Jump to content


Photo

Evolution In The Schools!


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#41 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 October 2005 - 01:28 PM

If evolution were true, one would expect thousands of transitional forms in the fossil record. They should be everywhere.


No you would not:
a. fossilisation is a relatively rare event.
b. how could you tell if a given fossil was transitional?
c. by definition all evolving life is transitional, no individual is the same as another, and the bigger the distance in time the greater the difference (generalising of course).


Evolutionists for decades have scoured the fossil record looking for them, and they are not found. When one or two questionable examples such as archaeopteryx come along, they fixate on them and think they've proven something.


They prove that evolution works as expected, archaeopteryx has the features of a reptile and a bird, palaeontologist should be rightly excited (a couple of more ‘primitive’ than archaeopteryx bird/reptile fossils have been found in China by the way).


Then there are examples like the coelocanth which, for years, was believed to be transitional between an amphibian and a fish. When one was finally discovered in the deep ocean in the 1930's, evolutionists were disappointed to learn that in reality it wasn't a "link", but another peripheral branch in the "evolutionary tree". Thus, one must be cautious in interpreting the fossil record.


The coelacanth represents what one would think a fish to amphibian should look like, nothing more, one would expect to have lobe like limbs. Current finds have found a better link, can’t remember the name but it looks more like a salamander. Disappointment comes with the job, just means you have to do more looking.


Even if there were a few "transitional" species in the fossil record, evolutionary theory would require thousands of them. If you look at the number of animals that have been discovered in the fossil record (I believe it's something like 20% of all living species today), and factor in the supposed millions of years of time that these fossils span, there's no way to rationally explain why there isn't a smooth continuum between the species.


From memory I think I have seen a quote that over 90% of all living things (species) have gone extinct. One should not forget that this does not mean that the linage is broken. The evolutionary tree is a very fuzzy and branches often, and has more dead ends than running, at any given point in history there is a linage to the common ancestor.


Can you imagine how many species would be required to span the gap between reptiles and birds? Simply stating that the fossil record is incomplete is a rationalization of hostile evidence.


I would imagine there would be quite a few spaced over some several million years.
Time to get specific, what hostile evidence are you referring to?


Given the number of fossils available for study, the transition of species should be obvious to even the skeptic.
Evolutionists need to face the fact that the enormous gaps in the fossil record are a serious problem.


The lack of fossils is not a problem at all, it’s perfectly consistent with the known processes of fossilisation. If you are preposing that there should be more fossils than currently found, please explain why you think that it should be so?

By the way marine fossilisation is not so sparse by comparison to dry land.



Were they not a problem, then why have Gould and his colleagues proposed the "punctuated equilibrium" theory? Obviously, because they admit that the fossil record does not support gradual transition of species over long periods of time.


Punctuated equilibrium can be explained by the boom and bust nature of life in general. Plus a branch in the linage obviously starts with a small number of animals (one to start with). With a small population is it any wonder that the starting point of a species can be obscured.

One of the hallmarks of a flawed hypothesis is failure to predict future discoveries. Darwin and colleagues predicted in 1859 that the fossil record would verify the existence of innumerable transitional forms. Darwin realized that his theory was untenable if these species were not found.
In recent years, many evolutionists have become deluded into thinking that the fossil record actually shows a gradual continuum between species. All I can say is that is their opinion and that their perspective is in error. That's not how I see it at all.


And not long after his death archaeopteryx was found! Darwin may have been overly optimistic that in it’s self does not discredit the theory.

Ok My turn.

The fossil record shows a very strong evidence of evolution in the form of what you find in what layers, i.e. life becomes more complex as you get to younger layers. No you have attempted to show that there are gaps in the record, but you can only do this by zeroing in on any given species, when one looks at the big picture a very strong pattern emerges.

E.g (please excuse formatting)


Millions of years ago Mya Time period What happened

10,000ya Holocene epoch Modern civilisation
1.8 Mya Quaternary Pleistocene epoch Ice age, development of modern humans
5 Pliocene epoch First upright ape
23 Miocene epoch First ape
36 Oligocene epoch Grasslands spread, many grazing animals
57 Eocene epoch First horse, first whales
65 Paleocene epoch Giant land birds
65 Tertiary Rise of the mammals Dinosaurs go extinct as 65mya
136 Cretaceous First flowering plants.
190 Jurassic Dinosaurs dominate, first birds.
225 Triassic First dinosaurs, first mammals, Mammal like reptiles extinct
280 Permian Mammal like reptiles dominate. Major extinction of marine creatures
345 Carboniferous Great forests, amphibians, first reptiles
395 Devonian First bony fish, vertebrates on land
430 Silurian First fish with jaws, first land animals (invertebrates)
500 Ordovician First jawless fish, first land based plants
570 Cambrian First molluscs and chordates
600 Pre-Cambrian Oldest fossil animal and plants
3500 Pre-Cambrian Oldest known single cell organisms
4500 Pre-Cambrian Formation of Earth

This picture is consistent with The ToE, it’s predictive qualities are such that one can confidently state that you will never find an out of place fossil! That is a lot of rock and potentially billions of fossils to falsify evolution with. Find a dinosaur in the Devonian or any relatively complex life (vertebrate) in the pre- Cambrian (3500+) or human in just about anything from 5 or deeper.

#42 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 13 October 2005 - 06:07 PM

E.g (please excuse formatting)
Millions of years ago Mya Time period What happened

10,000ya Holocene epoch Modern civilisation
1.8 Mya Quaternary Pleistocene epoch Ice age, development of modern humans
5 Pliocene epoch First upright ape
23 Miocene epoch First ape
36 Oligocene epoch Grasslands spread, many grazing animals
57 Eocene epoch First horse, first whales
65 Paleocene epoch Giant land birds
65 Tertiary Rise of the mammals Dinosaurs go extinct as 65mya
136 Cretaceous First flowering plants.
190 Jurassic Dinosaurs dominate, first birds.
225 Triassic First dinosaurs, first mammals, Mammal like reptiles extinct
280 Permian Mammal like reptiles dominate. Major extinction of marine creatures
345 Carboniferous Great forests, amphibians, first reptiles
395 Devonian First bony fish, vertebrates on land
430 Silurian First fish with jaws, first land animals (invertebrates)
500 Ordovician First jawless fish, first land based plants
570 Cambrian First molluscs and chordates
600 Pre-Cambrian Oldest fossil animal and plants
3500 Pre-Cambrian Oldest known single cell organisms
4500 Pre-Cambrian Formation of Earth

This picture is consistent with The ToE, it’s predictive qualities are such that one can confidently state that you will never find an out of place fossil!  That is a lot of rock and potentially billions of fossils to falsify evolution with.  Find a dinosaur in the Devonian or any relatively complex life (vertebrate) in the pre- Cambrian (3500+) or human in just about anything from 5 or deeper.

View Post

None of what is outlined above is proven true. The entire sequence was devised with the preconceived notion that evolution is a fact of nature. In the first place, there is no proof that the earth is millions of years old... it is an assumption.
I don't expect there to be any more fossils than there already are. But given the very large number of them over(supposedly) "millions of years" one would expect unequivocal transitional forms. Every "transitional" form elucidated is subject to dabate. There are no unequivocal examples. The main problem with archaeopteryx is that it had fully developed flight feathers, no different than a modern bird. The problem is, evolutionists say there are numerous transitional forms, and creationists deny this. The interpretation is subjective.
Your statement that you will never found an out of place fossil is not true. There are many inconsistencies in the so-called "geologic column". You speak of the geologic time periods as some sort of axiom, when in fact it is only an unsubstantiated theory derived to support and justify ToE.

#43 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 October 2005 - 07:32 PM

None of what is outlined above is proven true. The entire sequence was devised with the preconceived notion that evolution is a fact of nature. In the first place, there is no proof that the earth is millions of years old... it is an assumption.


We can debate the millions of years old aspect later on, but you can’t deny the sequence. Stick a shovel in the ground and you will find that sequence, globally, without exception, ever! Proven true 100%.

I don't expect there to be any more fossils than there already are. But given the very large number of them over(supposedly) "millions of years" one would expect unequivocal transitional forms. Every "transitional" form elucidated is subject to dabate. There are no unequivocal examples. The main problem with archaeopteryx is that it had fully developed flight feathers, no different than a modern bird. The problem is, evolutionists say there are numerous transitional forms, and creationists deny this. The interpretation is subjective.

As we are currently discussion this exact argument in another topic lets not get side tracked, needles to say transitional fossils (or the lack of them) in no way hurts the ToE.


Your statement that you will never found an out of place fossil is not true. There are many inconsistencies in the so-called "geologic column". You speak of the geologic time periods as some sort of axiom, when in fact it is only an unsubstantiated theory derived to support and justify ToE.

:o

I challenge you to prove what you have said, re truth of “out of place” and “inconsistencies”. Like I said before it’s when we get to specifics in the evolutionary debate that YEC or ID falter. So here is your opportunity, lets see what this evidence is.

P.S. The knowledge of the geological column predates evolutionary theory.

#44 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 14 October 2005 - 09:50 AM

We can debate the millions of years old aspect later on, but you can’t deny the sequence.  Stick a shovel in the ground and you will find that sequence, globally, without exception, ever! 


There are many geologists who adamantly dispute the entire concept of the geologic column. Other say it exists, but indicate that there are many inconsistencies. Evolutionists zealously promote the geologic column paradigm because it fits into their theory, not on objective evidence.

Proven true 100%.


I rest my case.

#45 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 October 2005 - 05:55 PM

Millions of years ago Mya Time period What happened

10,000ya Holocene epoch Modern civilisation
1.8 Mya Quaternary Pleistocene epoch Ice age, development of modern humans
5 Pliocene epoch First upright ape
23 Miocene epoch First ape
36 Oligocene epoch Grasslands spread, many grazing animals
57 Eocene epoch First horse, first whales
65 Paleocene epoch Giant land birds
65 Tertiary Rise of the mammals Dinosaurs go extinct as 65mya
136 Cretaceous First flowering plants.
190 Jurassic Dinosaurs dominate, first birds.
225 Triassic First dinosaurs, first mammals, Mammal like reptiles extinct
280 Permian Mammal like reptiles dominate. Major extinction of marine creatures
345 Carboniferous Great forests, amphibians, first reptiles
395 Devonian First bony fish, vertebrates on land
430 Silurian First fish with jaws, first land animals (invertebrates)
500 Ordovician First jawless fish, first land based plants
570 Cambrian First molluscs and chordates
600 Pre-Cambrian Oldest fossil animal and plants
3500 Pre-Cambrian Oldest known single cell organisms
4500 Pre-Cambrian Formation of Earth

This picture is consistent with The ToE, it’s predictive qualities are such that one can confidently state that you will never find an out of place fossil!  That is a lot of rock and potentially billions of fossils to falsify evolution with.  Find a dinosaur in the Devonian or any relatively complex life (vertebrate) in the pre- Cambrian (3500+) or human in just about anything from 5 or deeper.

View Post


Chance,
Just wanted to say how impressed I am at your patience and all the efforts you have made here to explain basic science and the reasons why scientists believe what they do. You have done a great job covering Biology 100, Astronomy 100, Geology 100, Paleontology 100, and a number of advanced college courses.

I would enjoy hearing your feelings about the attitudes one encounters here towards science. I originally thought that the main reason for the differences in opinion was that people were simply unaware of the vast array of scientific facts supporting these theories. But I now think that is only small part of the issue. There is a deeper issue about the interest they have in learning what the facts are.

The fossil record, for example, is 100% reliable. Anyone that has doubts, can grab a rock hammer and check it out. Anyone can look up the age of the rocks in their local area and see if fossils match what is predicted by the geological collumn that you describe. The fossil record is very close to 100% reliable. And it is 100% reliable for the major transitions you describe above. All you need is to find one fossil out of place and you would be famous. If anyone had their doubts and did not believe the geology textbooks, they could look for themselves. He that has eyes .....

But can you convince someone of this, if they are not interested in learning what scientists have learned over the last 200 years? I am impressed at what you are trying to do here, but I haven't seen many that want to learn the knowledge you obviously have.

As far as our schools, I hope we will be allowed to continue to teach the most up to date scientific theories and be allowed to explain the findings that give rise to those theories. The ancient age of the earth was worked out mostly by Christian geologists two centuries ago. I find it sad to see so many trying to ignore the evidence to replace this with a 19th century interpretation of Genesis.

#46 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 October 2005 - 12:34 AM

Chance,
Just wanted to say how impressed I am at your patience and all the efforts you have made here to explain basic science and the reasons why scientists believe what they do. You have done a great job covering Biology 100, Astronomy 100, Geology 100, Paleontology 100, and a number of advanced college courses.

    I would enjoy hearing your feelings about the attitudes one encounters here towards science. I originally thought that the main reason for the differences in opinion was that people were simply unaware of the vast array of scientific facts supporting these theories. But I now think that is only small part of the issue. There is a deeper issue about the interest they have in learning what the facts are.

    The fossil record, for example, is 100% reliable. Anyone that has doubts, can grab a rock hammer and check it out. Anyone can look up the age of the rocks in their local area and see if fossils match what is predicted by the geological collumn that you describe. The fossil record is very close to 100% reliable. And it is 100% reliable for the major transitions you describe above. All you need is to find one fossil out of place and you would be famous. If anyone had their doubts and did not believe the geology textbooks, they could look for themselves. He that has eyes .....


Yes, Chance does a good job.

    But can you convince someone of this, if they are not interested in learning what scientists have learned over the last 200 years?  I am impressed at what you are trying to do here, but I haven't seen many that want to learn the knowledge you obviously have.

As far as our schools, I hope we will be allowed to continue to teach the most up to date scientific theories  and be allowed to explain the findings that give rise to those theories. The ancient age of the earth was worked out mostly by Christian geologists two centuries ago. I find it sad to see so many trying to ignore the evidence to replace this with a 19th century interpretation of Genesis.

View Post


We decide not to believe in science for the same reason you call Genesis a myth. And I think it sad that a Christian would have more faith in science than in the word of God. But unlike you, I believe everyone has a choice. You've made yours. I have made mine. Do you believe your choice should be the only one?

Or do you think that every Christian who ignores what you take dearly is stupid?

And if evolution is truth, and the 19th century interpretation of Genesis is a lie. Then everyone before Darwin went to hell. That's a lot of people to believe a lie about God and go to hell over it. Because if your saying it is a lie, you also condemn everyone who believed it, even before Darwin. Billions of people.

God is not mocked. So either the 19th century interpretation of Genesis mocks God (his own inspired word), or evoluotion does. So which is it?

#47 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 October 2005 - 01:54 PM

There are many geologists who adamantly dispute the entire concept of the geologic column. Other say it exists, but indicate that there are many inconsistencies. Evolutionists zealously promote the geologic column paradigm because it fits into their theory, not on objective evidence.


Care to discuss these claims, and the evidence?

#48 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 October 2005 - 02:13 PM

I would enjoy hearing your feelings about the attitudes one encounters here towards science. I originally thought that the main reason for the differences in opinion was that people were simply unaware of the vast array of scientific facts supporting these theories. But I now think that is only small part of the issue. There is a deeper issue about the interest they have in learning what the facts are.


re the attitude - Unfortunately the passions aroused IMO is somewhat orchestrated by the top leaders in the creationist movement. The rhetoric is not one of “lets discuss”, but one of “choose a side”, (this webs site is a welcome anomaly despite the numerous attempts to sabotage it). In any human endeavour the “choose a side” option usually leads to no good and is sad reflection on humanity, (the people who initiated the renaissance must be turning in their graves). Despite this, I remain an optimist, in that, rhetoric using tried and true methods of honest debate is the correct path for finding “the truth”.


But can you convince someone of this, if they are not interested in learning what scientists have learned over the last 200 years? I am impressed at what you are trying to do here, but I haven't seen many that want to learn the knowledge you obviously have.

As far as our schools, I hope we will be allowed to continue to teach the most up to date scientific theories and be allowed to explain the findings that give rise to those theories. The ancient age of the earth was worked out mostly by Christian geologists two centuries ago. I find it sad to see so many trying to ignore the evidence to replace this with a 19th century interpretation of Genesis.


IMO the convincing has long been established, that’s why evolution is in the schools.
The recent examples where ID is being pushed (Dover) is via a rather underhanded tactic, i.e. convincing those that supporting (even indirectly) evolution is wrong, and forcing people to chose a side based on nothing less than “if you are not with me, you are against me”.

#49 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 17 October 2005 - 05:52 PM

3500 Pre-Cambrian Oldest known single cell organisms


View Post


Chance, I can't let this one slip by... please provide the evidence of the above.

#50 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 October 2005 - 08:07 PM

Chance, I can't let this one slip by... please provide the evidence of the above.

View Post


Hmmm looks like if doubled up on the Precambrian, It’s been a while since I created that list so I thinks is will updated it to correctly include, the Protozoic, Archean, and Hadean eons.

Just seeing if you were paying attention. :D

#51 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 20 October 2005 - 11:21 AM

Chance, are you saying that there is some sort of actual evidence of the "oldest known single-celled organism?" If so, I'd like some specifics.

#52 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 20 October 2005 - 06:54 PM

Chance, are you saying that there is some sort of actual evidence of the "oldest known single-celled organism?" If so, I'd like some specifics.


Sure, take a look at this LINK(provided earlier) and click on “Archean” bar top of page, then “Stromatolite” on the left of page.

A window should open giving:
Specimen/Evidence: Stromatolite
Time Period: 4.0-2.5 bya
Age range: about 3.5 bya
Key Localities: North Pole, Australia

#53 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 October 2005 - 09:08 AM

We decide not to believe in science for the same reason you call Genesis a myth. And I think it sad that a Christian would have more faith in science than in the word of God. But unlike you, I believe everyone has a choice. You've made yours. I have made mine. Do you believe your choice should be the only one?

Or do you think that every Christian who ignores what you take dearly is stupid?

And if evolution is truth, and the 19th century interpretation of Genesis is a lie. Then everyone before Darwin went to hell. That's a lot of people to believe a lie about God and go to hell over it. Because if your saying it is a lie, you also condemn everyone who believed it, even before Darwin. Billions of people.

God is not mocked. So either the 19th century interpretation of Genesis mocks God (his own inspired word), or evoluotion does. So which is it?

View Post


There are many interpretations of Genesis. The Catholic Church, for example, accepts the standard scientific views of the age of the earth and largely accepts evolution, but allows God to alter the direction of evolution, create the first life (abiogenesis) and create the soul of man. Other Christians see the Big Bang as fitting with the Genesis story. Indeed, it was a Jesuit priest that first proposed the Big Bang.
http://www.catholice...nce/sc0022.html

So how does one decide between all these interpretations? Should you rely on your favorite preacher or group of preachers to provide their best guess? Are you all that confident in your own interpretation? Is your own interpretation infallible?

I was brought up in a Christian home that encouraged exploration. I was given telescopes, chemistry sets, books and there was never fear of what I might learn. I am now a scientist and everyday I see how biologists, physicists, paleontologists, etc theorize, argue and test the evidence. So I find it odd and rather sad to see many people here think that scientists are trying to push a "fairy tale".

People seem to be unaware of how hard it is to get a new theory accepted and just how much evidence is required. People here attack one line of evidence supporting a scientific theory, but seem quite unaware of the other 1000 lines of evidence that also support the theory. For example, our nearest galaxy, the Andromeda galaxy, is 2 million light years away. We know this from hundreds of different lines of evidence. The light we see from this galaxy left 2 million years ago. It is 100,000 light years to just the other side of our own Milky Way Galaxy. Does questioning the theories behind the red shift really make a difference? Not really (the Andromeda Galaxy, is actually moving closer to us). We also have hundreds of different techniques for dating geologic events and rocks. They really are in very good agreement.

A scientists career is made by upsetting some aspect of the current theory. We are always trying to "overturn the applecart". The current evidence points to 4.5 billion year old year but if you could demonstrate that the 40 or so different dating techniques all overestimated the date by say 10% to 20%, you would probably get the Nobel Prize. Scientists are constantly pouring over the current theories to find a weakness. Find any weakness in a widely accepted theory and you will acheive fame and glory in the academic community.

I find it very odd when I see someone claiming something with confidence - for example, that Carbon 14 dating has not been calibrated with objects with known dates. It would be simple enough to check such a claim. Would they really have given a Nobel Prize for such a technique without convincing evidence? Would the technique be widely accepted if it was known to produce consistently wrong dates?
http://nobelprize.or...1960/press.html

I appreciate and respect the fact that you show an interest in learning. Not everyone here seems so willing. I personally came here to try and understand the logic people are using to support views of young earth creationist or old earth creationist beliefs. But all I can find is the idea that if they find a weakness in X then they think that proves their belief in Y. Unfortunately, that is the sort of logic that moves you towards believing in the flying spaghetti monster.

Chance has tried to encourage people to provide positive evidence. Other than this odd notion of ocean salt, I can't say I have seen much.

So am I questioning anyone's intelligence? No. However, although these forums are useful (as long as people like Chance are here), this is no replacement for a good education. If you are confident that young earth creationism is right, then go out and pour over the textbooks in geology, palentology, biology and astronomy, and really learn why scientists believe what they believe. Don't rely on creationist web sites. Encourage your kids to be geologists and biologists. If there really is something wrong with their current theories, then the truth will come out. There is nothing to be afraid of.

#54 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 October 2005 - 12:32 PM

So am I questioning anyone's intelligence? No. However, although these forums are useful (as long as people like Chance are here), this is no replacement for a good education. If you are confident that young earth creationism is right, then go out and pour over the textbooks in geology, palentology, biology and astronomy, and really learn why scientists believe what they believe. Don't rely on creationist web sites. Encourage your kids to be geologists and biologists. If there really is something wrong with their current theories, then the truth will come out. There is nothing to be afraid of.


This is a hoot..... ;) Christians afraid of the truth???? You are kidding right....

Its evolutionists who are screaming when someone dares to mention that evolution is not a proven fact, and don't want there monopoply on public education challenged.

I think its evolutionists who are afraid of facing the facts, not christians/creationists.

I think you are questioning peoples intelligence. You say you are not, and then in the same paragraph tell us to make sure that we get our kids educated, like we would do otherwise. Just a side note, American education has went in the trash can since evolutionist, and humanist ideas have taken hold of public education.

There is a difference in the education my son is getting in private school, compared to what he would get in a public school. He is taught to think about the claims of evolutionists and see if they really add up. He's taught about the principle of scientific testing, and think about where evolution is supported by such. Where as, in public school, I don't think anyone is really taught to think about anything, just accept it.

I have read though biology books, and other material, and I've yet to see the evidence you claim exists. Its all based on the interpretation of the evidence from a certain perspective. There is ZERO emperical observational science behind molecules-to-man evolution, and reading through biology books is not going to change that.

Terry

#55 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 22 October 2005 - 04:10 PM

Sure, take a look at this LINK(provided earlier) and click on “Archean” bar top of page, then “Stromatolite” on the left of page.

A window should open giving:
Specimen/Evidence: Stromatolite
Time Period: 4.0-2.5 bya
Age range: about 3.5 bya
Key Localities: North Pole, Australia

View Post

There is nothing specific about the characteristics of the microorganisms, ie, there is nothing that can be concluded about whether or not they were any different than microorgisms today. There is no proof whatsoever of the age of that sediment.

#56 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 23 October 2005 - 01:42 PM

Re Stromatolites

There is nothing specific about the characteristics of the microorganisms, ie, there is nothing that can be concluded about whether or not they were any different than microorgisms today.


What would it matter if the bacterium in question, were different from those in the past? Is it significant if an ant from the Jurassic is different than a modern ant? I don’t understand your objection.

There is no proof whatsoever of the age of that sediment.


Is this objection directed at dating methods?

#57 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 23 October 2005 - 10:07 PM

Here is a link for revision of GCSE (14-16 year olds) biology (evolution section). In GCSE biology evolution comprises a very small part of the curriculum.  A lot of creationists in the debate ask for evolution to be struck out of our schools, but most would settle for a disclaimer that there are other interpretations.  This 'bite size' revision guide concludes with the following:
Interestingly A-level biology (16-18 year olds) doesn't seem to discuss evolution at all - though I could be wrong.  Is American biology class the same kind of thing as this?  From all the fuss about the issue it sounds like evolution is the principle thing that gets taught in high school biology.

View Post



I went through public school all through K-12, and I never heard anything about evolution in my HS science class, then after I got out of HS, I started reading up on many schools that did harp on the evolution deal.

But now I see that its just some schools and not all the public schools, so that's a positive thing.
Another comfort is that kids these days don't come out of school learning or remembering to much about anything, so the lie of evolution being shoved into their ears, most likely will fall out the other ear.

Hopefully, they retain the good educations such as reading/writing etc....
But things like evolution, they can do without;)


Louie Buren
Louie's Journal

Attached Files



#58 Electric_Sceptic

Electric_Sceptic

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 30 November 2005 - 12:36 AM

Its evolutionists who are screaming when someone dares to mention that evolution is not a proven fact, and don't want there monopoply on public education challenged.


That's just false. You are more than welcome to challenge evolution...but do it with SCIENCE, not religion.

American education has went in the trash can since evolutionist, and humanist ideas have taken hold of public education.

Please demonstrate (a) that American education has gone in the trash since evolutionist and humanist ideas have taken hold of public education and (:unsure: that any relationship is causal.

You could also explain why, if you claim the relationship IS causal, the schools of other nations which are similarly evolutionist and humanist have NOT gone 'in the trash'.

#59 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 November 2005 - 01:35 AM

That's just false. You are more than welcome to challenge evolution...but do it with SCIENCE, not religion.


Please do not tell others how to respond here. You are at a creation forum, how do you expect the responces to be?

And if you can't reframe from using caps to shout your words, don't bother posting.

#60 Electric_Sceptic

Electric_Sceptic

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 30 November 2005 - 03:30 AM

Please do not tell others how to respond here.

I did not attempt to tell others how to respond. I told him the best way to act on his beliefs in the real world, outside this forum.

You are at a creation forum, how do you expect the responces to be?

I expect the responses to be just as they are. I also expect that people will be told how to further their claims not only on here, but in the real world.

And if you can't reframe from using caps to shout your words, don't bother posting.

I used caps for a single word for emphasis, in lieu of italics. I have not encountered anyone online who thinks that use of caps in this way is shouting; however, if it is frowned upon in this forum, I will desist.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users