|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2630 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
jar writes: TTBOMK, yes, those plants are examples of ones found during a particular period. That does not mean that there are not similar plants found earlier or later, as always the devil is in the details. Like animals, plants evolved over time. Thanks, and yes I get that details are important in that distinction. Appreciated. JB Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given. Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2630 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
I did find a couple decent links on fossil sorting that included just a bit of plant information that was helpful.
Fossil sorting by the global flood - RationalWiki Page not found - Evolution Wiki JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1662 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I'm spending a lot of time currently learning about fossil sorting and while I find many good descriptions of the fauna side of things, I haven't found a good source on the flora side. First off check these: CH561.1: Ecological zonation -- ecological zone sortingCH561.2: Hydrologic sorting -- hydrological (size) sorting CH561.3: Fossil sorting by fleeing -- sorted by the ability to escape CH561.4: Geological column and the Flood -- combination of the above and these: CH541: Fish in the Flood -- aquatic animals survivedCH542: Plant survival in the Flood -- plants survived Note that fossils are not only sorted in time but sorted in space -- again I recommend Song of the Dodo as an introduction to biogeography (and Wallace) -- and that those spacial relationships change with geological ages (ie when different continents were connected so animals could spread over the land). As in why are marsupial fossils in Australia and South America, and no placental fossils in Australia? How did a flood do that?
It seems to me that if plant fossils are as well sorted as the animals are (and I'm highly confident I'll learn that to be true), that this evidence would be an even simpler nail in the WW Naohic flood than the animal side. Algae first -- including diatoms that are sorted in different layers with different species -- would be your floating plants example ... but we also haveCC250: Plant fossil record -- no plant origin/fossils? quote: Angiosperms are flowering plants, including trees. Monocotyledons are a subset of angiosperms. Embryophytes -- tree of life, green plantsSpermatopsida -- tree of life, seed plants Angiosperms -- tree of life, angiosperms Monocotyledons -- tree of life, monocotyledons Monocotyledons include grasses Poaceae - Wikipedia, Evolutionary History of the Grasses1 | Plant Physiology | Oxford Academic Polypodiopsida -- tree of life, ferns Ferns predate angiosperms and are in earlier layers ... There is a layer below which no flowering plants are in the fossil record. So in a simplistic order, you have algae, ferns, flowering plants, grasses, all sorted by their age of original evolution. Also see
Ferns - Evolution - Plants, Rhyniopsida, Botanists, and Extinct
- JRank Articles
and Cycads - Evolution - Plants, Dominant, Million, and Haploid - JRank Articles and Lycophyte - Wikipedia and Zosterophyll - Wikipedia Even with species living today from ancient groups you can show sorting problems when species living today do not exist in earlier fossil layers -- why do flower fossils not exist in lower layers? why do grasses not exist in lower layers? For a start. You can also google prehistoric extinct plantsList of extinct plants - Wikipedia Enjoy ps -- Free evolution and climate change book downloads! | National Center for Science Education free book downloads Edited by RAZD, : links Edited by RAZD, : moby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2630 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Thanks RAZD. I'll get right to work on those links.
JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2630 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
I think the Gish Gallup is a genetically encoded response for most YECs (to Faith's credit, she actually is able to stick to one topic at a time so respect to her for that).
Yesterday I spent about an hour or so with one of my older (50s) friends from the cult days. Pretty much his entire family is still living the indoctrination and his Dad is a local SDA minister to this day. 100% due to my efforts over the last year or so, his sister (also in 50s) announced to her family of origin a few days ago (including Minister Dad) that she wasn't so sure about YEC anymore and that has shocked the family. Brother is not the type to shy back but to engage so we did. They are of course worried for her salvation (and her kids salvation since they know the kids are also hanging around and learning from me). After trying the Robert Gentry angle on me (I was well prepared for that), he handed me a paper called "Dissecting Darwinism" by Joseph A. Kuhn. I told him I would look at it and get back to him. And so I've read it and researched it extensively (8-10 hours worth). It's all a gallup of DI PRATT - along with some really entertaining statements about "invertebrate species of plants..." found in the "carefully preserved fossil fields in Japan, Malaysia, and Asia". Priceless comedy. Now this brother is a perfectly bright guy, but has no science education whatsoever (he was schooled the same way I was growing up). I'm tempted to simply ask him this when I return the paper ... "What arguments in the paper were compelling to you?" I pretty sure he'll mumble something about 'it's from a guy who knows things and says evolution is impossible'. I have zero confidence that he can point to anything he considers scientific in the paper that convinced him of anything - he just doesn't know science well enough to do that. I know this guy and he will gallup me to death and I'll waste a TON of time and NONE of my responses will mean a thing to him because none of what he'll throw at me means a thing to him (meaning he doesn't even understand what he's throwing). I want to be responsive, but still be able to guide the conversation enough to stay on track. Even though I have no hope whatsoever with him (never ever), I think I'm going to use him as another one of my curriculum guinea pigs and see how it goes. I'm going to tell him I'll engage with any topic he wishes as long as he can demonstrate to me that he understands the topic he wants to engage on. If he wants to engage on irreducible complexity, he needs to demonstrate that he can understand the positions and the arguments (he doesn't and won't). Otherwise and if he still wants to engage, he'll have to engage on the topics that I choose until he CAN understand scientific arguments. They say learning is like filling up a vessel -- in this case if I can't get him to take the lid off, trying to fill it up will just make a mess all over the table and piss everyone off. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2388 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
They say learning is like filling up a vessel -- in this case if I can't get him to take the lid off, trying to fill it up will just make a mess all over the table and piss everyone off.
I'd encourage you to try to get some of these folks to read John Lennox' book "Seven Days that Divide the World". Lennox is extremely kind and gentle, is theologically very conservative, and has lots of experience talking with YECs. I'd be interested to see how your group reacts to his book."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2630 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Thanks, I'll get it on Kindle and have a look.
JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
I know this guy and he will gallup me to death and I'll waste a TON of time and NONE of my responses will mean a thing to him because none of what he'll throw at me means a thing to him (meaning he doesn't even understand what he's throwing). I want to be responsive, but still be able to guide the conversation enough to stay on track. I would put the ball back in his court. You could ask him what types of sediments or geologic features really would evidence an old Earth. Ask him what type of evidence is missing that an Old Earth would have. Ask him what type of features a geologic formation would need in order to falsify a recent global flood. What you will often find is that YEC's have no recourse but to admit that their position is completely dogmatic and really doesn't consider the evidence. The follow up question to this is rather obvious. Why would you need to be dogmatic if the evidence were on your side? Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2630 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
kbertsche writes: I'd encourage you to try to get some of these folks to read John Lennox' book "Seven Days that Divide the World" Just watched an short video with John Lennox. Seven Days that Divide the World on Vimeo Interesting stuff. It will be considered apostate, but it might plant a seed that can be returned to later. It all takes time as you know. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2630 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Taq writes: I would put the ball back in his court. ... What you will often find is that YEC's have no recourse but to admit that their position is completely dogmatic and really doesn't consider the evidence. Yes, that was my conclusion from yesterday -- he doesn't have a clue regarding what he's galloping on about, he just knows it agrees with his (unconscious) dogma so he gallops on at full speed. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6077 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
The Gish Gallop is primarily a dirty debate trick: in a very short time, blast your opponent with far more false claims than he could possibly respond to properly in the few minutes the debate format allows him. As you know from experience, it can take tens of minutes, even more than a hour, to expose and explain the falsehood of one 5-second "creation science" lie. In one minute, the creationist can hit you with 12 such claims and the debate format only gives you maybe 20 minutes to respond. You might be able to respond to one of the claims, but the audience will walk away thinking of the 11 that you "couldn't explain". Of course, that only works in a verbal exchange, since in a written exchange you have the time to research each claim and respond to it. That is why, as I have found, creationists try to avoid written exchanges like the plague or else have to resort to other dirty tricks (which I have seen done far too many times).
When your friend's brother started using it, I don't know whether it was in emulation of what he had seen done by the pros, or that he has had experience sparring with non-creationists and had used it before (likely), or that his knowledge of the claims is only sound-bite deep (highly likely). For example, an atheist acquaintance who had very little experience with "creation science" told me of his encounter with a local creationist activist and showed me a letter from that creationist which was highly insulting, mocking, and filled with false claims (a gallop?). When I contacted that creationist, at first he tried to treat me the same way, but the moment he realized that I knew something about the subject then butter couldn't melt in his mouth he was sweet-talking me so -- though he also started trying to disengage and would try to avoid discussing creationism by any means necessary, including incessant lying. His common tactic would be ask me an "impossible question", one designed to be unanswerable, and insist emphatically that he really want the answer, but when I did give him the answer and ask to discuss it with him, suddenly he lost all interest and then throw another "impossible question" at me. Having been a "fellow traveller" of the "Jesus Freak Movement" of circa 1970 (many friends and acquaintances converted while I observed that culture up close), I had become very familiar with their proselytizing training materials, mainly tracts depicting "witnessing" to non-believers and converting them (a few Chick Pubs tracts used the same format, like "Big Daddy?", both the original and Hovind's remake). Mainly, you were to try to knock them off balance by hitting them with questions that they cannot answer or with "facts" that contradict what they believe and then when you have softened them up and made them vulnerable, you start to feed them your proselytizing spiel. That was what those "impossible questions" were supposed to have done to me. And when used in person, that is what a form of the Gallop is supposed to do. But that last possibility, "that his knowledge of the claims is only sound-bite deep", is far too common. They get fed all these claims, but they don't understand them. They'll read books and web pages and go to classes all for the purpose of "gathering ammo" to use in their street proselytizing, but without understand any of it. They can usually get away with it because their intended victims are as ignorant as they, but when they encounter someone knowledgeable then that can devastate them, as Answers in Genesis has warned creationists. Very early on (CompuServe in the late 1980's), I adopted the approach of taking a creationist's claim seriously, or at least at face value, and to try to discuss it with him, in the process of which he would discover it to be false and would then do the right thing. Yeah, I was pretty nave back then. I certainly was not prepared for the vicious hostility of their responses. But besides their false beliefs that their faith depended on "creation science" being true, I also sensed that a lot of their hostility was to try to cover up the fact that they had absolutely no idea what they were talking about . So then to your particular problem. Certainly, you need to get him to concentrate on one single claim and you both need to follow it to the end. I would most certainly advise that you do as I would do, take his claim at face value and discuss it with him and examine the facts. If I were the one talking with him and he finally informed me that he really didn't understand the claim himself, then I would ask him why he would do such a thing and how could he have trusted that claim if he couldn't even understand it, etc. And I would continue to discuss it with him, leading him though an explanation of the actual science. Since he would undoubtedly break off that discussion prematurely, I would voice disappointment and then start over with another of his claims, and so on. Of course, since you are the "boots on the ground", exactly how you deal with him must be at your discretion. That paper is by yet another creationist MD, like Michael Denton who, after receiving criticism of his anti-evolution book, stated that he realized that he actually knew far less on the subject that he had thought he knew. You seem to have a handle on his claims. I'm much better with young-earth PRATTs. If he tries to hit you with any of those, like the solar-mass-loss claim or the claim that the earth's rotation is slowing down very rapidly (it is slowing down overall, but at several thousandths of the rate that creationists had miscalculated because they didn't understand leap seconds), then I could provide you with some material. Footnote:Sometimes a creationist retelling a claim he doesn't understand anything about can go really bad. I once received an email from a high-schooler asking about a claim a counselor at Christian camp had told him. It was the solar-mass-loss claim and this was my first exposure to it, though this one was very badly garbled. The counselor had told him that "every scientist knows" that every year the sun burns up half its mass. In my response, I went through several lines of reasoning and calculations to show him how absolutely ridiculous and contrary-to-fact that claim was. I pointed out that all the fusion reaction occurs in the sun's core which is about 1/8 of its volume (from memory; I could be off on that) but which contains half of the sun's mass. I suggested that either his counselor or somebody along the long "urban legend" chain that that claim had followed, like so many other creationist claims, had gotten the story mixed up by confusing "half the mass is in the core" with the amount of mass lost (actually, about 4.6 million tons per second). But in the process I found Kent Hovind's version, which has the loss rate somewhat right while grossly exaggerating the outcome (without showing any calculations, he has the ancient sun being so incredibly massive as to have sucked the earth in with its gravity, whereas the sun's gravity 5 billion years ago would have been marginally greater sucking the earth in about 70,000 miles closer).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2630 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
dwise1 writes: But that last possibility, "that his knowledge of the claims is only sound-bite deep", is far too common. They get fed all these claims, but they don't understand them. They'll read books and web pages and go to classes all for the purpose of "gathering ammo" to use in their street proselytizing, but without understand any of it. They can usually get away with it because their intended victims are as ignorant as they, but when they encounter someone knowledgeable then that can devastate them, as Answers in Genesis has warned creationists. He's this one here ^^^. I strongly suspect that he will decide pretty quickly that he doesn't want to engage on the topic. He's sort of been the family 'big dog' on the block when it comes to how thing work (from science to scripture interpretation) and he's not used to someone having answers that leave him with no out. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member (Idle past 141 days) Posts: 303 Joined:
|
Since my speaker tomorrow is almost certain to claim one Post-Flood Ice Age, I plan to focus on the evidence for and against that, especially using the GRI article. This will also bring in radiometric dating.
As I read more about this, I find it mind-boggling the amount of research that is done on land, sea, and ice cores. Another set of data that relates to ice ages and long ages for life is that of the Huon peninsula in Papua-New guinea.The peninsula is slowly being raised by plate tectonics. Coral grows until the sea level drops in an ice age. The land continues to rise so with the next warming a new reef is formed below the previous one which is now stranded above sea level. There are at least nine reef terraces spanning 95,000 years, with RMD reflecting Milankovitch cycles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2630 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Pollux writes: As I read more about this, I find it mind-boggling the amount of research that is done on land, sea, and ice cores. Yeah, my mind has been blown as well over the last year or so of research. Just studying Dr Adequate's awesome mini geology book and realizing that it must be like a Cliff Notes version of Cliff Notes themselves - there must be entire libraries of material that he reduced down to that one informative piece. They just don't realize how much knowledge is out there. To get through to these folk, we have to figure out how to awaken them to the fact that unlike the GRI (60 years in existence and zero contributions to science), scientists have been crawling all over this planet spending BILLIONS on research and actually learning how things work. The consilience/convergence of evidence -- somehow I have to figure out how that principle can be unleashed in their minds.
JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6077 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
... - there must be entire libraries of material that he reduced down to that one informative piece. They just don't realize how much knowledge is out there.
In the Religion & Science Forum of CompuServe circa 1989, a new creationist joined the discussion. He firmly believed in YEC, but unlike the rest of the creationists there he was honest. And he made an honest effort to engage in honest discussion. And he would stick out a discussion instead of using dirty tricks to cop out. And he was willing to admit when he was wrong about a claim. To get through to these folk, we have to figure out how to awaken them to the fact that unlike the GRI (60 years in existence and zero contributions to science), scientists have been crawling all over this planet spending BILLIONS on research and actually learning how things work. He lasted about a year as a creationist, at which point he switched to fighting "creation science". He told his story of what had caused him to switch. Part of that honesty was that whenever he made a claim, he was ready to try to back it up even if he had to go to the library and research it (the public didn't gain access to the Internet for a few years yet, so we had to go to the library). So one day he was in the university library researching a Gould quote which led him to a reference to a paleontology journal that described a fossil. That led him to the large room that was filled with such journals, which he started to read. Including detailed articles on fossils that "creation science" had taught him did not exist and could not exist. He realized that the evidence does exist and that there is a lot of it and that the scientists really did know what they were talking about. I'll have to try to find his web page describing that eureka moment if it's still up. And that's just paleontology!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024