15 answers to creationist bullsh!t acusations

[rahvin]

Then I would suggest you actually read the links I posted, as well as doing some side research. There is compelling evidence of levels 50%+ instead of the 2% your link mentions. My point is that this controversy has compelling evidence on both sides, and so one side has no place being taught as fact.

Oh please. We teach in science what we believe to be the truth at the time of the teaching. Doesn't matter if it's truely the whole story or not. If we wait to teach anyone anything until we know the whole story we would never teach anyone anything. I did read plenty of authoratative sources on your material including Ohmato's own summarys. His main discovery is bacterial mats from 2.5billion years. He pushed back the age of when life existed quite a bit. But if you will notice my link those bacteria are in fact predicted. Until the appearance of the autotrophs and oxygen production there would have existed anerobic bacteria which exist even today and are still some of the most primative. As far as Ohmato's atmospheric conclusions I won't comment because I don't have the time to see if his paper from 1993 actually had any bearing on science after it was published. Frankly, considering of course that it was published nearly a decade ago and there has been very little other research I conclude that the data or theory were disregarded because of inconsitencies or errors. Ohmato is in fact one of the supporters of the snowball earth theory.

And has Uthomas has already pointed out. Abiogensis has little to do with evolution. Evolution is exclusive of abiogenisis, it in fact does not care how life started, only what happened after.

 

[UThomas]

Here is the citiation for the study I refered to earlier in the thread:

Linhart, Yan B. 1997. The Teaching of Evolution - We Need to Do Better. BioScience 47 (6):385-391

In it, it says (not a quote) that in the definitions of biological evolution given in 23 major textbooks, one finds not a single definition that includes the idea of life arising from nonliving matter (abiogenesis), or is the limitation to developement "entirely by natural means" part of any of the definitions.

Thomas

 

[MadRat]

We're in a loop:

PastorDon: <scientific statement>

UThomas: <insert topic here> is a straw man argument...

 

[JupiterJones]

We teach in science what we believe to be the truth at the time of the teaching

My argument is that this isn't true in this case. I am, in fact, saying that the omissions/errors in High School texts is intentional. It's about indoctrination rather than education.

Hopefully, this is all in my mind (as some of you have said).

Thanks for the reference, I'll get the library to get me a copy of the study.

Anyway, I think that everything that needs saying has been said. Thanks for the unusually civil discussion. I will check back to see if there is any particular question that you would like me to answer. Otherwise, I'll see you the next time this sort of topic comes up.

 

[MadRat]

<<We teach in science what we believe to be the truth at the time of the teaching>>

This was wholeheartedly true fifteen years ago when microbiology and some of the other sciences really took off and discovered a whole slew of past innacuracies. The biology surrounding training of muscle tissue is but one application that is totally topsy-turvy compared to what it was fifteen years ago. I used to shake my head in disbelief when I'd learn about the leading edge of training research then go to football practice and be told to train for a marathon because it'll help me in the fourth quarter. In four years of college football I never saw a marathon breakout after halftime of a football game...