
"His business is that of a lawyer examining the testimony of witnesses by the rules of his profession, in order to ascertain whether, if they had thus testified on oath, in a court of justice, they would be entitled to credit and whether their narratives, as we now have them, would be received as ancient documents, coming from the proper custody.
"If so, then it is believed that every honest and impartial man will act consistently with that result, by receiving their testimony in all the extent of its import.”
Simon Greenleaf? REALLY? We went over that long ago. Not going to waste time on it again. Go back and read for yourself. Or, why don't you ask yourself why lawyers aren't scientists? You can't define a thing into existence.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#126328 Apr 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
Do read the refutation by John Woodmorappe to your quoted site at your leisure here-->
http://creation.com/does-geologic-column-exis...
I had provided it previously, but you blithely ignored it, due to your strong bias against anything that has creation.com in the url
For goodness sake
Get over it!
----------
Now, I must mention the nasty circular reasoning issue of dating rocks using index fossils and dating fossils with alleged ages of the rocks
Altho' the fossils always seem to win
Except when they are inconvenient as mentioned by John Woodmorappe in the link provided above, and then they are referred to as long ranging fossils
Also see
http://creation.com/fossils-wrong-place
-----
From Science News, October 17, 1998, page 255--->
"Scientists had formerly dated both the limestone and sandstone to be about 1.1 billion years old, but the shells in the limestone indicate that layer is only about 540 million years old. "
As soon as fossils were discovered, the 1.1 billion-year old age had to be discarded. Fossils have the final word when it comes to dating rocks.
--------
So how does one date rocks?
You can't tell the age of a rock from the thickness of the sediment.
The geology textbook used at Cerro Coso Community College explains why this doesn't work.
"If sediments accumulate continuously at a steady rate, if they compacted a constant amount as they lithified, and if they did not erode, then a stratigraphic sequence might also provide a measure of absolute time. If we knew that muddy sediments accumulated at a rate of 10 m per million years, for instance, then 100 m of mudstone would represent 10 million years of deposition.
"In practice, however, there are complications that make it impossible to gauge absolute time from stratigraphy with any accuracy. First, sediments do not accumulate at a constant rate in any sedimentary environment.
"During a flood, a river may deposit several meters of sand in its channel in just a few days, whereas in the years between floods it will deposit only a few centimeters of sand. Even in the deep ocean, where it may take 1000 years to deposit 1 mm of mud, sedimentation is unsteady, and the thickness of sediment cannot be used for precise timekeeping. In addition, the rate at which sediment is deposited varies widely in the different sedimentary environments.
"Second, the rock record does not tell us how many years have passed between periods of depositions. Many places the floor of a river valley receives sediment only during times of flood. The times between floods are not represented by any sediment. Over the course of Earth's history in various places, there have been long intervals, some lasting millions of years, in which no sediments were deposited at all. In other places and at other times, sedimentary rocks have been removed by erosion. Although we often can tell where a gap in the record occurs, we rarely can say how long an interval it represents."
---Press & Siever, Understanding Earth, 1994, page 190
----------
How about radiometric dating?
Dr. Andrew A. Snelling collected three rock samples (he called them A, B, and C) from the June 30, 1954 Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zeland, lava flow.
He broke two of these rocks in half, so he would have five samples to send to Geochron Laboratories, in Boston. He did not tell the laboratory where the samples came from. Here are the results:
Sample Age (million years) Uncertainty (million years)
A1 Very young
A2 1.3 +/- 0.3
B1 3.5 +/- 0.2
B2 0.8 +/- 0.2
C 1.2 +/- 0.2
----------
So, which lab are YOU going to trust with rocks of unknown age?
----------
How about C14?
----Cont-----
Creation.com admits that they only consider it "science" if it agrees with the Bible and their interpretation of it. That is not science, that is pure bias, and thus will be dismissed whenever it's cited. You need to cite SCIENTIFIC sources to be taken seriously in scientific matters.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#126329 Apr 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't waste oxygen here, MikeF
Either put some muscle into this forum or stay wherever else you are more welcome
Stuff it, Rusty. I say whatever I damn well please whenever I damn well please. And I don't give two shits about what you welcome or not.

BTW, my answer was correct. Too bad you couldn't address that, bozo.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126330 Apr 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
This was not what I was referring to
But never mind
Your explanation is entirely unsatisfactory and I am not at all convinced
That is because you are an idiot. Even Nicholas Steno, one of the earliest of geologists, so early that they had not debunked the Noah's Ark myth yet would have laughed at you. He was the one who realized the first three laws of stratigraphy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Steno
-------
Kindly explain this using evo-tardism, if you can--->
http://creation.com/images/journal_of_creatio...
Figure 9. View of the Morcles Nappe in the valley of the Rhone in Switzerland. The 45 Ma gap (probably more) is at the bottom of the slightly darker layer you can follow across the figure from the tip of the arrow. Here much of the Upper Cretaceous and Paleocene are missing. Due to the recumbent folding of the Morcles Nappe, the layers at this locality are in reverse order but the contact is still flat.
So
Did those layers form at sea level too?
I will have to take a look at it. The immediate answer is that you are obviously wrong since you could find no peer review to support this claim and had to refer to a source known for lying.

Rusty, why do you use a source that is know for lying all of the time? Is it because you have nothing else? Wikipedia is a nice general source. But if someone gets demanding I can use Wiki as a starting point and follow their links ultimately to real peer reviewed articles. You cannot do the same with creatard.com .

Why is that?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126331 Apr 3, 2013
What a laugh, I did not click on rusty's evidence until after my above post. He believes creatard.com when it tells him that the site is flat.

Hey rusty, do you even know what recumbent folds are?

Probably not, what a waste of humanity he is.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126332 Apr 3, 2013
rusty, I went back to page 6139 and found no "inconvenient" questions.

All I could see was typical idiocy by you.

Perhaps if you would care to ask it clearly and concisely again, I am sure that I could answer it for you.

When you go full out cratard I tend to ignore you.

For example long quotes from lying sources only make you look even more like a fool than normal.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126333 Apr 3, 2013
I was looking for some information on the Moracles Nappe region when I saw this suspicious looking article in my Google search:

http://creation.com/flat-gaps

It is his source of extremely poor geology.

Since he believes these retards he believes their claim of what an unconformity "should" look like:

http://creation.com/images/journal_of_creatio...

Does anyone see what is wrong with that image if the erosive surface was at sea level?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126334 Apr 3, 2013
And having looked at the Moracles Nappe lightly I would say that the disconformity that rusty is asking about probably did form at sea level. If he had given the names of the formations in question it would have been easier to answer him.

In orogeny some very amazing folding can take place, as you can see in this image of the Nappe:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--MlctDi6qUw/UFBE-Gw...

Back to poor rusty. If you look at the hilarious sketch of "expected erosion" from his creatard article and the poor boys inability to tell truth from lies all I can do is to shake my head in awe. Creatards seem to think that mountainous areas were always mountainous even when the sediments that make them up obviously came from slow and steady deposition in a shallow sea.

rusty, the stupid, it does truly burn.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#126335 Apr 3, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Stuff it, Rusty. I say whatever I damn well please whenever I damn well please. And I don't give two shits about what you welcome or not.
BTW, my answer was correct. Too bad you couldn't address that, bozo.
Mike, despite the fact that you have repeatedly affirmed to take the golden rule as your guide, you have repeatedly demonstrated to be a garden-variety spineless atheist, totally devoid of compassion and moral certitude.

“Be strong ...”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#126336 Apr 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Christine
In the 'looking foolish' stakes....I'm left in the dirt when compared to certain others........
Good night
Here's a nice article for you to mull over
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/feb/19...
Yet you still have no argument and no excuse for your lies. What more can I say?

Re:. your link

So it seems that one guy cheated and was caught by scientific endeavour way back in 2005, now his career is ended. It has happened before and I’m sure it will happen again, science usually weeds out false evidence. However the article itself is way out of date in that it is refuting more modern DNA evidence?

Do you have an explanation for that? or are you simply ignoring facts in order to dream up a cheap shot (and failing)?

Here’s an article form 2010
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,859...

and one for 2013
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/march/14-int...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#126337 Apr 3, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike, despite the fact that you have repeatedly affirmed to take the golden rule as your guide, you have repeatedly demonstrated to be a garden-variety spineless atheist, totally devoid of compassion and moral certitude.
Nobody likes a crybaby, HTS. I suggest you stop your whining.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126338 Apr 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you read the paper about this?
An intelligently designed enzyme designed from existing 'substrate' forced to replicate a RNA strand under perfect conditions
This is supposed to convince me that RNA miraculously formed in a Hadrean ocean, with macromolecular crowding, that somehow over millions of years, turned into a living cell
Can it be that millions are duped by this stupidity?
Is is true that anti-creationists have so little in their "arsenal" that they resort to such scraping of the bottom of the proverbial barrel?
No. Its supposed to show you how RNA can act as both store and transmitter of information - that in a pre-DNA world RNA can inch hit for both DNA and enzymatic proteins. Its looking at a potential stepping stone for abiogenesis - NOT evolution, by the way.

Creating it in a lab is of course an artificial process, but if a similar struture can develop through natural means - and entirely different set of experiments to test, simulating natural conditions, then it is possible that an RNA with the right properties developed spontaneously. Of course, until we understand more about both aspect of this, we cannot estimate its possibility.

But I will remind you for the 100th time that evolution is valid even if God poofed the first germ into existence.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126339 Apr 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
Arguing that America, Canada, the UK, Australia, NZ and most of Europe are not Christian in origins is the most ridiculous statement
And that is not what I was arguing.

I was arguing that the Framers, yes, with a Judeo Christian and Graeco-Roman cultural legacy, used rational philosophies that also originated in the West and these philosophies ignored all of your literal religiosity and based themselves on rational empiricism and natural law IN CONTRAST to religious law.

Thus the social contract of Hobbes, etc, were the moral and intellectual foundation of the constitution. You can NOT claim the Christian stream of thought was pre-eminent in all this, its absurd. After all, pre-eminently Christian thinking gave us a Millenium of intellectual stagnation, only broken by the rediscovery of the ancients.

You should try READING some Hobbes, Hume, and Locke some time. You might be shocked.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126340 Apr 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
If a nested hierarchy is busted....as yours have been several times over...how is it that evolution continues to stand?
mmm, head / desk.

The nested hierarchy was not busted. As explained. Twice. At some length. But I might as well not bother, because you lack either the capacity or the honesty to follow the discussion past the first shit lob you throw from some creotard garbage source.

Similarly, the geologic column was not busted by your trite and shallow creotard references, and its great age stands for anyone honest enough to look at the evidence,

One page creotard rebuttals based on a simplistic point long ago thrown in the dustbin by real scientists may satisfy you because you are just too damned eager to find the easy way out.

If you want to DISCUSS the validity or otherwise of the nested hierarchy in proteins, you have to address the points I made in response to your original post. But you simply cannot - that is obvious by now.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#126341 Apr 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't need brains to debate here with you....
With no brains, and one hand tied behind my back....I still win
Its a ...as they say....a 'no brainer'
Yep! Religion is for those who don't use their brains. Agreed!!!

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#126342 Apr 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Truncated for space and for my sanity
You are obviously not familiar with your own history
Even though Christianity is not mentioned in the Constitution or Bill or Rights, the Founders of the American republic were influenced by Christian ideas in significant ways. For example:
Their faith taught them that humans were sinful. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51,“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external or internal controls on government would be necessary.” This conviction led them to avoid utopian experiments such as those later pursued during the French Revolution and to adopt a constitutional system characterized by separated powers, checks and balances, and federalism. Many Enlightenment thinkers in this era, by way of contrast, tended to favor a strong, centralized government run by experts.[24]
They firmly believed that God ordained moral standards, that legislation should be made in accordance with these standards, and that moral laws took precedence over human laws. This conviction manifests itself in their abstract reflections (e.g., James Wilson’s law lectures, parts of which read like St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica) and practical decisions (e.g., all but one Supreme Court Justice prior to John Marshall argued publicly that the Court could strike down an act of Congress if it violated natural law).[25]
Similarly, Christianity informed the Founders’ understanding of substantive concepts such as “liberty.” Barry Shain has identified eight different ways in which the word was used in the 18th century. Only one of these is related to the excessively individualistic way the term is often used today. Instead, the Founders were far more likely to see liberty as the freedom to do what is morally correct, as illustrated by United States Supreme Court Justice James Wilson’s marvelous dictum:“Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness.”[26]
America’s Founders believed that humans were created in the imago dei—the image of God. Part of what this means is that humans are reasonable beings. This led them to conclude that we the people (as opposed to the elite) can order our public lives together through politics rather than force. It also helped inform early (and later) American opposition to slavery.[27]
Faith led many Founders to conclude that religious liberty should be extensively protected. Yet many also thought that civic authorities should encourage Christianity and that it is appropriate to use religious language in the public square. By the late 18th century, some Founders were beginning to question the wisdom of religious establishments, primarily because they thought that such establishments hurt true religion. The Founders’ views on these questions have the most immediate and obvious policy and legal implications, so I will address them in some detail.
----------
The rest of this illuminating article can be read here:
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2011...
I provided statements directly recorded by our country's founders, you provide an article of interpretation, conjecture and supposition .... sorry, my evidence is more directly linked to the topic at hand.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Into The Night 94,311
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr Samuel Patre 168,768
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 7 hr nanoanomaly 5,973
Why the Big Bang is ALL WRONG. 10 hr 15th Dalai Lama 303
Altruistic Behaviour negates the theory of Evol... 15 hr Rose_NoHo 14
Evolution is an ANCIENT RELIGION 19 hr Davidjayjordan 4
Evolution is boring as Hell (Nov '17) 20 hr Davidjayjordan 49