Creationism in Schools

The problem with "Creation Science" (other than it being an oxymoron) is that it is construed to support a particular religious belief, ie, Fundamentalist Christianity. I believe the current definition that most of the Creationist presence here is using for "Creation Science"
is something akin to using science to support the Bible. If we taught that in US schools, we would be teaching that the Bible is correct, and therefore violating the Establishment Clause in the American Constitution.Not only would we be selling out the most basic legal principles of the US but we would be causing religious strife where it isn't necessary.

If Creationists are trying to undermine evolution on a religious basis, then even if it were expedient to include any kind of creationism in US science classes, do you actually believe that your fellow Creationists would not scream bloody terror over the whole thing of including non-Christian creationism?I feel like we aren't seeing eye-to-eye here. Creationism or "Creation Science" isn't about weighing evidence, it is about propagating a particular religion over all others, and sometimes even using the US public schools to bring about that end.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-18-2002]

[QUOTE][b]To begin with the the radio-decay methods only know the decay rate and the ending ratio but not the original mother/daughter ratio. No one knows what they originally were.[/QUOTE][/b]For daughter elements that are noble gases like Argon, there usually is very little daughter element in the lava flow because it outgases during solidification, and recent flows can be used to estimate this small amount of original daughter concentration.And you don't have to know exactly what the proportions were, you can simply take recent flows and extrapolate. Or if you know the source volcano you can take a core of the magma pipe which would consist of
(Daughter from decay + original concentration of daughter element) because solidification underground allows the original quantity of daughter element to be trapped.Finally K/Ar works because it only uses one isotope of potassium and one isotope of argon. As a general rule of thumb, relative concentrations of different isotopes of the same element are constant in Earth because isotopes have essentially identical chemical properties (by the way, these proportions are constant enough to be used in the mass calculations of periodic tables).We know that in a new sample, about one percent of K atoms will be K-40. So to know the approximate concentration of the parent element at t=0, you simply need to know the present concentration of that element. We also know, empirically, the percent of that K-40 that will become Ar-40. And the concentration of Ar-40 relative to other isotopes of argon in most materials is nearly constant. So if we know the total quantity of Ar in the sample, we know approximately how much Ar-40 was in the sample at t=0.Web resources:
http://www.archserve.id.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/09_Potassium_Argon_Dating.htmlThen for your objections to be validated, you will have to explain why different parent/daughter pairs reveal consistent ages on the same samples, even when verified independantly by different labs. [QUOTE][b]They were assigned values according to uniformitarian principals based the the erosion rates of rivers which turned out to be off by the 99th percentile.[/QUOTE][/b]Cite? You really should explain to us how erosion rates were used, and then demonstrate the calculation that showed that they were wrong by 99%, including both evidences for the varying rates of erosion. [QUOTE][b]The erosion rate of Niagara falls was estimated and then geologic ages were assigned.[/QUOTE][/b]Cite? Relevance? [QUOTE][b]Radio decay methods are based on circular reasoning because when one submits the rocks around the fossils for aging, the lab will not process the sample without identification of the geologic age[/QUOTE][/b]Have you sent in samples yourself? What is your source of information on this procedure? [QUOTE][b]then it processes several samples to yield the age expected and because no reports of the original mother/daughter ratio are available.[/QUOTE][/b]Can you provide us more reputable information on this procedure? Cite?

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-22-2002]

[QUOTE][b]As was pointed out, in potassium/argon dating, argon bubbles out. The problem is it bubbles out at a variable rate. Testing existing volcanoes presupposed uniformitarianist assumptions which is question begging and circular reasoning.[/QUOTE][/b]No, comparing the quantity of argon in historical volcanic flows gives an indicator of the amount of argon that was probably present originally in older volcanoes, because the mineral contents and composition of lavas tend to be fairly consistent. This is good science. [QUOTE][b]but unless one knows the original ratio there is nothing to calibrate against. One must have a standard to calibrate against or else one assigns the value one wants to receive which is the problem here as the real world examples[/QUOTE][/b]Did you overlook my explanation of isotopic abundance ratios?

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-22-2002]

From planets to galaxies, eh?

[QUOTE][b]I find many of the arguments, particularely the mention of the 'circle of the earth', as proposed by some, great evidence of a spherical earth. As this circle of the earth would be non-existant if the earth were not spherical.[/QUOTE][/b]Circles are flat.Theo, if current translations of the OT are so ambiguous and may not mean the same in English as they did in Hebrew how can you have faith in the literal interpretation of Genesis? To claim that a passage that, in English, apparently implies that the Earth is flat is either mistranslated or simplified for a primitive audience, and then claim that several chapters of Genesis are literally correct in their current form is inconsistent.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 03-02-2002]

And our point is that the value taken is the average of many data points, discarding the dates that are not repeated.Can you provide a single example of dates being chosen on a priori assumptions?

I agree with Joz, it is frustrating when you explain how multiple data points are used and the opposition insists that some kind of conspiracy is going on, and they do so without presenting evidence.
Come on, this is how science is done, you take multiple points and used the most consistent results, discarding the spurious ones. If I had spent as much time explaining how the procedure works and somebody came along and made a baseless accusation like that, I'd respond in a worse way than he did.Here is the text of Edward v. Aguillard, where do they declare that Creationism is valid? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html

In message 106 I provided a link to the text for the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling and asked that you show us exactly where it calls Creationism valid. Since this does not require you to present a reference (I'm giving you the reference) I figured it would be an easy response. Of course, messages at the bottom of a page are sometimes overlooked. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html[QUOTE][b]Your statement that creation is religious in nature is question begging. That's what a great deal of the debate in this chatroom is about.[/QUOTE][/b]That happens to be one of the conclusions from E v. A. If the Court calling Creationism valid makes it valid, then the Court calling it religious makes it religious. (Are we going to use Argument from Authority or let it go? Though I still would like to see where it is called valid.) [QUOTE][b]So creationism, even if it were only religious in nature could be taught in public schools.[/QUOTE][/b]I need to look up your court case but I haven't had the time yet.