Creationism in Schools

quote:

---

--We dont' need to change the direction of the subject. I remember passing out fliers for my church after the 9-11 attacks, I encounterd a girl that was my age. Very sarcastic, she told me she wouldn't accept the flier because I said I wasn't a 'holy priest'. I asked her a question of why she considered herself athiestic. Wouldn't you guess that her answer was 'have you ever heard of Evolution'. Obviously there is something seriously wrong with that statment isn't there. Such is the teaching of evolution in our schools today.

---

Have you perhaps thought that it is the religious leaders who are getting things wrong, not the schools?Fundamentalist churches are telling people that in order to be a good Christian, they must reject Biology and the evidence for the ToE, because their interpretation of the Bible requires it to be wrong.It is the RELIGIONS which have set up this wall, not science. Science does not require anyone to not believe in God, or Christianity, etc.

quote:

---

"In the '20,during the infamous monkey trials,where a teacher was suspended for teaching darwinian evolution to his class,this fact became self evident,as the teacher was relying on hard science and his prosecutors were doing nothing but proletysing to the jury,just falling short of claiming in open court that the teacher was nothing less than the Anti-Christ. The judgement of the school stood,even if the teacher had proven his case and it took 40 years before someone in the legislative bodies woke up and said "hey...maybe there's actually something to this whole evolution thingy after all"."
--you take the 'monkey trial' to its extremities in sarcasm.

---

This is a comment upon the sarcastic tone of the post, but not of the content, TC.

quote:

---

"Christianity is not on the verge of disapearing in the US...far from it. But it has always fought viciously the establishement of differing points of views,which is why religion was removed from mandatory teaching in schools...Some people actually took the time to read the constitution and realized that it said FREEDOM of religion and NOT "freedom to be a christian or else..!!!."."
--As far as I am aware, it doesn't say anything about being unable to teach creation in the public schools either.

---

You can teach creation in a comparative religions class, but not in science class.Since Creation "science" is based upon a certain interpretation of a particular religion's holy book, and follows no tennet of science, it is not science, and to teach it as such would be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the US constitution.I can post links to the transcripts of US Supreme Court proceedings which determine as much, if you would like to see them, TC.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-20-2002]

After reading most of the messages on this topic I would to throw some tidbits1)Refer to Wallace v Jaffre (1985) wherein a dissenting opinion filed by Justice Rehnquist reviews the everson case of 1947 that wrongly came up with the separation of church & state doctrine and Justice Rehnquist reviews the origin of the first amendment. He demonstrates that the first amendment was to prevent the federal gov't from forcing a particular denomination of Christianity on the people. Historically, the first amendment was not designed to keep Christianity out of government but to keep the government out of Christianity. The first amendment was designed as a unilateral protection of Christianity from the Fed. It was a reaction from the abuses of King George who was forced his particular denomination of Christianity as the state religion. When one reads an historical document that used the word church it corresponds to our modern definition of denomination. Thomas Jefferson, correctly understood, was saying there shouldn't be a state denomination. Christianity was assumed as 99.9% of the population at the time was Christian and 53 of 55 Founding Fathers were Christian. The first amendment was to prevent a particular denomination of Christianity to be legislated as the national religion. As well in the Northwest Ordinances, passed the same day, money was appropriated for missionaries to set up schools. The idea that teaching Christianity in U.S. violates the Constitution is false. Therefore, teaching creationism in school is not against the constitution. The debate on whether or not it is scientific is a different argument which I will comment on later but Abrupt Appearance of designed life is scientific and more so than macro-evolution.2)Many misconceptions have been written in this topic that need correcting. It will probably take me several messagesA)Such as the Scopes trial misconception. The only evidence of evolution that was produced at the trial was when Darrow questioned Bryan about the 'monkey men' and he was referring to a fossil tooth that turned out to be an extinct pig tooth.more later------------------
theo

To say that all the evidence points to an old earth is simply not true. 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. 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. The erosion rate of Niagara falls was estimated and then geologic ages were assigned. 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, then it processes several samples to yield the age expected and because no reports of the original mother/daughter ratio are available. It is like a faucet dripping into a glass of water. You can accurately measure the current drip rate and how much water is currently in the glass but you don't know how much water was in the glass to begin with, therefore you can't tell how long the glass has been dripped into.As well there are evidences of a Young earth I will get to later------------------
theo

[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:

---

Originally posted by Theo:
1)Radio decay methods are based on circular reasoning...

​

2)...because when one submits the rocks around the fossils for aging, the lab will not process the sample without identification of the geologic age....

​

3)....then it processes several samples to yield the age expected....

​

4)....and because no reports of the original mother/daughter ratio are available. It is like a faucet dripping into a glass of water. You can accurately measure the current drip rate and how much water is currently in the glass but you don't know how much water was in the glass to begin with, therefore you can't tell how long the glass has been dripped into.

​

5)As well there are evidences of a Young earth I will get to later

---

1)Radio decay? Radiometric decay I`ve heard of whats radio decay?2)Possibly so that they can tell you hey you think this rock is only X years old but you want to use method Y on it and Y only works for samples older than nX (where n is greater than 1)... Just a thought....3)They make multiple runs because nuclear decay is a random process hence you must take multiple pieces of data find sample population mean and sigma use derived values to iteratively remove statistical fliers then calculate true population mean and sigma which gives you a date and an error measurement...I`d be more suspicious of someone that took a single data point as the answer than someone who took a wide range of results processed them in the fashion above and arrived at a statisticaly valid result with confidence limits....4)Relative abundances are fairly constant actually....5)better bring them out then because your attacks on "radio dating" (sic) are fairly inane....

Joz and Gene
First, I must say I am pleased with tone of your responses (except for my 'radio decay' mistake Joz, come on you knew exactly what I meant, by your own standard, you now had better be perfect in your posts from now on!) Usually, when I have engaged in discussions like this, the ad hoc/ad hominem attacks come out and the arguments given are never responded to.
Second, I stumbled across this site so I don't have the actual studies with me but I will get them and cite them. Sorry to do this but I am going to refer to arguments again without the support but I promise I will get the support. There are two specific studies in the journals that demonstrate the point I am making. The first was a lava flow in Hawaii that we know from writting history is just over 200 years old yet it tested at 12 million and the second tested layers at the bottom of the Grand Canyon to be millions of years younger than the top layers contradicting the principal of superposition.
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. Yes we can measure current decay rates accurately, 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 I referred to above (and will provide the sources later) demonstrate. That's why I gave the history of the dating methods. Geologic ages were assigned by mistaken erosion rates (assumed to be much slower than they actually were by 99% yielding far to old geologic dates,again sources forthcoming), then, radiometric dating assigned the ages of the layers accordingly because there was no original mother daughter ratio to calibrate against! Hence my glass of water in the sink analogy-unless one knows that the glass was empty or how much water was orignally in the glass then it is impossible to determine from the amount in the glass when discovered and the drip rate how long the glass had been there. Unfortunately, radiometric dating has been known to assume the glass was completely empty, again an unkown.
As well, it is unreasonable to send in over ten samples to labs and then pick the one or two samples that line up with geologic age assigned apriori! If creationists used that kind of methodology you would reject that at face value. By the way, the University of Utah performs potassium/argon dating and the world's leading authority on this stuff is (or was)there. Dr. Brown. That is part of my source material on this (not Dr. Brown personally). I attended the University of Utah where I studied anthropology for a while but did not graduate in that field. Not important but I thought you might want to know.Theo------------------
theo

[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]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theo:
Joz and Gene
First, I must say I am pleased with tone of your responses (except for my 'radio decay' mistake Joz, come on you knew exactly what I meant, by your own standard, you now had better be perfect in your posts from now on!)

---

Sorry I ate something that dissagreed with me yesterday and have been a little bit waspish since.....Would you care to comment on points 2 and 3?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theo:
1)Hence my glass of water in the sink analogy-unless one knows that the glass was empty or how much water was orignally in the glass then it is impossible to determine from the amount in the glass when discovered and the drip rate how long the glass had been there. Unfortunately, radiometric dating has been known to assume the glass was completely empty, again an unkown.

​

2)As well, it is unreasonable to send in over ten samples to labs and then pick the one or two samples that line up with geologic age assigned apriori! If creationists used that kind of methodology you would reject that at face value.

---

1)A better analogy would be a tank of water with a very thin pipe leading from the bottom to another tank with an even thinner pipe to the drain....In equilibrium the two tanks are empty and all water is down the drain....If water is added to the top tank it flows down to the second tank where the level rises, with a knowledge of the mathematics of the system and accurate observations of the levels in both tanks it is possible to derive the amount of water initialy added to the system and the time since that event....In short your analogy is inadequate as it is the ratio of the volume of water in the first tank to the volume in the present tank that allows us to date the system....2)I already answered this in point 3) of an above post, reposting:3)They make multiple runs because nuclear decay is a random process hence you must take multiple pieces of data find sample population mean and sigma use derived values to iteratively remove statistical fliers then calculate true population mean and sigma which gives you a date and an error measurement...

​

I`d be more suspicious of someone that took a single data point as the answer than someone who took a wide range of results processed them in the fashion above and arrived at a statisticaly valid result with confidence limits....This is why they take multiple samples not as you seem to believe in order to falaciously present a contrived result.....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 02-24-2002]

you are a complete moron......the bible is written in a spiritual sense, therefore their will be no mention of bacteria. the phyical world will line up with the bible because the bible is true and you are a MORON.------------------
creationist for life

"you are a complete moron......the bible is written in a spiritual sense, therefore their will be no mention of bacteria. the phyical world will line up with the bible because the bible is true and you are a MORON."
--Whew, respecting my fellows even though you are right (on the bible thing atleast!), lets just slow it down a bit there buddy. ------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by mccoy925:
you are a complete moron......the bible is written in a spiritual sense, therefore their will be no mention of bacteria. the phyical world will line up with the bible because the bible is true and you are a MORON.

​

---

WOW...seems like YECs are getting a little edgy here. The Bible will line up with the world huh...the Bible describes the world as a flat,immobile circle that can be seen in its entirety from the top of a mountain...seems like the world is gonna have to do some major changing if its gonna line up with the Bible

"- I am skeptical about the bible. And I can definately relate to this comment. Teaching me the literal sense of the bible would be the equivalent to teaching them that water flows up river..."
--I think we can both agree on that (I hope any other creationist could too!)."- Its just a little too vague for me."
--If it were any more specific, the bible would no longer quallify as a book that anyone can grasp. It also would account for any loss of faith for instance, back when they did not know of micro-organisms, and thought that abiogenesis was happening with the growth of larva a couple hundred years ago."It doesn't explain the significance of the 'invisible' (if microorganisms were to be included here), in relation to the rest of the living world. If you can find somewhere that it does give it's importance, please show. Thanks TC."
--I don't know exactly what you mean by it doesn't correlate to the rest of the living world, though I would have to say that the invisable would sertainly include micro-organisms, not being visible to the eye. The bible is vastly incorperated with perspectives on appearence.------------------

"WOW...seems like YECs are getting a little edgy here. The Bible will line up with the world huh...the Bible describes the world as a flat,immobile circle that can be seen in its entirety from the top of a mountain...seems like the world is gonna have to do some major changing if its gonna line up with the Bible"
--The bible does not describe a 'flat, immobile circle'. also, your mountain and the devil, makes reference to local land kingdom's, depending on height, or even a metephoric mountain, you could see kingdoms many hundreds of miles away within the radius. Nor do any of the other implications on a 'flat earth' does the bible attribute.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"WOW...seems like YECs are getting a little edgy here. The Bible will line up with the world huh...the Bible describes the world as a flat,immobile circle that can be seen in its entirety from the top of a mountain...seems like the world is gonna have to do some major changing if its gonna line up with the Bible"
--The bible does not describe a 'flat, immobile circle'. also, your mountain and the devil, makes reference to local land kingdom's, depending on height, or even a metephoric mountain, you could see kingdoms many hundreds of miles away within the radius. Nor do any of the other implications on a 'flat earth' does the bible attribute.

​

---

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=dan+4:10-11
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=mat+4:8
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=1+chr+16:30
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=psa+93:1Have a look and see for yourself TCAll the kingdom of the world...not all the kingdoms of the REGION.

​

[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 02-28-2002]