Students' Perceptions of Earth's Age Influence Acceptance of Human Evolution

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by Trudge

 

Yeah, jumped the gun a little there, didn't I? But in reality, religion has a great deal to do with politics, does it not? How many non-Christian presidents have there been? Sorry, didn't mean to derail your thread, which is a good one, BTW.

Here is a link that goes over presidents and there religion

www.knowledgerush.com...

Originally posted by trueperspective

Originally posted by Trudge
In my opinion there should be set standards as to what is taught in school in regards to this matter. I understand that there are alot of people that have different religious beliefs but why are some teaching kids to ignore the facts. In the article it says that some teachers are still trying to teach creationism. I do believe in a "God" but that doesn't mean I don't believe in evolution or some form of it (we could have even come from aliens who knows). Why would some teachers try and teach kids that the earth is only thousands of years old and not billions. It doesn't make sense, are we trying to make the population dumb? I would like to hear other people take on this matter.

www.sciencedaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 11-3-2010 by Trudge]

[edit on 11-3-2010 by Trudge]

Massive assumption... I could just as rightly ask why do evolutionist teach children to ignore the facts? If the "facts" were so obvious then why is there still a debate. 200 years since Darwin and science still utterly FAILS to convince the majority of humanity... Oh that's right, we are just blind sheeple that don't have the intelectual capacity to see the truth...

there is no assumption that the Earth is "billions" of years old that is "fact".
If nothing was before "Adam and EVE" why are there dinosaur bones? Why would we try and teach kids that the Earth is only thousands of years old and not billions??

reply to post by Trudge


Please tell me how you know for a fact that the Earth is billions of years old?

Originally posted by trueperspective
200 years since Darwin and science still utterly FAILS to convince the majority of humanity...

Do you have a source for this claim?

Even if this claim is true, it doesn't negate the evidence that evolutionary theory is factual and correct. What IS true is that the majority of humanity has benefitted greatly as a result of the scientific advancements achieved through the use of evolutionary theory.

Originally posted by trueperspective
reply to post by Trudge

 

Please tell me how you know for a fact that the Earth is billions of years old?

The age of rocks is usually determined by radioactive (or radiometric) dating. Some elements are radioactive and gradually convert from one isotope to another. For example, uranium 238 (238U) will gradually convert to lead (206Pb). It will do this at a constant rate. The rate is described as a half-life of the isotope in question. This is the period of time it takes for half the atoms of 238U to convert to lead. For this particular element, the half-life is 4.47 billion years and uranium/lead dating is useful for rocks between 1 million and 4.5 billion years (as luck would have it!).
Other elements are also used (potassium/argon for example). The choice of element depends on how widespread it is - if it isn't found in many rocks then it's not very useful. And how long the half-life is - if the half life is shorter than the age of most rocks then its equally unuseful.

Radiometric dating can only be performed on igneous rocks. The uranium/lead elements are most often used because igneous rocks often contain uranium and the half life is so long. The oldest rock found is around 4.54 billion years old. This is consistent with the age of rocks from the moon and from meteorites, which all point to an age around 4.54-4.56 billion years.

Separate studies of the sun's mass and luminosity suggest that the solar system itself can't be much older than these rocks.

All of this is well-known scientific information. The arguments against it lack scientific credibility, and most of them are posted by so-called Young Earth Christians. The vast majority of the scientific community accepts as valid the information provided by radiometric dating. The claims made about "assumptions" in radiometric dating of billion-year old rock are actually stepping stones that those who work in the field have worked hard to eliminate as impediments to the accuracy of their measurements. Making a "claim" about any aspect of radiometric dating without scientific proof that something is wrong, as has been done, does not invalidate the work - or the mearurements. The earth is about four and a half billion years old.

Here is the link.....

wiki.answers.com...


[edit on 11-3-2010 by Trudge]

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

In an August 2005 Gallup poll, 58% of the public said that creationism was definitely or probably true as an explanation for the origin and development of life

Source: people-press.org...

reply to post by Trudge

Although the theory of radiocarbon dating is interesting, there are several inherent problems with the process. The first of these problems is the fact that the original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon is unknown. The second problem is that the possibility of contamination of the sample over time is quite high. The older the sample the higher the probability of contamination, in fact! What this means is that using carbon dating to date very old samples is really quite impractical given our current level of knowledge and technological capabilities.

Since I already knew you were going to say that I already had the article pulled up. So obvious what you have faith in and yet you are never taught the lies and flaws of your system. You have not been taught the facts.

Source: beta.essortment.com...

Originally posted by trueperspective
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

In an August 2005 Gallup poll, 58% of the public said that creationism was definitely or probably true as an explanation for the origin and development of life

Source: people-press.org...

Interesting. But that's what you get in a country with pervasive religious instututions and low educational standards. It's far easier to believe a claim that a god or gods make than it is to learn and digest the complexities of science. Fortunately though, there are 42% able to learn, digest and rationalize the implications of the evolutionary sciences. Even more fortunately, 100% of the population can benefit from this knowledge.

Originally posted by trueperspective
reply to post by Trudge

 

Although the theory of radiocarbon dating is interesting, there are several inherent problems with the process. The first of these problems is the fact that the original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon is unknown. The second problem is that the possibility of contamination of the sample over time is quite high. The older the sample the higher the probability of contamination, in fact! What this means is that using carbon dating to date very old samples is really quite impractical given our current level of knowledge and technological capabilities.

Since I already knew you were going to say that I already had the article pulled up. So obvious what you have faith in and yet you are never taught the lies and flaws of your system. You have not been taught the facts.

Source: beta.essortment.com...

Ok so I read the article about carbon dating and some of the flaws that can happen using it so, how would you go about dating the Earth? Through the bible? Where are the dinosaurs in the bible? In my opinion I would take carbon dating that says the earth is 4.5 billion years old over someone telling me the earth is less than 20 thousand years old because a book that was written and passed down generation after generation and that has changed over the years tells me so.

In the article you posted it talks about how different effects here on earth such as changing magnetic fields and stuff of that nature can effect the carbon dating of items, then why did the same date of 4.5 billion years ago come up with rock samples from the moon? Like I said in my first post I believe in a "God" but I don't think the "Bible" or any religion is correct due to the fact that there are so many "Religions" out there and they all seem to want to "control" peoples mind which is why I think all religions were made in the first place. To keep peoples minds "Closed". If you can't open you mind to new ideas then you will never expand past that point. People use to think the world was "flat" and these are some of the same people who have changed religions over the years to fit there needs. But thats just my opinion..

reply to post by Trudge


Ok, but my point is that alot of people hold so much of modern science to be infallible and "fact." I have just given a tiny example that that is not the case. I don't expect you to be truthful with this question, but have you ever, before today, known that radiocarbon dating is extremely flawed and mere guesswork? I would assume no because you used it as evidence that the world must be billions of years old. I am not trying to attack your personal intelligence, but just to point out that what is taught in school is extremely biased and most certianly not fact.

Originally posted by trueperspective
reply to post by Trudge

 

Ok, but my point is that alot of people hold so much of modern science to be infallible and "fact." I have just given a tiny example that that is not the case. I don't expect you to be truthful with this question, but have you ever, before today, known that radiocarbon dating is extremely flawed and mere guesswork? I would assume no because you used it as evidence that the world must be billions of years old. I am not trying to attack your personal intelligence, but just to point out that what is taught in school is extremely biased and most certianly not fact.

I heard about carbon dating that could be flawed about the shroud of turin due to the fact that it was in a fire that caused the carbon dating to be wrong.

Various tests have been performed on the shroud, yet both believers and skeptics continue to present arguments for and against the validity of the tests. One of the contentious issues is the radiocarbon dating in 1988 which yielded results indicating that the linen fibers of the shroud were grown during the Middle Ages[2]. Proponents of authenticity have since presented arguments against the 1988 carbon dating results, ranging from conflicts in the interpretation of the evidence, to fabric samples being taken from a non-representative corner, to additional carbon having been added via fire damage. Heated debate has ensued ever since

en.wikipedia.org...


Also here is another article that talks about the dates of the dinosaurs that makes the dates to be accurate within a few thousand years.

Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so.

here is the link...
www.actionbioscience.org...

To me, it's so sad to hear the political term conservative thrown together with the "religious right".

Not all people who have a conservative political view have a faith based belief.

Just as not all people who have a liberal view of life are not religious.

reply to post by Wildbob77


True, but most do, in both cases.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
20k years old? woah, these crazy liberal teachers with their science...

the earth is 6k years old...it is a traceable history from Adam and Eve, right up to the birth of Christ.

6k years...not 4.6 billion, not 20 thousand...just 6k years old.


incidently...who did Cain take as a wife when ejected from the garden of eden? Seth wasn't even born yet...much less a bunch of other kids to have incest with...who did Cain find in the land of Nod to marry and have kids with...who made those people?

nevermind...

I really hope you are joking but then again you can never tell with creationists.

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

Your wrong creationism can to be a scientific theory, just because it is something you do not prescribe to does not make it wrong.... Man was just a twinkle in the eyes of God we he created the cosmos, Like creationism the theory of evolution has flaws in it, which is why Creationism and Evolution are just that Theories.

Creationism is not a theory. In fact, creationism doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis. It is a fantasy AT BEST. You obviously have no idea what a scientific theory is. Get a clue.

[edit on 13-3-2010 by NegativeBeef]

Originally posted by kingofmd

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet

 

Evolution is not just like Creationism. Evolution is a scientific theory, whereas Creationism is a religious belief. Evolution has mountains of data supporting it, and is the best explanation for what has been observed. In fact, no other theory in biology has as much evidence supporting it as evolution. Creationism is supported by religious texts and is impossible to study by means of the scientific method. Therefore, Creationism can never be a scientific theory.

I hope you are refering to micro and not macro, otherwise you sound foolish. Micro has NEVER been disputed, since we can actually observe it, and document it. You cannot provide proof for micro, and then lump it together with macro. Thats called a equivocation fallacy, no Christian has ever disputed micro evolution. In fact Edward Blythe (I'm willing to bet you never heard of him), was a Christian who wrote extensively about micro evolution. Darwin later plagerized his work, so you can quit beating that straw man.

Please provide ANY evidence of macroevolution, that is, molecules to man/all living creatures descend from a common ancestor. I'm sure that will be simple with the mounds of evidence you claim, the billions of transitional fossils etc. That is unless you simply believe in this with faith and not evidence... and yet many of you still defend it with religious fervor, the irony?!?!?

Macroevolution = lots of microevolution. So basically lots of small changes can add up to a big change over time. Just like if I walk lots of small distances I'll eventually cover a long distance.

Unless you can find a mechanism that prevents lots of small changes from adding up to a big change your assertions are pure BS.

Originally posted by trueperspective

Originally posted by Trudge
In my opinion there should be set standards as to what is taught in school in regards to this matter. I understand that there are alot of people that have different religious beliefs but why are some teaching kids to ignore the facts. In the article it says that some teachers are still trying to teach creationism. I do believe in a "God" but that doesn't mean I don't believe in evolution or some form of it (we could have even come from aliens who knows). Why would some teachers try and teach kids that the earth is only thousands of years old and not billions. It doesn't make sense, are we trying to make the population dumb? I would like to hear other people take on this matter.

www.sciencedaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 11-3-2010 by Trudge]

[edit on 11-3-2010 by Trudge]

Massive assumption... I could just as rightly ask why do evolutionist teach children to ignore the facts? If the "facts" were so obvious then why is there still a debate. 200 years since Darwin and science still utterly FAILS to convince the majority of humanity...

Has Quantum Mechanics convinced the majority of humanity? Has Relativity convinced the majority of humanity? Science is not obligated to convince the majority, only scientists.

Originally posted by trueperspective
Oh that's right, we are just blind sheeple that don't have the intelectual capacity to see the truth...

that's being waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too generous.


[edit on 13-3-2010 by NegativeBeef]

Originally posted by trueperspective
reply to post by Trudge

 

Ok, but my point is that alot of people hold so much of modern science to be infallible and "fact." I have just given a tiny example that that is not the case. I don't expect you to be truthful with this question, but have you ever, before today, known that radiocarbon dating is extremely flawed and mere guesswork? I would assume no because you used it as evidence that the world must be billions of years old. I am not trying to attack your personal intelligence, but just to point out that what is taught in school is extremely biased and most certianly not fact.

First of all, we don't use carbon dating to determine the age of the earth. We use Uranium-argon dating and various other dating techniques. You obviously know NOTHING about science.

Originally posted by trueperspective
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

In an August 2005 Gallup poll, 58% of the public said that creationism was definitely or probably true as an explanation for the origin and development of life

Source: people-press.org...

In science, truth is not measured by mass appeal but by peer-review, consensus and reproducability.

Evolutionary theory is peer-reviewed, is based on concensus and is reproducable in the laboratory and observable in nature.

That's 3 criteria that Creationism doesn't hold up to.

[edit on 13-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 13-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

Originally posted by trueperspective
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

In an August 2005 Gallup poll, 58% of the public said that creationism was definitely or probably true as an explanation for the origin and development of life

Source: people-press.org...

In science, truth is not measured by mass appeal but by peer-review, consensus and reproducability.

Evolutionary theory is peer-reviewed, is based on concensus and is reproducable in the laboratory and observable in nature.

That's 3 criteria that Creationism doesn't hold up to.

Creationists have a very different definition of science. They seem to think that anyone who believes in the bible qualifies as a scientists.

Creationism

*Sigh*

This hypothesis has no educational value.

These teachers should be ashamed. This is why their students are behind foreign students.

First any attempts to teach the metric system are met with groans and wide eyes, and now our kids don’t even know how old the earth is?

It’s an unfortunate time to be an American student.