Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A simple question for a complex issue
SpinyNorman73
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 80 (72677)
12-13-2003 11:31 AM


A humble fifth grade teacher stands before his class one day and challenges his students that they need to strive to learn more than what is simply presented to them in a classroom. He urges them to choose a topic they won't be learning about in the classroom. Any topic they choose, with parental permission. He puts forth the challenge to said students to spend the year learning about their topic. The teacher will from time to time check on each child's progress. The students at the end of the school year wil present in a report what they have learned about the topic they chose.
I am the humble fifth grade teacher and I had this idea this past summer and I am trying it out for the first time. The kids have blown me away with their zeal and interest in these independent studies. They have, in fact, inspired their humble teacher to do the same.
The battle between creation and evolution has always mildly interested me, but I have never taken any truly great pains to study the issues. This is my undertaking, to study both sides of this debate and come up with my own position. Not based on a vague notion, as I feel most people do, but based on a solid foundation.
This is where I would like some help in the offset. I have been reading over these posts, both from evolution supporters and creation supporters. I would like to ask all interested, from both sides, a very simple question.
Can you give me between 3 to 5 solid reasons as to why you believe what you believe? I am not looking for dissertations, just short answers. Could you also give me what you think is the best source or two that you feel really sums the issue up for you?
I look forward to your answers.
Thank you,
Brian
------------------
The greatest homage we can pay to truth is to use it. - Emerson

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 12-13-2003 11:38 AM SpinyNorman73 has not replied
 Message 3 by Abshalom, posted 12-13-2003 11:41 AM SpinyNorman73 has not replied
 Message 4 by AdminAsgara, posted 12-13-2003 2:36 PM SpinyNorman73 has not replied
 Message 8 by hitchy, posted 01-17-2004 8:50 PM SpinyNorman73 has not replied
 Message 11 by Angeldust, posted 01-17-2004 11:12 PM SpinyNorman73 has not replied
 Message 43 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-19-2004 10:55 AM SpinyNorman73 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 2 of 80 (72678)
12-13-2003 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SpinyNorman73
12-13-2003 11:31 AM


Reasons
There is a whole thread on "What convinced you of evolution?".
http://EvC Forum: What convinced you of Evolution? -->EvC Forum: What convinced you of Evolution?
It probably gives the kind of simple start you're asking for.
However, I don't think that any one or even 3 or 5 things is what really does it. Not for many of us as individuals or the biological community as a whole. It is the interconnection of so very many different things that really does it.
------------------
Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SpinyNorman73, posted 12-13-2003 11:31 AM SpinyNorman73 has not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 80 (72679)
12-13-2003 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SpinyNorman73
12-13-2003 11:31 AM


Evolution Based On Sedimentary Layers
Take your class on a short drive down an interstate highway that was built along a route that has several significant cuts through the deep, twisted sedimentary layers of earth pushed up into high hills or low mountains.
Stop occasionally and observe the fossilized flora and fauna that are clearly visible for observation.
Also pay attention to the vastly different mineral composition of the layers. What minerals color the various layers? Are there deep layers of limestone overlaying deep layers of sandstone and vice versa? Would limestone evidence long periods of deep sea inundation and sandstone indicate long periods of shallow sea shore ecology?
Observe the twisted, convoluted layers created by the intense forces of techtonic plate movement. Did this happen overnight?
Did these phenomena of natural evolution and geology occur over a period of 6000 years?
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SpinyNorman73, posted 12-13-2003 11:31 AM SpinyNorman73 has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 4 of 80 (72699)
12-13-2003 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SpinyNorman73
12-13-2003 11:31 AM


Welcome to EvC Brian,
I commend your attempts to get your class to "think outside the classroom", so to speak. I was lucky, in my early education, to have teachers like yourself, who instilled a love of learning for learning's sake. I have attempted to raise my children with this same love. I have applauded any of their teachers that told them that while learning the book might be necessary, going beyond the textbook and finding out for yourself is also necessary and worthwhile.
I won't state here the reasons or evidence that lead me to connect to one side or the other, (it's not my place in my administrative role, though my alter-ego might be more outspoken,) but I will post some links that seem to offer the most insight into both sides of the issue.
TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
http://www.trueorigins.org/
Page not found » Internet Infidels
Conflicts & agreements between science and religion
Our own reference library is located here:
http:///WebPages/Reference.html
Here is our list of currently active discussion boards that delve into the issues:
http:///WebPages/DiscussionBoards.html

Again, welcome to EvC and feel free to jump into any thread with questions and/or opinions, or start a new thread in any of our forums. I think that you'll find most topics have at least been touched upon in our discussions. Some have been beaten to death .
At the top of the page is a navigation bar, and under "Forums Nav" is a search tool for the forum. Above this bar and to the right is a non-discussion area search.
edited a stupid formatting problem /sigh - The Queen
------------------
AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe
[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SpinyNorman73, posted 12-13-2003 11:31 AM SpinyNorman73 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by TruthDetector, posted 01-17-2004 11:44 AM AdminAsgara has not replied

  
TruthDetector
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 80 (79042)
01-17-2004 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminAsgara
12-13-2003 2:36 PM


Intelligent Design
I believe in Creation by God because of the evidence of some form of Intelligent Design, the impossiblity of an entire lifes planet coming from nothing, he question of 'where did matter come from?' (not from other matter), there are so many things that evolution can not explain, ect.
P.S. Great assignment plan, I wish my teachers did that!
[This message has been edited by TruthDetector, 01-17-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminAsgara, posted 12-13-2003 2:36 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 01-17-2004 2:17 PM TruthDetector has not replied
 Message 7 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-17-2004 2:34 PM TruthDetector has not replied
 Message 9 by hitchy, posted 01-17-2004 8:57 PM TruthDetector has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 6 of 80 (79070)
01-17-2004 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by TruthDetector
01-17-2004 11:44 AM


Assertions and evidence
TruthDetector, you're going to have to have a bit of back up for such strong assertions. You appear to believe these things NOT because of any impossiblity of anything or what can't be explained but rather you think it is impossible to explain things or for things to have happened because you want to believe. You're entitled to your beliefs but don't expect them to be taken seriously because you state them in big letters.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by TruthDetector, posted 01-17-2004 11:44 AM TruthDetector has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 7 of 80 (79073)
01-17-2004 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by TruthDetector
01-17-2004 11:44 AM


Re: Intelligent Design
I encourage all, to show restraint in using non-default text display methodology.
I think the formatting message 5 (large red text on a white background) serves no useful purpose (unless the poster intended it to annoy people ).
Other combinations of text and background colours (a nod to the British members) have made some messages truly difficult to read.
Adminnemooseus
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-17-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by TruthDetector, posted 01-17-2004 11:44 AM TruthDetector has not replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5117 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 8 of 80 (79152)
01-17-2004 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SpinyNorman73
12-13-2003 11:31 AM


hello, i am kinda new here too
brian...what a great way to teach developing minds! i applaud your ability to work in such a student-centered fashion. i teach honors level ninth grade biology and earth science. i am lucky to be working with students that will delve into anything i give them. i start them off with what science actually is and how it is done. right off the bat i state that science constrains itself to the natural world and to natural phenomena that are affected by natural laws. any claims on the supernatural have no place in a science class except as an exercise in what science is not.
unlike scientists that do actual and beneficial research, creationists basically quote the parts of the bible that could actually happen (while misquoting scientists) and try to find problems with evolution. they don't just stop with evolution, though. creationists in texas did not want the metric system taught b/c jesus had 12, not 10 disciples!!! these same people also wanted "cain's theories" that people were farmers first and not hunter/gatherers taught in social studies!!!
the biggest problem with creationists is that they do not put forth any experimantal or corroborating evidence for their claims. they always complain about not being in scientific journals, but the fact of the matter is that none of their claims or studies associated with their claims pass peer review. most don't submit anything to actual science publications b/c they know that their "studies" will not pass for science or have already been proven false by actual scientific work.
recently, intelligent design has come into vogue with creationists b/c it actually sounds more scientific. however, most ID claims, such as irreducible complexity, merely beg the question or are not falsifiable. look into books by mayr, dawkins, gould, shermer, sagan, asimov, and berra. most of these authors spend a lot of time on the nature of science while talking about evolution in that context. feynman is great also. he has some very interesting works on physics and on science in general. hope that wasn't too much for anyone. of course i could try to use 100 pt font and red letters!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SpinyNorman73, posted 12-13-2003 11:31 AM SpinyNorman73 has not replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5117 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 9 of 80 (79154)
01-17-2004 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by TruthDetector
01-17-2004 11:44 AM


Re: Intelligent Design
pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease avoid the fallacy of false alternatives. whose to say that our planet doesn't ride on the back of a gigantic invisible space turtle that laid it as an egg!?! or is held up by gigantic red letters with first grade spelling mistakes...sorry, i take that back. i think the carving up of cronos or tiamat sounds better. anyway, anything is better than "if we cannot explain it, then god did it"
[This message has been edited by hitchy, 01-17-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by TruthDetector, posted 01-17-2004 11:44 AM TruthDetector has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by TruthDetector, posted 01-17-2004 10:59 PM hitchy has not replied

  
TruthDetector
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 80 (79169)
01-17-2004 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by hitchy
01-17-2004 8:57 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
Ok... NosyNed, we can have a little debate somewhere else.
This teacher is trying to get different opinions and I gave mine.
If you would like to debate this issue, tell me where.
[This message has been edited by TruthDetector, 01-17-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by hitchy, posted 01-17-2004 8:57 PM hitchy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 01-18-2004 1:39 AM TruthDetector has not replied

  
Angeldust
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 80 (79174)
01-17-2004 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SpinyNorman73
12-13-2003 11:31 AM


I'm sure to get jumped on by all the evolutionists... but here goes anyway. I don't understand all the science at this site. I'm a theology major, not a scientist.
I've read a lot of the threads at this forum and the evolutionists say that abiogenesis is not required for evolution. But in order to beleive that evolution is true, you must beleive that the first thing that ever existed came from nothingness.
Young earth creationist, ID theorist, Evolutionist, whatever your beleif I'm sure we all agree that at some point none of this existed. (I'm open to being corrected). I cannot conceive of a universe in which everything started by accident from nothingness. The random chance does stop and make me ponder, but the nothingness part is inconceivable. To take God out of the picture means that everything literally came from nothing.
The first question should maybe to ask yourself if you beleive in God. If you find the thought of a god or gods impossible then evolution becomes your only option, with all the other ethical and moral baggage it brings with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SpinyNorman73, posted 12-13-2003 11:31 AM SpinyNorman73 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 01-17-2004 11:18 PM Angeldust has not replied
 Message 13 by johnfolton, posted 01-18-2004 12:08 AM Angeldust has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 12 of 80 (79177)
01-17-2004 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Angeldust
01-17-2004 11:12 PM


But in order to beleive that evolution is true, you must beleive that the first thing that ever existed came from nothingness.
What about "The diversity of life on earth is best explained by changing allele frequencies over time" do you feel relies on "the first thing that ever existed came from nothingness"? I don't see the connection, but then, I'm using the definition of "evolution" that science uses.
I cannot conceive of a universe in which everything started by accident from nothingness.
That hardly has anything to do with anything. It may be that the universe is stranger than you can comprehend. The question is, what does the evidence point to?
To take God out of the picture means that everything literally came from nothing.
That's what you get with God in the picture, too. First, God has to come out of nothing, then God has to make the universe out of nothing (how? by magic?). Sounds like you've just pushed the problem back one step.
The truth is, we don't know what's outside the universe, or how universes come to be. The idea that there's nothing outside the universe is merely your own assumption.
If you find the thought of a god or gods impossible then evolution becomes your only option, with all the other ethical and moral baggage it brings with it.
I don't find the idea of God impossible, just inconsistent with observation. If you put God in the picture then you have to deal with the fact that the only God that could exist and allow things to be as they are is a god who is either amoral or powerless. Neither one of those seem like gods worth caring about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Angeldust, posted 01-17-2004 11:12 PM Angeldust has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 13 of 80 (79185)
01-18-2004 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Angeldust
01-17-2004 11:12 PM


SpinyNorman73,
The evidence is that the sediments could of only been laid down suddenly, the granite rocks have been proven to be young, zircons have too much helium within their crystals to be old, the reason the dating methods seem to agree, is because all the sediments could only of been erupted out from the inner earth, meaning they would of dated old even before they erupted out of the earth, because of dual porosity, however, the granites were not erupted out from the inner earth, they are the basement rocks, and they date to be only around 6,000 years old.
1: Ground-Water Hydrology, The link takes you through goggle to Ground-Water Hydrology, chapter 10, you need to go to page 12, where it explains dual porosity.
tidal influence on micropore diffusion - Google Search
2: The biblical fountains of the deep exists, the super deep well drilled over 7 miles into the earth are finding the fractured rock and water solutes, its confirmed there is fountains of the deep they have water solutes and are all broken up.
Geophysics University of Bonn
Page not found | Geophysical Institute
3: Its these solutes in the super deep well that are responsible for the sediments that erupted dating so old, (Hydroplate theory: Four Parts to Walts pictorial display of the hydroplate theory.
http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Hydroplate1.html , its a scientific fact that solutes will equalize between the micropores and the macropores, the sediments that erupted out of the earth would of dated old even before they erupted out of the earth.
4: Zircons are conclusive evidence that granties are in fact young, approximately 6,000 years old, its shows the other dating methods are meaningless and that the fossils can only be young, its scientifically impossible for granites to have the amounts of helium if the earth was 1.5 billion years old, meaning the sediments had to of been laid down suddenly, preserving the fossil record.
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
5: Evolutionists can not explain the excess helium in the granites, the theory of evolution, should be replaced with Intelligent Design, The theory of evolution requires too much time, that is not evidenced in the age of the granites(helium in zircon crystals), which proves conclusively that the fossils are young, meaning the sediments that erupted out of the earth were contaminated by dual porosity by the solutes in the super deep wells, they would of dated old even before they even erupted out of the earth, when geologists say but the dating methods agree one to another, its really meaningless, the helium in the zircon crystals, prove conclusively that the granites which lie beneath the sediments are only around 6,000 years.
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-18-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Angeldust, posted 01-17-2004 11:12 PM Angeldust has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by hitchy, posted 01-18-2004 12:22 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 15 by hitchy, posted 01-18-2004 1:06 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 17 by hitchy, posted 01-18-2004 2:04 AM johnfolton has replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5117 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 14 of 80 (79187)
01-18-2004 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by johnfolton
01-18-2004 12:08 AM


here we go again...
regardless of whatever's info, ID does not necessarily mean that Earth is young. also, using an icr site as a reference is hardly science at its best. i'll check on your info. in the meantime, will someone please tell this guy to stop using the fallacy of false alternatives!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by johnfolton, posted 01-18-2004 12:08 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5117 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 15 of 80 (79189)
01-18-2004 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by johnfolton
01-18-2004 12:08 AM


helium and zircons and the U of W at Madison
ok, i am back. that didn't take too long.
i didn't matriculate (what a fun word, matriculate...and masticate for that matter) at the U of Wisconsin at Madison, but they have a great deal of info on zircons and using them to date the earliest ages of Earth.
first, as any physicist knows, and i should have remembered, one type of radioactive decay involves the ejection of helium from the nucleus of the decaying isotope. guess what a lot of helium (relatively speaking) means when it is found in rock that has been dated back to around 4 billion years ago--a lot of radioactive decay. yes, helium can diffuse out of rocks, but a study on helium diffusing out of quartz showed that quartz with a well developed lattice stucture is impermeable to helium diffusion.
second, the team at the U of W used an ion microprobe to measure oxygen-18 and corroborate it with other findings. i am not familar with oxygen-18 dating, but it doesn't appear to be a novel method.
finally, i am not saying that the oxygen gave off helium. i am just saying that even an isotope with an incredibly long half-life would be mostly helium and otherelements by now.
thanks for playing whatever.
http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/radiation_types_body.html
UW-Geoscience 404
UW-Geoscience 404
[This message has been edited by hitchy, 01-18-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by johnfolton, posted 01-18-2004 12:08 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024