Lousiana Science Books with both Evolution and creationism (1 Viewer)

[Cliff Clavin]

Chemistry? Physics?

Carbon dating = ChemistryPhysics for the YEC creationists

 

[shader]

Chemistry? Physics?

Carbon dating = ChemistryPhysics for the YEC creationists

oh yeah forgot we are discussing the YEC's

 

[badmojo1006]

I guess I don't see what's so nation destroyingly bad. The book clearly outlines both sides of the arguement and lets the kids decide which they want to believe. At least it's balanced.

*sigh*

 

[zDragon]

Science and God exist in my world and are bonded together. Science has shown to me the awesome creative power of God to result in all of this. As I learn more about our world I see the sophistication and complexity of God's creation.

Why do you believe it's the work of the Christian god and not, say, Mbombo?

You also said that believing in God is even more incredible (i.e. impossible) than believing in the universe. I fail to understand that statement. God is not impossible to me, but rather the explanation to the unanswered questions of science/philosophy.

Well let me clarify to make sure you understand - I didn't quite say believing in god is more incredible than believing in the universe (I don't even know what "believing in the universe" means, exactly; I would hope you believe in the universe, regardless of your beliefs about gods). I asked why you find it impossible to believe that "stuff" just appeared from nothing, but you don't find it hard to believe that a god just appeared from nothing, and then he created a bunch of stuff out of nothing. Let's say at some point there was nothing. Then, out of the total nothingness, a bunch of stuff (e.g. mass and energy) just appeared. You say that's a problem for you, and that you have yet to find a reason that would happen. I agree, that does sound pretty unlikely! I don't know how much you're up on science, but if you're not familiar with a lot of modern physics some crazy stuff really does happen. Here's a blurb from a science blog just to put a little bit of it in layman's terms:

One of the consequences of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle — that you can’t know a quantum state’s energy exactly for a finite duration of time — means that when you’re talking about very short time intervals, there are large uncertainties in the energy of a system. Over short enough timescales, the energies are large enough that particle-antiparticle pairs wink in-and-out of existence all the time!

“That’s crazy talk,” you say. Prove it!

And they did.

Take two identical, uncharged, parallel metal plates, and put them close to one another. The vacuum fluctuations in between the plates cause there to be a pressure pushing the plates together. This isn’t the gravitational force or an electromagnetic force, but a force due to empty space itself.

This experiment — first done in 1948 but repeated many times (under many conditions) — was a rousing success, and has many immediate, far-reaching and fantastic consequences.

The space near a black hole is, of course, filled with these particle-antiparticle pairs, just like space everywhere else. But create a pair close to the event horizon, and one of the two can fall in! The other one, being outside the event horizon, can escape, carrying energy away, and becoming real. These particles that escape are known as Hawking radiation.

When the Universe inflates, or expands exponentially (before the Big Bang), these quantum fluctuations also expand, and get stretched across the Universe faster than they can annihilate one another. These fluctuations show up as regions with slightly more (for positive fluctuations) or less (for negative ones) energy, which then grow into structure (like clusters, galaxies, and stars) and voids as the Universe ages.

And if you start with enough energy, you can take all of the real matter and antimatter pairs that exist, and create more matter than antimatter, giving us a Universe where we have something, today, rather than nothing.

Now, that’s what we know we can get, even from nothing. But there are many things we can’t do, either practically or theoretically: violate charge or energy conservation, decrease the total entropy of the Universe, or figure out where our initially inflating Universe came from. (Yet!) But we definitely can get something for nothing; quantum field theory not only allows it, it demands it. But it remains to be seen whether we can get everything for nothing. If we ever figure it out, I’ll make sure you’re among the first to know!

So it's not only possible for "stuff" to come from "nothing," it's pretty much certain to happen. We know stuff exists, and we know that stuff can spontaneously appear where there previously appeared to be no stuff, but you have a hard time believing that. (Obviously there are still many many questions we can't yet answer, although when that happens, I think it's better not to just make up an answer so we have one, but instead to keep looking until we actually find the right answer.)Now again, let's say at some point there was nothing. Then, out of the total nothingness, an invisible, all-powerful creator-god just appeared. We don't actually know if this god (or any god) exists, we've never seen him or any evidence of his existence, and we certainly have no idea if it's possible for an infinitely intelligent creator-brain to just spontaneously appear out of nothing and then start creating stuff out of nothing. Yet you have no problem believing this is a more likely explanation of what happened.

You don't see how that's a little bit of a problem?

The "nothing" the stuff is coming from is very likely "something". We just don't have any way to observe it.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I guess I don't see what's so nation destroyingly bad. The book clearly outlines both sides of the arguement and lets the kids decide which they want to believe. At least it's balanced.

My link

 

[GoFishTN]

This isn't a public school textbook, is it?

From what I've read this is a textbook that is used in privates schools. However, Louisiana has a voucher system where taxpayer money can be used to pay for private school tuition. Technically the schools that use books like this are receiving public moneys.I could be wrong though.

No you're right:

Fifth graders in some state-sponsored schools in Louisiana study both creationism and evolution as competing theories.

This crap is destroying our ability to compete as a nation. We turn out kids who still believe fantasies that are best suited for the 15 century not the 21st.

Of all the things destroying our ability to compete, this is very, very low on the list.

That's where you are wrong. As more scientific illiterates demand that school represent their "beliefs" in the classroom more children are taught decidedly wrong things. It affects their ability to be competitive in a world where everything relies on the science their parents dismiss because the Bible tells them to.

This is a tired talking point. Rejecting evolution or global warming does not mean you are anti-science or that you dismiss all science, even if you are wrong on those issues.And I'm certain that laziness and apathy are certainly bigger problems among our youth than their scientific beliefs.

Yeah, it pretty much does.

What else are they rejecting? Physics? Genetics? Gravity itself?

No. It's simply a liberal talking point meant to belittle their opposition's intelligence.

You're rejecting Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Anthropology, Archaeology and pretty much anything else that relates to them.Oh wait, you're just rejecting portions of those, right? The parts you don't agree with aren't right but the rest of it is?

Isn't that how we advance? Do you agree with everything ever written in science books and journals? I doubt anyone does.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Isn't that how we advance? Do you agree with everything ever written in science books and journals? I doubt anyone does.

No. We do not advance by rejecting testable, falsifiable information. We stop advancement by rejecting this information for religious dogma.

 

[zoonation]

I've said it before and will say it again:

Death is the cognitive architect of voluntary insanity.

Pretty much explains it all so far as i can tell.

 

[joffer]

Isn't that how we advance? Do you agree with everything ever written in science books and journals? I doubt anyone does.

everything currently written and accepted by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community? yeswhat do you do?

 

[joffer]

My problem stems from the issue of where did all of that energy/mass come from? I have yet to find a reason for all of that coming from nothing.

Serious question for you, though: Where did your god come from? Why do you have such a hard time believing that "stuff" like matter sprang from "nothing", but you have no problem believing that some kind of infinite brain that knows everything and has limitless powers just happened to spring from nothing, and then created everything in the universe, (again, from nothing)? That doesn't set off any bells for you?

Funny. Both groups believe everything came from nothing. Both show faith in their beliefs.

It's funny that you don't know what your talking about? Agreed.

No, I don't know what your talking about and truthfully I really don't care.

hint: The Big Bang Theory DOES NOT say that everything came from nothing, and DOES NOT require faith. 0 for 2.

 

[zDragon]

Why is it so ridiculous that the earth may only be thousands of years old but easy to accept that it is millions of years old? I have read that stated several times here. I find it interesting how everyone will take what someone else says is a fact and defend it with such devotion.

It's called science. Check it out some day. Oh and the Earth is billions of years old not millions.

I think he just had the wrong scientific date. The 4 billion date wasn't put out until the late 1950's. Prior to that it was around 1 billion, and earlier millions. For all we know it could be twice that old. As we gain more knowledge our views and understanding changes. The scientist that dated the age at 400 million years old was not an idiot he just did not have the methods available to correctly set the date. When reading a book you need to keep in mind the technology and understanding of the time. Just think at one point the leading scientist/thinkers thought there were only 4 or 5 elements.

 

[B-Deep]

if it is at private schools, even if state vouchers can send some money there, who cares

the kids reading this are going there because their parents want them too, so they are probably getting this at home as well

The fact that evolution is presented at all is probably a plus

 

[NCCommish]

Why is it so ridiculous that the earth may only be thousands of years old but easy to accept that it is millions of years old? I have read that stated several times here. I find it interesting how everyone will take what someone else says is a fact and defend it with such devotion.

It's called science. Check it out some day. Oh and the Earth is billions of years old not millions.

I think he just had the wrong scientific date. The 4 billion date wasn't put out until the late 1950's. Prior to that it was around 1 billion, and earlier millions. For all we know it could be twice that old. As we gain more knowledge our views and understanding changes. The scientist that dated the age at 400 million years old was not an idiot he just did not have the methods available to correctly set the date. When reading a book you need to keep in mind the technology and understanding of the time. Just think at one point the leading scientist/thinkers thought there were only 4 or 5 elements.

Yeah I have been a science nerd my whole life. I understand one must keep up and since it is science when new evidence presents itself we change our thinking. But there will be no more time added to the Earth's age unless we change the age of the Universe. And it certainly isn't going to get any younger.It seems most of his take on this comes from the Young Earth crowd.

 

[NCCommish]

if it is at private schools, even if state vouchers can send some money there, who caresthe kids reading this are going there because their parents want them too, so they are probably getting this at home as wellThe fact that evolution is presented at all is probably a plus

I care. If it is paid for with tax money it needs to meet certain minimums and it needs to not proselytize.

 

[zDragon]

Then what was the initial condition that started it? Where did the original particles come from? Exactly what existed prior to the Big bang?

None of us knows this. The issue here is that creationist believe that God came from nothing but refuse to accept that it's just as plausible that the universe came from nothing.

I agree with your point of view. It is just as plausible that the universe sprang from nothing.

 

[zDragon]

This isn't a public school textbook, is it?

From what I've read this is a textbook that is used in privates schools. However, Louisiana has a voucher system where taxpayer money can be used to pay for private school tuition. Technically the schools that use books like this are receiving public moneys.I could be wrong though.

No you're right:

Fifth graders in some state-sponsored schools in Louisiana study both creationism and evolution as competing theories.

This crap is destroying our ability to compete as a nation. We turn out kids who still believe fantasies that are best suited for the 15 century not the 21st.

Look, I'm as big a non-believer as you are, but I happened to go to college with hundreds of kids who hailed from Louisiana, many to most of them coming from parochial, private schools that were HEAVY on religion/Christianity. But I'm here to tell you that these kids were every bit as competitive intellectually in a very good to great liberal arts college of higher learning than I was as a non-believer. They may be inundated with religion in Louisiana, but they aren't suffering intellectually because of it. Just my 2 cents from my experience.

Jesuit schools have a great rep for producing top students. I don't think being a religious school or going to one automatically makes you dumb. But I think where many of these schools are going is like the home schooling route. I do think they hurt students in that everything is presented as if it comes with the same kind of authority. And by treating this anti-science as if it is valid, it simply isn't. There are now schools in La teaching that dinosaurs and men co-existed less than 10k years ago. And they are getting tax money to do it. Those kids are screwed.

Look, I agree that teaching kids that dinosaurs and man roaming the earth at the same time is just beyond stupid and certainly not something our tax dollars should be supporting. But I don't think that's the only thing being taught to these kids, nor do I think religion taking an active role in education in Louisiana is a terribly new concept and one set to ruin the children. Every single kid I ever met from the city of New Orleans went to private school. If you have the means, you do NOT send yours kids to public school in New Orleans. That is the way it has always been as far as I can remember. These private schools are all affiliated with religion, mostly Catholicism. And yet these kids go into colleges and become doctors, lawyers, leaders in business, etc. I don't think religious education is setting them back.

Totally agree here. I think the school systems need to take a serious look at what is taught as core/required subjects and focus on those. We need a very heavy dose of literacy, mathematics, critical thinking, and tech skills. Everything else should be moved to the few elective spots they get each year. Let a student take creationism, cursive, history as a elective if they want but focus on the core.

 

[rascal]

Science and God exist in my world and are bonded together. Science has shown to me the awesome creative power of God to result in all of this. As I learn more about our world I see the sophistication and complexity of God's creation.

Why do you believe it's the work of the Christian god and not, say, Mbombo?

You also said that believing in God is even more incredible (i.e. impossible) than believing in the universe. I fail to understand that statement. God is not impossible to me, but rather the explanation to the unanswered questions of science/philosophy.

Well let me clarify to make sure you understand - I didn't quite say believing in god is more incredible than believing in the universe (I don't even know what "believing in the universe" means, exactly; I would hope you believe in the universe, regardless of your beliefs about gods). I asked why you find it impossible to believe that "stuff" just appeared from nothing, but you don't find it hard to believe that a god just appeared from nothing, and then he created a bunch of stuff out of nothing. Let's say at some point there was nothing. Then, out of the total nothingness, a bunch of stuff (e.g. mass and energy) just appeared. You say that's a problem for you, and that you have yet to find a reason that would happen. I agree, that does sound pretty unlikely! I don't know how much you're up on science, but if you're not familiar with a lot of modern physics some crazy stuff really does happen. Here's a blurb from a science blog just to put a little bit of it in layman's terms:

One of the consequences of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle — that you can’t know a quantum state’s energy exactly for a finite duration of time — means that when you’re talking about very short time intervals, there are large uncertainties in the energy of a system. Over short enough timescales, the energies are large enough that particle-antiparticle pairs wink in-and-out of existence all the time!

“That’s crazy talk,” you say. Prove it!

And they did.

Take two identical, uncharged, parallel metal plates, and put them close to one another. The vacuum fluctuations in between the plates cause there to be a pressure pushing the plates together. This isn’t the gravitational force or an electromagnetic force, but a force due to empty space itself.

This experiment — first done in 1948 but repeated many times (under many conditions) — was a rousing success, and has many immediate, far-reaching and fantastic consequences.

The space near a black hole is, of course, filled with these particle-antiparticle pairs, just like space everywhere else. But create a pair close to the event horizon, and one of the two can fall in! The other one, being outside the event horizon, can escape, carrying energy away, and becoming real. These particles that escape are known as Hawking radiation.

When the Universe inflates, or expands exponentially (before the Big Bang), these quantum fluctuations also expand, and get stretched across the Universe faster than they can annihilate one another. These fluctuations show up as regions with slightly more (for positive fluctuations) or less (for negative ones) energy, which then grow into structure (like clusters, galaxies, and stars) and voids as the Universe ages.

And if you start with enough energy, you can take all of the real matter and antimatter pairs that exist, and create more matter than antimatter, giving us a Universe where we have something, today, rather than nothing.

Now, that’s what we know we can get, even from nothing. But there are many things we can’t do, either practically or theoretically: violate charge or energy conservation, decrease the total entropy of the Universe, or figure out where our initially inflating Universe came from. (Yet!) But we definitely can get something for nothing; quantum field theory not only allows it, it demands it. But it remains to be seen whether we can get everything for nothing. If we ever figure it out, I’ll make sure you’re among the first to know!

So it's not only possible for "stuff" to come from "nothing," it's pretty much certain to happen. We know stuff exists, and we know that stuff can spontaneously appear where there previously appeared to be no stuff, but you have a hard time believing that. (Obviously there are still many many questions we can't yet answer, although when that happens, I think it's better not to just make up an answer so we have one, but instead to keep looking until we actually find the right answer.)Now again, let's say at some point there was nothing. Then, out of the total nothingness, an invisible, all-powerful creator-god just appeared. We don't actually know if this god (or any god) exists, we've never seen him or any evidence of his existence, and we certainly have no idea if it's possible for an infinitely intelligent creator-brain to just spontaneously appear out of nothing and then start creating stuff out of nothing. Yet you have no problem believing this is a more likely explanation of what happened.

You don't see how that's a little bit of a problem?

How about we focus on the existance of a creator. I don't have the time or the mental energy for the discussion of God vs Mbombo. Not sure I have the energy for this, but here we go...I think you are trying to impose our limitations onto God. You can call that a copout, but it simply is what I believe. He transcends time/place/natural laws. Regarding your article, I think its more likely that the stuff they are calling nothing exists but we just have no way to currently see it.

A question for you. There are obviously unknown answers and undoubtedly even unknown questions. Why couldn't the answer be God or Mbombo? And how can you justify altruism, Moral Law, and mans universal search for "God"?

 

[GeauxTigers]

I went to a public high school in Louisiana. We were taught evolution in Biology. We never discussed religion or creationism.

 

[17seconds]

The first link makes it clear these are not public school text books, as if there was any doubt.

Where did you see that? I don't see it. I'm really hoping this is not a public school textbook.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

The first link makes it clear these are not public school text books, as if there was any doubt.

Where did you see that? I don't see it. I'm really hoping this is not a public school textbook.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=668310&view=findpost&p=15036291

 

[rascal]

Then what was the initial condition that started it? Where did the original particles come from? Exactly what existed prior to the Big bang?

None of us knows this. The issue here is that creationist believe that God came from nothing but refuse to accept that it's just as plausible that the universe came from nothing.

 

[GeauxTigers]

Why is it so ridiculous that the earth may only be thousands of years old but easy to accept that it is millions of years old? I have read that stated several times here. I find it interesting how everyone will take what someone else says is a fact and defend it with such devotion.

It's called scientific proof. Hard evidence. And the earth is billions of years old, not millions.

 

[rascal]

My take on where did the universe come from theories. No one can say really. If you want to say God set everything in motion and let nature take over no one can really say it didn't go that way.

Exactly.

But then you don't get to ignore things like a 4 billion year old Earth and evolution.

Agreed.

The reason the God answer doesn't make sense, other than the complete lack of proof, is that the least complex answer is usually the right one and God makes an incredibly complex Universe exponentially more complex.

Not from my point of view.

 

[rascal]

My take on where did the universe come from theories. No one can say really. If you want to say God set everything in motion and let nature take over no one can really say it didn't go that way. But then you don't get to ignore things like a 4 billion year old Earth and evolution. If you want to go with any of the competing scientific theories no one can say you are wrong but then you are stuck accepting it could be the God thing as well. The reason the God answer doesn't make sense, other than the complete lack of proof, is that the least complex answer is usually the right one and God makes an incredibly complex Universe exponentially more complex.

What I take for proof, you don't. We have the same data, we just interpret it differently. I see DNA as slam-dunk proof in a creator of DNA. You don't. To each his own. But you should at least acknowledge that there are rational, smart people out there that see it differently than you do.

Calling each other idiots or saying that creationists are leading to the downfall of our country is just asinine. All that is going to do is cause people to dig in even more and put up blinders ignoring any time of logic that they may have stated.

 

[rascal]

The "nothing" the stuff is coming from is very likely "something". We just don't have any way to observe it.

Exactly.

 

[Sinn Fein]

My take on where did the universe come from theories. No one can say really. If you want to say God set everything in motion and let nature take over no one can really say it didn't go that way.

Exactly.

But then you don't get to ignore things like a 4 billion year old Earth and evolution.

Agreed.

The reason the God answer doesn't make sense, other than the complete lack of proof, is that the least complex answer is usually the right one and God makes an incredibly complex Universe exponentially more complex.

Not from my point of view.

But then you have to accept that somehow God came into existence - which does add a layer of complexity to how the universe began. If you say God created the complex system, who/what created God to allow him to create such a complex environment?At some point, what we currently consider "nothing" had to expand into "something" My guess is that in a billion years, some being will have a much different definition of "nothing" than we currently have (and admittedly probably won't be speaking english)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Why is it so ridiculous that the earth may only be thousands of years old but easy to accept that it is millions of years old? I have read that stated several times here. I find it interesting how everyone will take what someone else says is a fact and defend it with such devotion.

Both are ridiculous. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. And yes, I'm taking a bunch of scientists' word for it. But those scientists have performed multiple experiments and tests. They've used tree rings. And ice cores. And atomic isotope dating. And their answers all converge. In other areas of my life, I find it preferable to rely on people who have a certain amount of expertise. For instance, I rely on meteorologists to tell me if it's likely to snow. I rely on doctors to tell me how to treat shingles.

That's one old tree

It's many old trees.

 

[zDragon]

Why is it so ridiculous that the earth may only be thousands of years old but easy to accept that it is millions of years old? I have read that stated several times here. I find it interesting how everyone will take what someone else says is a fact and defend it with such devotion.

Both are ridiculous. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. And yes, I'm taking a bunch of scientists' word for it. But those scientists have performed multiple experiments and tests. They've used tree rings. And ice cores. And atomic isotope dating. And their answers all converge. In other areas of my life, I find it preferable to rely on people who have a certain amount of expertise. For instance, I rely on meteorologists to tell me if it's likely to snow. I rely on doctors to tell me how to treat shingles.

That's one old tree

It's many old trees.

Pretty sure this has nothing to do with determining the age of the earth. They use asteroids and something related to the sun and the hydrogen build-up it has. I could be wrong but pretty sure tree dating doesn't even go to a million years.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Why is it so ridiculous that the earth may only be thousands of years old but easy to accept that it is millions of years old? I have read that stated several times here. I find it interesting how everyone will take what someone else says is a fact and defend it with such devotion.

Both are ridiculous. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. And yes, I'm taking a bunch of scientists' word for it. But those scientists have performed multiple experiments and tests. They've used tree rings. And ice cores. And atomic isotope dating. And their answers all converge. In other areas of my life, I find it preferable to rely on people who have a certain amount of expertise. For instance, I rely on meteorologists to tell me if it's likely to snow. I rely on doctors to tell me how to treat shingles.

That's one old tree

It's many old trees.

Pretty sure this has nothing to do with determining the age of the earth. They use asteroids and something related to the sun and the hydrogen build-up it has. I could be wrong but pretty sure tree dating doesn't even go to a million years.

Tree dating only goes to 9000 years. But it is used to check other processes that go much earlier. Like carbon dating.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

From CNN today:

"Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years, according to a survey released by Gallup in June. That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution.

The second most common view is that humans evolved with God's guidance - a view held by 32% of respondents. The view that humans evolved with no guidance from God was held by 15% of respondents.

For the past 30 years, the “equal-time argument” –- the idea that Creationism taught alongside evolution -– has been popular method for Creationists to advance their cause. In the late 1980s, some state legislatures passed bills that promoted the idea of a balanced treatment of both ideas in the classroom.

In 1987, the issue made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where a Louisiana "equal-time law" was struck down. The court ruled that teaching creationism in public school classrooms was a violation of the Establishment Cause in the Constitution, which is commonly referred to as the separation of church and state."

CNN article.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Why is it so ridiculous that the earth may only be thousands of years old but easy to accept that it is millions of years old? I have read that stated several times here. I find it interesting how everyone will take what someone else says is a fact and defend it with such devotion.

Both are ridiculous. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. And yes, I'm taking a bunch of scientists' word for it. But those scientists have performed multiple experiments and tests. They've used tree rings. And ice cores. And atomic isotope dating. And their answers all converge. In other areas of my life, I find it preferable to rely on people who have a certain amount of expertise. For instance, I rely on meteorologists to tell me if it's likely to snow. I rely on doctors to tell me how to treat shingles.

That's one old tree

It's many old trees.

Pretty sure this has nothing to do with determining the age of the earth. They use asteroids and something related to the sun and the hydrogen build-up it has. I could be wrong but pretty sure tree dating doesn't even go to a million years.

Tree dating only goes to 9000 years. But it is used to check other processes that go much earlier. Like carbon dating.

The important thing being, God decide to make 3,000 year old trees at the time he created the earth.

 

[shader]

Why is it so ridiculous that the earth may only be thousands of years old but easy to accept that it is millions of years old? I have read that stated several times here. I find it interesting how everyone will take what someone else says is a fact and defend it with such devotion.

Both are ridiculous. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. And yes, I'm taking a bunch of scientists' word for it. But those scientists have performed multiple experiments and tests. They've used tree rings. And ice cores. And atomic isotope dating. And their answers all converge. In other areas of my life, I find it preferable to rely on people who have a certain amount of expertise. For instance, I rely on meteorologists to tell me if it's likely to snow. I rely on doctors to tell me how to treat shingles.

That's one old tree

It's many old trees.

A 4.5 billion year old tree!

 

[17seconds]

Not from my point of view.

I don't understand this point of view.My point of view is: I don't believe anything about the natural world until I observe it or strong scientific evidence convinces me it's so. Your point of view seems to be: believe everything science tells you until it contradicts the bible, and then don't believe it. You only allow the bible to be overridden when we all observe something that is indisputable. When that happens, you retreat to an argument saying the bible, in that instance, is hyperbole. It's clinging to something you really, really want to be true. It's eroding.

 

[sporthenry]

Why is it so ridiculous that the earth may only be thousands of years old but easy to accept that it is millions of years old? I have read that stated several times here. I find it interesting how everyone will take what someone else says is a fact and defend it with such devotion.

Both are ridiculous. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. And yes, I'm taking a bunch of scientists' word for it. But those scientists have performed multiple experiments and tests. They've used tree rings. And ice cores. And atomic isotope dating. And their answers all converge. In other areas of my life, I find it preferable to rely on people who have a certain amount of expertise. For instance, I rely on meteorologists to tell me if it's likely to snow. I rely on doctors to tell me how to treat shingles.

That's one old tree

It's many old trees.

Pretty sure this has nothing to do with determining the age of the earth. They use asteroids and something related to the sun and the hydrogen build-up it has. I could be wrong but pretty sure tree dating doesn't even go to a million years.

Tree dating only goes to 9000 years. But it is used to check other processes that go much earlier. Like carbon dating.

The important thing being, God decide to make 3,000 year old trees at the time he created the eath.

Yeah, what a ####, putting these clues to throw us off his track. Putting trees, fossils, carbon dating out there along with evidence of evolution. And you say he wants us to believe he exists?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Louisiana religious books should now be required to be altered so as to include Evolution.

 

[shader]

Why is it so ridiculous that the earth may only be thousands of years old but easy to accept that it is millions of years old? I have read that stated several times here. I find it interesting how everyone will take what someone else says is a fact and defend it with such devotion.

Both are ridiculous. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. And yes, I'm taking a bunch of scientists' word for it. But those scientists have performed multiple experiments and tests. They've used tree rings. And ice cores. And atomic isotope dating. And their answers all converge. In other areas of my life, I find it preferable to rely on people who have a certain amount of expertise. For instance, I rely on meteorologists to tell me if it's likely to snow. I rely on doctors to tell me how to treat shingles.

That's one old tree

It's many old trees.

Pretty sure this has nothing to do with determining the age of the earth. They use asteroids and something related to the sun and the hydrogen build-up it has. I could be wrong but pretty sure tree dating doesn't even go to a million years.

Tree dating only goes to 9000 years. But it is used to check other processes that go much earlier. Like carbon dating.

The important thing being, God decide to make 3,000 year old trees at the time he created the eath.

Yeah, what a ####, putting these clues to throw us off his track. Putting trees, fossils, carbon dating out there along with evidence of evolution. And you say he wants us to believe he exists?

There are plenty of reasons to think God exists for millions of people. It's as evident as 1+1=2. Some evidently need videotape of God doing the creating, which is your right.That being said, many churches don't help things with bat-crazy ideas like a 6,000 year earth, tree rings that "show age at the time of creation", etc.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Why is it so ridiculous that the earth may only be thousands of years old but easy to accept that it is millions of years old? I have read that stated several times here. I find it interesting how everyone will take what someone else says is a fact and defend it with such devotion.

Both are ridiculous. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. And yes, I'm taking a bunch of scientists' word for it. But those scientists have performed multiple experiments and tests. They've used tree rings. And ice cores. And atomic isotope dating. And their answers all converge. In other areas of my life, I find it preferable to rely on people who have a certain amount of expertise. For instance, I rely on meteorologists to tell me if it's likely to snow. I rely on doctors to tell me how to treat shingles.

That's one old tree

It's many old trees.

Pretty sure this has nothing to do with determining the age of the earth. They use asteroids and something related to the sun and the hydrogen build-up it has. I could be wrong but pretty sure tree dating doesn't even go to a million years.

Tree dating only goes to 9000 years. But it is used to check other processes that go much earlier. Like carbon dating.

The important thing being, God decide to make 3,000 year old trees at the time he created the eath.

Yeah, what a ####, putting these clues to throw us off his track. Putting trees, fossils, carbon dating out there along with evidence of evolution. And you say he wants us to believe he exists?

There are plenty of reasons to think God exists for millions of people. It's as evident as 1+1=2. Some evidently need videotape of God doing the creating, which is your right.That being said, many churches don't help things with bat-crazy ideas like a 6,000 year earth, tree rings that "show age at the time of creation", etc.

Doesn't need to be a video tape. Any shred of evidence will suffice.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

It's as evident as 1+1=2.

No it's not.And I'm a believer. But lets not lie about it.

 

[shader]

Why is it so ridiculous that the earth may only be thousands of years old but easy to accept that it is millions of years old? I have read that stated several times here. I find it interesting how everyone will take what someone else says is a fact and defend it with such devotion.

Both are ridiculous. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. And yes, I'm taking a bunch of scientists' word for it. But those scientists have performed multiple experiments and tests. They've used tree rings. And ice cores. And atomic isotope dating. And their answers all converge. In other areas of my life, I find it preferable to rely on people who have a certain amount of expertise. For instance, I rely on meteorologists to tell me if it's likely to snow. I rely on doctors to tell me how to treat shingles.

That's one old tree

It's many old trees.

Pretty sure this has nothing to do with determining the age of the earth. They use asteroids and something related to the sun and the hydrogen build-up it has. I could be wrong but pretty sure tree dating doesn't even go to a million years.

Tree dating only goes to 9000 years. But it is used to check other processes that go much earlier. Like carbon dating.

The important thing being, God decide to make 3,000 year old trees at the time he created the eath.

Yeah, what a ####, putting these clues to throw us off his track. Putting trees, fossils, carbon dating out there along with evidence of evolution. And you say he wants us to believe he exists?

There are plenty of reasons to think God exists for millions of people. It's as evident as 1+1=2. Some evidently need videotape of God doing the creating, which is your right.That being said, many churches don't help things with bat-crazy ideas like a 6,000 year earth, tree rings that "show age at the time of creation", etc.

Doesn't need to be a video tape. Any shred of evidence will suffice.

Evidence is everywhere you look. If you can't see it, that's your right and i don't criticize you for it, I just disagree. I don't know what to tell you. We just see the world different, thats all.

 

[shader]

It's as evident as 1+1=2.

No it's not.And I'm a believer. But lets not lie about it.

No one is lying about anything. Many of you act as if there is one particular way that we are all supposed to look at things. Maybe I'm a simplistic moron. But thats the way I see it.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

It's as evident as 1+1=2.

No it's not.And I'm a believer. But lets not lie about it.

No one is lying about anything. Many of you act as if there is one particular way that we are all supposed to look at things. Maybe I'm a simplistic moron. But thats the way I see it.

You obviously overstated the "evidence as 1+1=2".If that were true, we wouldn't need churches and preachers. Obviously.

 

[Christo]

There are plenty of reasons to think God exists for millions of people. It's as evident as 1+1=2. Some evidently need videotape of God doing the creating, which is your right.

That being said, many churches don't help things with bat-crazy ideas like a 6,000 year earth, tree rings that "show age at the time of creation", etc.

Doesn't need to be a video tape. Any shred of evidence will suffice.

Evidence is everywhere you look. If you can't see it, that's your right and i don't criticize you for it, I just disagree. I don't know what to tell you. We just see the world different, thats all.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means

 

[shader]

It's as evident as 1+1=2.

No it's not.And I'm a believer. But lets not lie about it.

No one is lying about anything. Many of you act as if there is one particular way that we are all supposed to look at things. Maybe I'm a simplistic moron. But thats the way I see it.

You obviously overstated the "evidence as 1+1=2".If that were true, we wouldn't need churches and preachers. Obviously.

I suppose I should clarify. Evidence in a creator is that simple.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

It's as evident as 1+1=2.

No it's not.And I'm a believer. But lets not lie about it.

No one is lying about anything. Many of you act as if there is one particular way that we are all supposed to look at things. Maybe I'm a simplistic moron. But thats the way I see it.

You obviously overstated the "evidence as 1+1=2".If that were true, we wouldn't need churches and preachers. Obviously.

I suppose I should clarify. Evidence in a creator is that simple.

creator? as opposed to creation?

 

[Christo]

It's as evident as 1+1=2.

No it's not.And I'm a believer. But lets not lie about it.

No one is lying about anything. Many of you act as if there is one particular way that we are all supposed to look at things. Maybe I'm a simplistic moron. But thats the way I see it.

You obviously overstated the "evidence as 1+1=2".If that were true, we wouldn't need churches and preachers. Obviously.

I suppose I should clarify. Evidence in a creator is that simple.

Perhaps you could point us to some of this "evidence".

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Why is it so ridiculous that the earth may only be thousands of years old but easy to accept that it is millions of years old? I have read that stated several times here. I find it interesting how everyone will take what someone else says is a fact and defend it with such devotion.

Both are ridiculous. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. And yes, I'm taking a bunch of scientists' word for it. But those scientists have performed multiple experiments and tests. They've used tree rings. And ice cores. And atomic isotope dating. And their answers all converge. In other areas of my life, I find it preferable to rely on people who have a certain amount of expertise. For instance, I rely on meteorologists to tell me if it's likely to snow. I rely on doctors to tell me how to treat shingles.

That's one old tree

It's many old trees.

Pretty sure this has nothing to do with determining the age of the earth. They use asteroids and something related to the sun and the hydrogen build-up it has. I could be wrong but pretty sure tree dating doesn't even go to a million years.

Tree rings show the earth to be older the Young Earth Creationists' estimate.Similar to counting tree rings, we can also count river varves and layers in ice cores, which takes us back a few hundred thousand years.

 

[shader]

There are plenty of reasons to think God exists for millions of people. It's as evident as 1+1=2. Some evidently need videotape of God doing the creating, which is your right.

That being said, many churches don't help things with bat-crazy ideas like a 6,000 year earth, tree rings that "show age at the time of creation", etc.

Doesn't need to be a video tape. Any shred of evidence will suffice.

Evidence is everywhere you look. If you can't see it, that's your right and i don't criticize you for it, I just disagree. I don't know what to tell you. We just see the world different, thats all.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means

I have a dictionary and am well aware of the meaning. All "evidence" that is brought to a trial is not always regarded the same way by a jury. The jurors thought that the small glove was enough evidence to acquit OJ. Maybe they were swayed by a skillful lawyer, and maybe they weren't.I see evidence all around me. Others see the exact things that I do, and disregard that evidence. That's life.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There are plenty of reasons to think God exists for millions of people.

Yes, but those reasons tend to be faith-based, not evidence-based.

 

[shader]

It's as evident as 1+1=2.

No it's not.And I'm a believer. But lets not lie about it.

No one is lying about anything. Many of you act as if there is one particular way that we are all supposed to look at things. Maybe I'm a simplistic moron. But thats the way I see it.

You obviously overstated the "evidence as 1+1=2".If that were true, we wouldn't need churches and preachers. Obviously.

I suppose I should clarify. Evidence in a creator is that simple.

Perhaps you could point us to some of this "evidence".

DNAHumans

The earth

The universe

The atom

The physical laws

The cell

The solar system

Gravity

Genetics

Music

Love

Food

Women

If you're looking for the hidden webcam that was there at the moment of creation, I might not be able to help you out.

 

[Christo]

There are plenty of reasons to think God exists for millions of people. It's as evident as 1+1=2. Some evidently need videotape of God doing the creating, which is your right.

That being said, many churches don't help things with bat-crazy ideas like a 6,000 year earth, tree rings that "show age at the time of creation", etc.

Doesn't need to be a video tape. Any shred of evidence will suffice.

Evidence is everywhere you look. If you can't see it, that's your right and i don't criticize you for it, I just disagree. I don't know what to tell you. We just see the world different, thats all.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means

I have a dictionary and am well aware of the meaning. All "evidence" that is brought to a trial is not always regarded the same way by a jury. The jurors thought that the small glove was enough evidence to acquit OJ. Maybe they were swayed by a skillful lawyer, and maybe they weren't.I see evidence all around me. Others see the exact things that I do, and disregard that evidence. That's life.