Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179707 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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#165835 Feb 12, 2014
HTS wrote:
Furthermore, it is acknowledged by all radiometric dating labs that samples of less than two million years old cannot be accurately dated.
That is again simply false. The time periods for accurate dating depend on the methods used. Fission tracking dating can be used for less than 100 years and up to hundreds of millions.
In other words, if a sample IS 6,000 years old, no dating of rocks can disprove it. A falsely ancient date will always be produced.
Again false. That depends on the method used. Some methods are reliable in that time frame, others are not.
Thus, radiometric dating of rocks relies on the ASSUMPTION of a millions-of-years-old earth.
False. It is a *conclusion* based on the observations of how isotopes decay. No assumption that the samples are old is required. Using the correct technique is.
HtS

International Falls, MN

#165836 Feb 12, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why you date the strata above and below. The time when the mud was laid down does have direct information about when the animal died.
Mud that is laid down has pre-existing rocks in it. Dating the rocks has no bearing on when the animal died.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#165837 Feb 12, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Such fossils are not dated by C14 dating. They are dated by a variety of other methods, including other radiometric dating techniques.
You do know there are many other radioactive dating methods other than C14, right? Uranium series, potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium. Those all have half-lives that are much longer than for C14 and so allow longer time periods to be dated.
The thing is chief, some of us think the soft dino tissue is much younger than that. And now that we see discoveries of stinking, soft, rotting dino bone, tissues, collagen, etc. We were hoping that science would test it by a method that made sense and was designed testing such samples, for about 4 - 50 thousand years range, i.e., something that the radiocarbon dating method would be just dandy for.(And they did, and it was.) Any kid playing on the street could have told them it's not much older than that.
HtS

International Falls, MN

#165838 Feb 12, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is again simply false. The time periods for accurate dating depend on the methods used. Fission tracking dating can be used for less than 100 years and up to hundreds of millions.
<quoted text>
Again false. That depends on the method used. Some methods are reliable in that time frame, others are not.
<quoted text>
False. It is a *conclusion* based on the observations of how isotopes decay. No assumption that the samples are old is required. Using the correct technique is.
radiometric dating labs publish disclaimers that their methodologies cannot accurately date anything less than 2 million years old. Do you know of any radiometric dating method that can accurately date the 1981 Mt St. Helens eruption?
HtS

International Falls, MN

#165839 Feb 12, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. The *background* level of C14 will be detectable in the sample. That is equivalent to a null result, but would send the creationists into fits of ecstasy.
<quoted text>
Use radiometric dates with uranium series or potassium-argon. Or, for a method that is even self-correcting (because it detects contamination), use rubidium-strontium.
Why is it that creationists are so focused on C14 when it is the least relevant for purposes of dating evolution.
By "no C-14", I assume that background radioactivity has been subtracted.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#165840 Feb 12, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The dating of fossils and rocks are based on the circular logic of what the ToE currently predicts how old each of the fossils should be to fit the theory. Both the fossils and the dating methods are plastic enough to arrange and adjust to the current standard geological column.
Simply false.
When a fossil is found, it is check against the standard theoretical geological column and given a date. That makes the rock the same date as the fossil. And as predicted (sarcasm), it fits nicely within the standard geological column.
Your misunderstanding of the technique doesn't show the technique is wrong.
The strata were ordered by age long before radioactive dates were determined. The relative ages (which is older and which is younger) can be determined by simply looking at the arrangement of the strata. After radioactivity was discovered, it was used to date the strata. Now, when a bone is found in a stratum, we can date it because we know from previous work how old the stratum is. That does not enter into the determination of a radioactive age for *new* strata.
This can also be tested using "multiple lines of evidence", i.e., radioisotope dating with the right assumptions. So you wind up with all this converging evidence that makes it look good. The fossil gets named as a new species with a very impressive name, and on it goes. But every time, if you trace it back to the beginning, it starts out with the theory - not the other way around like it is supposed to be with science. This isn't science. This is just huge house of cards.
And you are wrong. If you trace back the dates, you will find the relative ages were determined long before the absolute ages in many cases. Then, the absolute ages were determined by radioactive dating techniques (which are not dependent on the previous stratigraphic results). Finally, the now known dates for the strata are used to determine the ages of new fossils in such strata.
It started out with Darwin's theory and his tree of life. Cells to fish to amphibians to birds and mammals, etc. Everything carefully placed in order on the tree and dated. Then when you begin to find new organisms you put in order that looks good for the theory, and it gets a date and that also gives the date of the rocks they are found in. It's total circular logic and does not represent the scientific method at all. Evolution works in the exact reverse order of the scientific methods because it begins with the theory and then tries to find evidence to support it. The evidence only supports it to the extent that is was confirmed as a result of the theory.
Historically false and scientifically wrong.
Here is the real scientific method:
Observation --> Hypothesis --> Experiment (Be able to reproduce the experiment or revise the hypothesis)--> Conclusion (hypothesis is either supported by the evidence or is inconsistent with hypothesis and hypothesis requires revision)--> If hypothesis is supported by the evidence then Scientific Theory is established --> further experimentation/refinement
Here is the method that the ToE uses:
Theory assumed correct --> Conclusion supports theory --> Evidence supports conclusion --> Conclusion supports evidence
False. The initial observations were of the arrangement of the strata. The initial assumptions were that these arrangements tell something about the ages of those strata. This was tested by radiometric dating and the conclusion was supported. Before this was the observation that species change over geological time based on the previous observations. This lead to Darwin's hypothesis about *how* species change over time. This was supported by further observation of species in the fossil record not previously known that fit into the overall picture of how living things change over time. Look into the history of the subject; you have it wrong.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#165841 Feb 12, 2014
HtS wrote:
<quoted text>
What gives you the prerogative to determine what is "predicted" by creative design?
All you have is your philosophical opinions.

Good point. Prediction is an outcome of a good theory. And creotardism ain't no science.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#165842 Feb 12, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Instead of your incessant evo-babbling, how about actually citing a scientific paper that proves that radiometric dating of strata is reproducible. I'm not talking about sending one sample to three different labs. I'm talking about radiometrically dating the strata of multiple T rex skeletons found at different sites and demonstrating that all results are the same.
Why would you expect them to be the same? Not all T Rex lived at the same time. The species lived over a period of a couple of million years at the end of the Cretaceous.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#165843 Feb 12, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Where does the wind come from?
Wind comes from temperature differentials within the atmosphere.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#165844 Feb 12, 2014
HtS wrote:
<quoted text>
By "no C-14", I assume that background radioactivity has been subtracted.

But there are creotards that are even more ignorant than yourself.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#165845 Feb 12, 2014
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone else see where HTS has shot himself in the foot ?

Sort of jumps right off the page at you. HTS has more holes in his feet than a sponge.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#165846 Feb 12, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't test a sample then you don't know if it has background level C-14 in it or what that level is, do you?

If you do test for c-14 you have run a destructive test of valuable material for no good reason.

Since you hate science you probably would love that.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#165847 Feb 12, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no clue what my religious beliefs are.

You deny being a fundy nutcase?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#165848 Feb 12, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How laughable it is to listen to an atheist speak of "lies" in view of the fact that you have no foundation for morality.

What the frig? I will take an atheist over a fundy for morality any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#165849 Feb 12, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Since a different material is measured with each method, why should it be a concern that different age results are obtained? One is taken as the age of material(s) nearby the dinosaur bone, and the other is taken as the age of the bone itself. Is that a problem for you?

The problem is that there is no problem. The same age is found with different applicable methods.

Why not just try to sequence the rock in a DNA sequencer? Because THAT would be stupid.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#165850 Feb 12, 2014
HtS wrote:
<quoted text>radiometric dating labs publish disclaimers that their methodologies cannot accurately date anything less than 2 million years old. Do you know of any radiometric dating method that can accurately date the 1981 Mt St. Helens eruption?
None that I know of. the most likely would be uranium tracking, but I don't know if the composition is such to allow that. But saying that an age of 30 years cannot be accurately determined is a LONG way from saying an age of 2 million cannot. And there are several techniques that do give accurate ages for that time period. Not all do, but some do.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#165851 Feb 12, 2014
One way or another wrote:
I wish to challenge Newton and Einstein.

at what? checkers? Einstein would clobber you.

Demonology? Newton would clobber you.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#165852 Feb 12, 2014
HtS wrote:
<quoted text>
By "no C-14", I assume that background radioactivity has been subtracted.
OK. So any 'raw' date older than 50,000 years will be considered to be unreliable because of background? Agreed?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#165853 Feb 12, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Where does the wind come from?

Pressure systems created by the Sun (mostly) heating large air masses.

Why do you ask?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#165854 Feb 12, 2014
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
So tell me, what makes your opinion and analysis weigh more scientifically speaking than the contributors to some 200,000 scientific papers that (in your own words) support evolution.
These contributors having spent a large part of their academic career studying the underlying fields such as genetics, biology, physics , geology and so forth?
Are they all part of some atheist conspiracy
Are they all deluded?
Are they all blinkered to the rock-solid evidence contradicting evolution that only you can see?
Can you see the result of direct measurement on dinosaur bone? Why not keep this very scientific and work with the data we have while seeking to obtain more? Why should we withdraw to our respective religious corners and declare data which appears unfavorable to our religion erroneous? What is the concern with a dinosaur being encased in material much older than it is?

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) 17 min Richardfs 48,556
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr Snap 216,714
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 8 hr Timmee 9
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 hr Into The Night 23,503
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 14 hr scientia potentia... 154,689
Science News (Sep '13) 14 hr _Susan_ 3,985
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... Sun The Northener 642
More from around the web