Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Science and a Young Earth - Evolution Vs Creationism Christian Perspective on Science
Best Syndication ^ | July 31, 2006 | Babu Ranganathan

Posted on 07/31/2006 8:33:32 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

Haven't geologists proved from scientific dating methods that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? Doesn't astronomy prove that the universe must, at least, be billions of years old since it would have required billions of years for light from the nearest stars to reach the Earth? Don't all qualified scientists, including geologists, believe in Darwinian evolution and a billions of years old Earth and universe? The simple answer is "no".

Both evolutionists and creationists have certain built-in assumptions in interpreting and using scientific data when it comes to the Earth's age. The issue many times comes down to which assumptions are more reasonable. Dating rocks is not a hard (no pun intended) science.

For example, many times one radiometric dating method will give a vast difference in age from another radiometric dating method used on dating the same rock! Radiometric dating methods have also been severely faulty when tested with the actual historical age of certain rock. For example, Hawaiian lava flows that were known to be no more than two centuries old were dated by the potassium-argon method to be up to three billion years old! (Science 141 [1963]: 634).

The reason for these huge discrepancies is that these methods are based on assumptions that no major changes have occurred in the Earth's atmosphere in the past which could have affected the initial amounts and even the rates of decay of the substances involved (Industrial Research 14 [1972]: 15). If, for example, a world-wide flood the Bible describes in Genesis had actually occurred then it would have, indeed, altered the initial conditions so as to make radiometric dating less than an exact science, to say the least. The Carbon -14 dating method has been known to have fifty percent accuracy, but it is only accurate up to thousands (not millions or billions) of years and can only be used on things that were once living.

Complicated as the subject of the Earth's age may be, a main reason for why evolutionists believe the earth is many millions of years old is because of their belief concerning how the fossil layers were deposited. What one believes about the deposition of the fossils in the Earth will, indeed, determine one's view of the earth's age.

Fossils of animals, for example, are formed when animals are buried quickly and under tremendous pressure, so that their bones, remains, and imprint are preserved in rock. If living things are not buried quickly and under enormous pressure their remains will decay rather than become preserved or fossilized. Most of the many billions of fossils in the Earth are found in rock that has been affected by water (Sedimentary Rock). Therefore, most of of the billions of fossils in the earth were formed as a result of the animals and plants being buried suddenly and quickly under tremendous water pressure.

Geologists who are evolutionists believe that local geographical floods over a period of many millions of years deposited these animals and plants and preserved their remains in the earth's crust. This is only one view.

Geologists who are creationists believe that a one world-wide cataclysmic flood, otherwise known as the Genesis Flood, buried most of these animals and preserved them as fossils in the Earth. Obviously, if it was one world-wide flood that deposited these animals and preserved them as fossils in the Earth it would not have taken very long. But, if the fossils were caused by local and limited geographical floods then it would, indeed, have required many millions of years before such local floods could have produced the billions of fossils and deposited them in various layers all over the Earth.

There are many problems, however, with the local flood theory as the cause behind the fossils. Even today local floods are not known to be able to generate the type of tremendous pressure and force necessary to fossilize creatures in rock. Among other arguments, it is difficult to explain how local floods could have carved out such majestic and geographical wonders as the Grand Canyon which is thousands of square miles and packed with billions of fossils and was clearly formed by the cataclysmic action and force of water. Yet, evolutionary geologists are content in believing that the Colorado River merely overflowing its banks, now and then, over millions of years was capable of performing such a feat!

The Bible in Genesis 7 says that much of the water that flooded the whole world came from under the ground. We know even today of vast reservoirs of water that are under the Earth. Obviously, if the Genesis account is true, there was much greater amount of water underground in the Earth's past. Genesis 7 says that this water burst through the surface of the Earth and, consequently, covered and changed the entire topography of the Earth.

Passages in the Old Testament Book of Psalms describe God as raising high mountains from the earth after the world-wide flood so that the water would recede into the ocean basins. The tremendous velocity and pressure from such receding water is what most likely caused the formation of the majestic Grand Canyon with its billions of fossils.

The fossils in the Earth are found to exist in various layers of the Earth's crust. Evolutionary geologists claim that each layer was formed and deposited by local flooding over many millions of years. However, in various parts of the Earth there are fossils of trees that protrude through several layers! This indicates that these layers were deposited and formed almost simultaneously and not over millions of years. Otherwise, the tops of these trees would have decayed a long time ago. The tops of these trees could not wait millions of years to become deposited and fossilized so there is no other explanation except that these layers were deposited in quick succession under cataclysmic forces and conditions.

Furthermoree, evolutionary geologists believe that the lowest layers contain only fossils of simple organisms while the higher layers contain only fossils of complex organisms. This, according to him/her, is evidence that complex organisms evolved from simpler ones over many millions of years. As a result of this view, the evolutionary geologist dates fossils according to the layer of rock in which they are found and, in turn, dates rocks according to the type of fossils they contain (circular reasoning!). Thus, the evolutionary geologist simply assumes that rocks which contain fossils of simple organisms must be very old (because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved first) while the rocks containing fossils of complex organisms must be younger (because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved more recently) even when there is no actual physical differences between the rocks themselves!

Besides the many assumptions involved, there are other problems with this view. First, there are no actual transitional stages to connect the so-called progression of simpler organisms in the fossil record to more complex ones. Second, this idea that the lower layers contain fossils of only simpler organisms exists only on paper, in evolutionary textbooks, and not in the real world. There are many areas in the world where fossils of complex organisms are found way beneath layers containing fossils of simpler organisms with no evidence of any shifting of these layers. Of course, if a world-wide flood did occur, then in many cases the lower layers would contain fossils of simpler organisms because these would naturally be the first to be deposited.

Many have insisted that our world and universe must be billions of years old because it would have required billions of years for light from the nearest stars to reach the Earth. This is assuming that the stars, galaxies, and universe were not created complete and fully mature from the beginning, with the light already reaching the Earth from the moment of creation. Creationists believe that because God created a mature universe from the beginning, it naturally has the appearance of being much older than it actually is. For example, when God created the first man and woman they were mature adults and complete from head to toe. If we had observed them five minutes after they were created we would have thought from their appearance that they had been on earth for many years, even though they were freshly created from the hand of God.

Highly respected sientist and physicist Dr. Thomas G. Barnes has shown that according to the rate of decay of the Earth's magnetic field the earth is only thousands of years old and not billions.

According to evolutionists, the Moon is nearly as old as the Earth and, from the rate of unimpeded meteors hitting the Moon's surface over billions of years, there should have been many feet of lunar dust on the Moon. But, when we landed on the Moon we discovered only a thin layer of dust. The Moon has no atmosphere to burn up such meteors as the earth does so such collection of dust was a major concern for scientists before the astronuts landed there.

There is much more to say on this subject, and there are many positive evidences for a young earth and universe not covered in this article. Excellent articles and books have been written by highly qualified scientists, including geologists, who are creationists showing scientific evidences for a young earth and universe. M.I.T. scientist Dr. Walt Brown provides considerable information on the topic at his site www.creationscience.com. Also, considerable information on the subject is provided by scientists of the Institute for Creation Research at www.icr.org.

The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is an experienced Christian writer. He has his B.A. with academic concentrations in Bible and Biology. As a religion and science writer he has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The East. The author has a website at: www.religionscience.com


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: afoolandhismoney; bewarefrevolutionist; buymybooks; commonscold; creation; creationism; creationist; creationists; crevo; crevodebates; crevolist; enoughalready; evolution; evolutionist; foolishness; frevolutionist; geology; id; idiocy; idiot; intelligentdesign; mythology; pavlovian; pigignorant; scam; science; sendmemoney; spam; trash; videosforsale; wasteoftime; youngearth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-343 next last
There is an interesting article which mentions Dr. Barnes' research here: The earth's magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young.
1 posted on 07/31/2006 8:33:36 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gobucks; mikeus_maximus; MeanWestTexan; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; ...

This is an interesting read on the subject. Let me be clear, the author is approaching the issue from a biased, Christian, creationist perspective. But as I always say, bias is not bad if it is correct, is admitted, and is backed up by rational reasoning and debate.


2 posted on 07/31/2006 8:37:00 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("You don't have to be a genius to know that evil is bad -- and good ISN'T!" - The Tick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

The Earth is supposed to have congealed from swirling solar material; logically, all the heavy metals should have settled in the core. When we find uranium or thorium near the surface, the most reasonable assumption we can make is that they arrived here via impact events long after the Earth had solidified, and that any ages we deduce from them are good for THEM, and that's about it.


3 posted on 07/31/2006 8:39:42 PM PDT by tomzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
There is an interesting article which mentions Dr. Barnes' research here: The earth's magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young.

Oh, come on, TontoDave. How many times has that crap been debunked here on FR just in the last year?

4 posted on 07/31/2006 8:39:47 PM PDT by balrog666 (Ignorance is never better than knowledge. - Enrico Fermi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Krusty Krab Pizza Placeholder


5 posted on 07/31/2006 8:40:34 PM PDT by RFC_Gal (It's not just a boulder; It's a rock! A ro-o-ock. The pioneers used to ride these babies for miles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
This article is pure apologetics, not science.

The two are separate fields of endeavor, and should not either be confused or commingled.

6 posted on 07/31/2006 8:41:05 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

The title would be more correct had it not implied that all Christians believe the same way in regards to science.


7 posted on 07/31/2006 8:42:52 PM PDT by RFC_Gal (It's not just a boulder; It's a rock! A ro-o-ock. The pioneers used to ride these babies for miles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Very convincing arguments that the earth is much, much younger than the 4.5 billion years postulated by some scientists.

Excellent article too.


8 posted on 07/31/2006 8:42:59 PM PDT by Marcaurelio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Core samples have shown conclusively that the earth's magnetic filed has swapped poles on several occasions, at a rather predictable pace. Once the flip occurs, decay of the field follows the same pattern this scientists has cited. Unfortunate for the 'scientist' he has ignored the mountain of evidence for numerous flips and decided to wear blinders to achieve the result he wants not the reality that is.


9 posted on 07/31/2006 8:43:14 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
The fossils in the Earth are found to exist in various layers of the Earth's crust. Evolutionary geologists claim that each layer was formed and deposited by local flooding over many millions of years. However, in various parts of the Earth there are fossils of trees that protrude through several layers! This indicates that these layers were deposited and formed almost simultaneously and not over millions of years. Otherwise, the tops of these trees would have decayed a long time ago. The tops of these trees could not wait millions of years to become deposited and fossilized so there is no other explanation except that these layers were deposited in quick succession under cataclysmic forces and conditions.

You don't see this perspective being taught in too many science classes today anywhere in the world much less the United States. It's sad that we are taught to unquestioningly believe science and disregard religion as a man made mythology.
10 posted on 07/31/2006 8:45:42 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
Why do you feel that we are being taught to disregard religion as a man made mythology.?
11 posted on 07/31/2006 8:46:51 PM PDT by RFC_Gal (It's not just a boulder; It's a rock! A ro-o-ock. The pioneers used to ride these babies for miles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: phoenix0468
You don't see this perspective being taught in too many science classes today anywhere in the world much less the United States.

That and geocentrism and flat earth.

Teach the controversy.

13 posted on 07/31/2006 8:49:09 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RFC_Gal

That was the attitude I perceived from many of my science teachers both in high school and in college (college especially).


14 posted on 07/31/2006 8:51:37 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: js1138

I think that all perspectives should be introduced. Offer relevant and conclusive evidence from any and all. Then let the student decide what to believe. There is a big difference between teaching and indoctrinating. The later is the Educational plan of popularity now.


15 posted on 07/31/2006 8:53:36 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: js1138

By my count their are 16 separate ad links on that page.



16 posted on 07/31/2006 8:54:55 PM PDT by RFC_Gal (It's not just a boulder; It's a rock! A ro-o-ock. The pioneers used to ride these babies for miles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468

What did these teachers say negative about religion?


17 posted on 07/31/2006 8:55:39 PM PDT by RFC_Gal (It's not just a boulder; It's a rock! A ro-o-ock. The pioneers used to ride these babies for miles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
The problem with this article is that the author willfully mis-states the beliefs of the so-called "Evolutionary Geologists". "Local flooding" indeed! Gradual sedimentary deposistion is the real key to modern geologic theory (or at least in the context of what's discussed here).

The author has set up a straw man only to knock it down. Problem is, that straw man has no existance outside of the confines of this article.

18 posted on 07/31/2006 8:55:52 PM PDT by Reverend Bob (That which does not kill us makes us bitter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RFC_Gal

That religion is a man made phenomena based on myth and legend. That the Christ story has been told numerous times in history by numersous civilizations. That science trumps god and religion. That was almost verbatim from one of my college instructors. I stood open jawed as he stated his anti-religious rhetoric. I then told him that his total belief in science is as unhealthy as a monk's complete belief in spirituality. He didn't agree with me, LOL.


19 posted on 07/31/2006 8:59:05 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468

How much time in science class should be devoted to Hindu and Muslim and Native American opinions on the age of the earth.


20 posted on 07/31/2006 8:59:26 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Wow! So many lies and falsehoods

Geologists who are evolutionists believe that local geographical floods over a period of many millions of years deposited these animals and plants and preserved their remains in the earth's crust. This is only one view.

Geologists who are creationists believe that a one world-wide cataclysmic flood, otherwise known as the Genesis Flood, buried most of these animals and preserved them as fossils in the Earth.

Simple question

Oil, Coal and Natural Gas companies don't give a  about the Crevo debate, they just want to make money.

And in order to make money they have to 1st find their product in the ground.

Now, in order to find their product who do they employ?

Do they employ real geologist or do they employ Flood geologist?  

Harder question

When you die, do you really believe Jesus is going to be happy with you for telling lies in his name?

21 posted on 07/31/2006 8:59:47 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
For example, Hawaiian lava flows that were known to be no more than two centuries old were dated by the potassium-argon method to be up to three billion years old!

Perhaps that's because the K-Ar dating method is only accurate for samples 4.3 billion years old to around 100,000 years before present.

This is no secret, except, apparently, to the author of this article.

22 posted on 07/31/2006 9:04:38 PM PDT by skip_intro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I think my post said something about "relevant and conclusive/" evidence. So if the evidence you are suggesting is relevant and conclusive, I.E. there is scientific basis that might suggest a younger age of the earth, I would say a fair amount. I am not saying that science is bunk. I am saying that too many scientists put too much faith in their methods and estimations.
23 posted on 07/31/2006 9:04:50 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468

One teacher doesn't equate to many.


24 posted on 07/31/2006 9:05:00 PM PDT by RFC_Gal (It's not just a boulder; It's a rock! A ro-o-ock. The pioneers used to ride these babies for miles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Back in the seventeenth century, Archbishop James Ussher of the Church of Ireland calculated that the earth was created on October 23, 4004 BC at 9:00 AM--and I assume it was Pacific Daylight Time. Therefore, on on October 23, 1972, the Geology Department at Occidental College thew a party during my class, which met at 9:00 AM that day, to celebrate the creation of the earth. Our party even made the evening news on our local NBC affiliate.


25 posted on 07/31/2006 9:06:05 PM PDT by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468

Should all perspectives be introduced in all classes or just the science classes?


26 posted on 07/31/2006 9:06:23 PM PDT by RFC_Gal (It's not just a boulder; It's a rock! A ro-o-ock. The pioneers used to ride these babies for miles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Science and a Young Earth - Evolution Vs Creationism – Christian Perspective on Science...there's a new book out by Dr. Frank Collins, the physician who completed the first mapping of human DNA, title of The Language of God - Collins started as an atheist but says that his experience in patient care and on the DNA project has brought him around to belief in a creationist God - he believes that evolution is merely the mechanism, no matter how long it takes in human terms, for creation - interestingly he also says that no matter how old or young the universe is, all science is able to do is describe the Big Bang - it can't explain what led up to it and how it happened - should be an interesting read (once I get the time).......
27 posted on 07/31/2006 9:09:00 PM PDT by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
I think that all perspectives should be introduced. Offer relevant and conclusive evidence from any and all.

Any and all? All 4,000+ extant world religions? Is this what you really want?

How long do you propose to study each perspective? How long, for example, would you propose to devote to this one (remember, there are 4,000+ waiting):


Cherokee Creation Story

Long ago, before there were any people, the world was young and water covered everything. The earth was a great island floating above the seas, suspended by four rawhide ropes representing the four sacred directions. It hung down from the crystal sky. There were no people, but the animals lived in a home above the rainbow. Needing space, they sent Water Beetle to search for room under the seas. Water Beetle dove deep and brought up mud that spread quickly, turning into land that was flat and too soft and wet for the animals to live on.

Grandfather Buzzard was sent to see if the land had hardened. When he flew over the earth, he found the mud had become solid; he flapped in for a closer look. The wind from his wings created valleys and mountains, and that is why the Cherokee territory has so many mountains today.

As the earth stiffened, the animals came down from the rainbow. It was still dark. They needed light, so they pulled the sun out from behind the rainbow, but it was too bright and hot. A solution was urgently needed. The shamans were told to place the sun higher in the sky. A path was made for it to travel--from east to west--so that all inhabitants could share in the light.

The plants were placed upon the earth. The Creator told the plants and animals to stay awake for seven days and seven nights. Only a few animals managed to do so, including the owls and mountain lions, and they were rewarded with the power to see in the dark. Among the plants, only the cedars, spruces, and pines remained awake. The Creator told these plants that they would keep their hair during the winter, while the other plants would lose theirs.

People were created last. The women were able to have babies every seven days. They reproduced so quickly that the Creator feared the world would soon become too crowded. So after that the women could have only one child per year, and it has been that way ever since.


28 posted on 07/31/2006 9:09:44 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
I am saying that too many scientists put too much faith in their methods and estimations.

Let's hear of a specific claim by science that is not well supported.

29 posted on 07/31/2006 9:11:16 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Young Earth Bump!


30 posted on 07/31/2006 9:11:59 PM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

thank you for plucking those two words out of the context of several that included the words "relevant and conclusive". You people really need to brush up on your rhetoric so I don't have to send these rebutals that make you look as stupid as you are ignorant.


31 posted on 07/31/2006 9:13:09 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: js1138; phoenix0468

==How much time in science class should be devoted to Hindu and Muslim and Native American opinions on the age of the earth

None. They should stick to "Intelligent Design" and then just mention that "Creationism" goes beyond Intelligent Design by attempting to find scientific evidence to prove specific theological beliefs.


32 posted on 07/31/2006 9:17:32 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RFC_Gal

Well, I already got a lot of spriritual and religious perspectives in most of my literature classes, all of my art classes, and a few of my music classes, so I don't see why science should be excluded, it that's what you mean.

BTW in response to your "one teacher does not equate to many" post I just would like to tell you this. I only cited what one teacher said, and quite frankly paraphrased not only from him but also from the attitudes of other scientists that I have talked to and read. It is no secret that science is a rather egocentric vocation. Many "experts" have been studying their fields for many years if not decades and once they have made a "scientific discovery" it is hard to get them to back down on it. I notice this attitude in the many scientific magazines and journals I read on a regular basis. For example Scientific American, Popular Science, Discovery magazine, National Geographics, just to name the more popular publications. It's not that I don't believe what science has to offer, I just don't have that narrow focus on scientific evidence that so many in the profession seem to have. Including some individuals replying to my posts, thank you.


33 posted on 07/31/2006 9:19:13 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
I.E. there is scientific basis that might suggest a younger age of the earth, I would say a fair amount.

Only on creationist websites.

Sorry, but if there was a young earth with a global flood at ca. 2350 BC, don't you think archaeologists all over the world would be finding evidence in 2350 BC dirt?

Given the purported magnitude of that flood, it should be the easiest thing around to find. What, then, do you make of continuous occupation in the New World spanning some 10,000+ years in many places, complete with mtDNA, faunal and floral evidence, and human settlement and subsistence? Same for sedimentology.

Are all these archaeologists mistaken?

Be careful how you answer--I are one of them thar archaeologists.

34 posted on 07/31/2006 9:21:09 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
They could also mention that the creation "myth", the great flood "myth", and the Saviour "myth" exists in almost every civilization on the planet. But hey, that might just lend a bit of credence to religion now wouldn't it?
35 posted on 07/31/2006 9:21:17 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Intolerant in NJ

Try also LIFE'S SOLUTION by Simon Conway Morris. Morris is a Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at Cambridge University and also, apparently, an Anglican (gasp!). He's got little time for Young Earthers, but he saves his real bile for the neo-Darwinists. No wonder the acolytes of S.J. Gould hate him so.


36 posted on 07/31/2006 9:21:38 PM PDT by Reverend Bob (That which does not kill us makes us bitter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Why is Intelligent the only alternative to mainstream biology? It has been around for 200 years without doing or suggesting any research. Even the Discovery Institute admits that it should do research before insisting on being in the classroom. That was their position at the Dover trial.


37 posted on 07/31/2006 9:21:58 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Because it is actually a secret cult of archaeologists who really run things and do everything they can to keep the secret hidden?

Now I will most likely be killed in my sleep for saying that but someone had to get the truth out.

;)


38 posted on 07/31/2006 9:24:30 PM PDT by RFC_Gal (It's not just a boulder; It's a rock! A ro-o-ock. The pioneers used to ride these babies for miles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
They could also mention that the creation "myth", the great flood "myth", and the Saviour "myth" exists in almost every civilization on the planet. But hey, that might just lend a bit of credence to religion now wouldn't it?

No. It might lend a bit of credence to the fact that many early populations lived near rivers or other large bodies of water.

39 posted on 07/31/2006 9:24:32 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Since it would be difficult to actually date when the flood occurred by using the bible as the source, I wouldn't really know the answer to your question. Also, I'm no archeologist nor do I claim that they are all wrong. All I am saying is present the evidence to the student, teach them how to analyze the evidence and let them make their own decisions. Oh, and that what I just said is not done in most science classes nowadays.


40 posted on 07/31/2006 9:25:35 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468

When is the last time you visited a science classroom?


41 posted on 07/31/2006 9:26:21 PM PDT by RFC_Gal (It's not just a boulder; It's a rock! A ro-o-ock. The pioneers used to ride these babies for miles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Just the flood part smarty pants.


42 posted on 07/31/2006 9:26:38 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RFC_Gal
Because it is actually a secret cult of archaeologists who really run things and do everything they can to keep the secret hidden?

Now I will most likely be killed in my sleep for saying that but someone had to get the truth out.

We don't have that good a union!

43 posted on 07/31/2006 9:27:02 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
I think that all perspectives should be introduced.

The scientologists appreciate your support.

44 posted on 07/31/2006 9:28:03 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RFC_Gal

Geez gimme a break here. So your saying that pedigogy has changed in the last fifteen years? Are theories other than the big bang and evolution being taught in classrooms throughout the world today? I truly don't think so, and if you know of one, you can clue me in OK?


45 posted on 07/31/2006 9:28:33 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

I said credible!!!


46 posted on 07/31/2006 9:28:58 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Reverend Bob

So you guy says that certain evolutionary outcomes are inevitable. This is at least somewhat testable.

Of course airplanes tend to have wings and automobiles tend to have wheels. Must be guided.

Among things that fly, some have wings covers with feathers, some with fur, some with chitin. Noticing similarities or differences is a function of the observer.


47 posted on 07/31/2006 9:30:33 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

Oh, and BTW, I did say "introduced" and not focused on. I mean, you don't have to give a whole chapter on Xantu, just a line that says he's a fictional creation of L. Ron Hubbard that has become the focus of a new religion.


48 posted on 07/31/2006 9:31:09 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Ohh, Balrog!
49 posted on 07/31/2006 9:31:22 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Good guys" aren't always "nice guys".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468

Credible to who?

They believe in their creation story just as much as you believe in yours.


50 posted on 07/31/2006 9:31:23 PM PDT by RFC_Gal (It's not just a boulder; It's a rock! A ro-o-ock. The pioneers used to ride these babies for miles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-343 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson