Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Could bio-design and rapid geo-column be introduced in science courses?
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 83 (12422)
06-30-2002 10:35 PM


I'm not a great fan of trying to force public schools to teach creation etc in science courses but I would support limited content on evidence for biological design and the rapid fromation of the geological column. I truly believe the data calls for this and that this is how it could be approached (in the case fo the GC for example):
Geological column
------------------
The sedimentary rocks of the world are water and wind laid rocks that cover blah blah. . . .
The geological column on land is charactersied by alterations between vast marine and smaller non-marine beds. Much of the earth was innundated by the oceans on multiple occasions generating 'epeiric sea' deposits on land that represent the majority of the geological column. The smaller portion of the column in between consists of fresh water deposits, some of which are nevertheless correlated half way across continents.
A very small minority of scientists believe that the geological column is evidence of a global flood that occurred in alternating marine and non-marine surges generating much of the sedimnetary rocks on earth. Most scientists disagree, citing evidence of habitated surfaces at many levels in the local geolgocal columns and radiodating. The global flood geolgoists counter that these habitats may not have been long term habitats and that radiodating methods may not be true indicators of time for various reasons. They point to evidence that the majority of the sedimentary beds were laid down as high energy events rather than gentler local environments such as lakes. Needless to say, the vast majority of geologists has adopted the long-age view of the geolgoical column and it is that that we investigate for the remainder of this course.
_____________
This of course was typed 'off the top of my head' but I could imagine coming up with a more polished version that would be difficult to scientitfcally refute (IMO becasue it was true!). I personally believe that not having such an alternative for geology or biology is tantamount to mainstream brainwashing.
The point about this post is that a two or three paragraph introduction to the alternative need not take much time and yet can also be written to not make flood geologists look like complete idiots!
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-30-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 06-30-2002 11:16 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 3 by edge, posted 06-30-2002 11:19 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 07-01-2002 1:39 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 59 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 07-04-2002 2:55 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 83 (12430)
06-30-2002 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
06-30-2002 10:35 PM


I think the largest matter which would need attention when it comes to teaching historical sciences is the format by which it is taught. I'm sure that College level students get the whole shabang but this simply isn't what is presented to high-school and more elementary students in science classes. The students have a considerably high lack in knowledge of how conclusions in science are made, why facts are labeled as facts, why theories are labeled as theories, and the information compiled in coming to the conclusion. For example, in talks of the Evolution of life and paleontology/fossils, radiometric dating is given as the answer to the question of 'how do you know that all these fossils are so old'. The students rarely will then be given the process by which samples are dated, and even more rare is explanations on how samples acquire dates. The geochemical processes in the crust and mantle, the well known anomalies of excess isotopes in various whole rock/mineral isochrons. And there most certainly is no mention of meaningless errorchrons, inheritance, Isotopic mixing, Open and closed system behaviors, weathering, metamorphism, mobility, and other areas of discordance and limitations. Without even given hints of the geochemical processes by which isochronic ratio's are produced, they haven't much room for intelligible question or argument. Basically, we need to either stop giving the students straw-men, or quit misleading them all together. The teaching of the ToE and its merit is highly sensitive and the format by which it is taught, the information that is given, and how it is given should be taken into careful consideration. It is tiring to hear youthful people see the the theory of the Evolution of life as an alternative to God.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-30-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-30-2002 10:35 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 06-30-2002 11:26 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 3 of 83 (12431)
06-30-2002 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
06-30-2002 10:35 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]...but I would support limited content on evidence for biological design and the rapid fromation of the geological column. [/QUOTE]
Hmm, this is already done, as far as I know. Catastrophic events are common in the geological record. They collectively act over long periods of time to give us the evidence that we see today in the geological column.
quote:
...
The geological column on land is charactersied by alterations between vast marine and smaller non-marine beds. Much of the earth was innundated by the oceans on multiple occasions generating 'epeiric sea' deposits on land that represent the majority of the geological column. The smaller portion of the column in between consists of fresh water deposits, some of which are nevertheless correlated half way across continents.
Well, sort of okay if we take out the stilted version of geologese.
quote:
A very small minority of scientists believe that the geological column is evidence of a global flood that occurred in alternating marine and non-marine surges generating much of the sedimnetary rocks on earth. Most scientists disagree, citing evidence of habitated surfaces at many levels in the local geolgocal columns and radiodating. The global flood geolgoists counter that these habitats may not have been long term habitats and that radiodating methods may not be true indicators of time for various reasons. They point to evidence that the majority of the sedimentary beds were laid down as high energy events rather than gentler local environments such as lakes.
Oops! Wrong here. How do you explain the most common epeiric sea deposits such as the Mancos Shale. I have asked you about this before.
quote:
Needless to say, the vast majority of geologists has adopted the long-age view of the geolgoical column and it is that that we investigate for the remainder of this course.
Seems like most geology classes are taught this way. Some professors don't even ask the students to agree with them. Just say "Dr. So-and so says..." Even my son's high school teacher said this is what some people believe but the subject is the present status of mainstream science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-30-2002 10:35 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-01-2002 12:03 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 4 of 83 (12433)
06-30-2002 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by TrueCreation
06-30-2002 11:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
... The students rarely will then be given the process by which samples are dated, and even more rare is explanations on how samples acquire dates.
Nonsense. Even in HS, they are taught what assumptions are made an why. The sources of error are usually discussed along with applicability of the method. Otherwise, why teach the course! This isn't addition and subtraction we are talking about here.
quote:
The geochemical processes in the crust and mantle, the well known anomalies of excess isotopes in various whole rock/mineral isochrons.
If you are teaching isochron methods in high school, I think you are way off track.
quote:
And there most certainly is no mention of meaningless errorchrons, inheritance, Isotopic mixing, Open and closed system behaviors, weathering, metamorphism, mobility, and other areas of discordance and limitations. Without even given hints of the geochemical processes by which isochronic ratio's are produced, they haven't much room for intelligible question or argument. Basically, we need to either stop giving the students straw-men, ...
Seems to me that is what your post is all about.
quote:
...or quit misleading them all together. The teaching of the ToE and its merit is highly sensitive and the format by which it is taught, the information that is given, and how it is given should be taken into careful consideration. It is tiring to hear youthful people see the the theory of the Evolution of life as an alternative to God.
Hate to rain on your parade, but many christians have reconciled religion and evolution. I don't think that many make this association.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 06-30-2002 11:16 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 07-01-2002 12:40 PM edge has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 5 of 83 (12435)
06-30-2002 11:47 PM


Insert plug for a topic I started a while back:
"What if creationism did get into the science class"
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=4&t=3&p=3
As I type this, there are 42 messages at that topic.
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-30-2002 11:50 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 83 (12436)
06-30-2002 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Minnemooseus
06-30-2002 11:47 PM


I forgot about that thread - sorry Moose, it's very relevant. Having said that I'm happy to keep it separate becasue I would like to see multiple responses to my 2 paragraphs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-30-2002 11:47 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 83 (12440)
07-01-2002 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by edge
06-30-2002 11:19 PM


Edge, you show me a high school geology text or syllabus which has anything like this in it.
The point is not a catastrophism issue per se but that a global flood could have generated most of the column in one hit.
You want to bring up Mancos Shale in a high school 2 paragraph intro to flood geology? We can go back and forth all day rebutting each other. That is not the point of a 2-paragraph intro. The point is that multiple PhDed geologists believe that a global flood is called for by the data. It is an alternative way to interpret the data. I find it hard to believe that you can't accept that in any sense but I have to live with that.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-30-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by edge, posted 06-30-2002 11:19 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Joe Meert, posted 07-01-2002 1:10 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 33 by edge, posted 07-02-2002 8:49 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 8 of 83 (12446)
07-01-2002 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tranquility Base
07-01-2002 12:03 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Edge, you show me a high school geology text or syllabus which has anything like this in it.
The point is not a catastrophism issue per se but that a global flood could have generated most of the column in one hit.
You want to bring up Mancos Shale in a high school 2 paragraph intro to flood geology? We can go back and forth all day rebutting each other. That is not the point of a 2-paragraph intro. The point is that multiple PhDed geologists believe that a global flood is called for by the data. It is an alternative way to interpret the data. I find it hard to believe that you can't accept that in any sense but I have to live with that.[/QUOTE]
JM: I always preface the 'multiple Phd geologists' with 'multiple fundamentalist PhD geologists' just to make the point that the bible leads to the conclusions rather than the data.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-01-2002 12:03 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 83 (12473)
07-01-2002 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by edge
06-30-2002 11:26 PM


"Nonsense. Even in HS, they are taught what assumptions are made an why. The sources of error are usually discussed along with applicability of the method. Otherwise, why teach the course! This isn't addition and subtraction we are talking about here."
--What HS classes did you take? Because I'm not talking about Geology 101 or anything like that, but general science. Not to mention that my copy of a HS earth science book does not go over assumptions made and why in any clarified manner.
quote:
"The greater the percentage of lead present in the sample, the older the rock is. Scientists know that from a million grams of U-238, 1/7, 600 g of Pb-206 per year will be produced by decay. The U-Pb ratio can be used only when all the lead in the rock is known to have come from the decay of uranium. Because U-238 has an extremely long half-life of 4.5 billion years, it is most useful for dating geologic samples more than 10 million years old."
--Exactly[/i] the point. I have known this for some time and am irritated when I hear YEC's argue this as RvX and the like did some time ago. This is the point because they don't know this and get the impression because of popular belief which is not addressed in the public schools that Evolution is an alternative to God. Many do make this association who are informed of this.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 06-30-2002 11:26 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-01-2002 1:23 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 10 of 83 (12475)
07-01-2002 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by TrueCreation
07-01-2002 12:40 PM


quote:
"The greater the percentage of lead present in the sample, the older the rock is. Scientists know that from a million grams of U-238, 1/7, 600 g of Pb-206 per year will be produced by decay. The U-Pb ratio can be used only when all the lead in the rock is known to have come from the decay of uranium. Because U-238 has an extremely long half-life of 4.5 billion years, it is most useful for dating geologic samples more than 10 million years old." -- Modern Earth Science - Holt et al. 1998
quote:
TC: They give one good sentence which admits an assumption. The problem is, they don't place any emphasis or even expand on how much of a problem this is, or why this is significant in the dating process. The sources of error are also vaguely looked at. If memory serves me well, they in fact use one of the most fallacied methods of all radioisotopic dating, U-Pb as their example. Its many problems including open-system behavior and U mobility renders direct U-Pb dating geologically meaningless and untrusted. The lack in adequate teaching on this method is detrimental to the learning process of students. I can agree with Tranquility that this is quite possibly tantamount to mainstream brainwashing.
I don't know the greater context, but you're textbook quote is a simplified view of the U/Pb process. Hopefully, it was presented as such.
Now, as I understand it, the U/Pb process is a pretty strong method. It is usually done on zircons, which are quite solid containers of the elements involved.
Regardless, detailed study of radiometric dating methods sure seems to be beyond the scope of a high school class. Where I encountered in was in an upper-level college geology course.
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 07-01-2002 12:40 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 07-01-2002 2:48 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 11 of 83 (12477)
07-01-2002 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
06-30-2002 10:35 PM


Significant viewpoints should be represented in science classrooms to the extent they're represented in the technical literature. While we could argue about what level of representation is a sufficient threshold, certainly we could agree that any viewpoint having little or no representation in that literature merits no attention in science class. Since the views you've been presenting here have no presence in the primary literature they merit the same level of representation in science class.
Beyond that, they are constitutionally excluded from public school science classrooms here in the states for their obvious religious origins.
When any origins related topic comes up in science class there is probably little possibility of avoiding notice of the obvious contradictions with conservative Christian thinking, so why not discuss it in science class? I see no problem in discussing it, probably be one of the most fun days. I only see a problem in teaching it.
I am happy to see you posted to wmscott's thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-30-2002 10:35 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-01-2002 8:42 PM Percy has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 83 (12484)
07-01-2002 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Minnemooseus
07-01-2002 1:23 PM


"I don't know the greater context, but you're textbook quote is a simplified view of the U/Pb process. Hopefully, it was presented as such."
--Yes it was very simplified. While simplification is fine, to go without mentioning or hinting at discordant findings and other things along that line is a bit misleading as a student learns these things. What is also given in the book is that the decay of radioisotopes has been shown to be unaffected by environmental conditions. While this is in the majority, true, in the students mind this is a stumbling block because they now may have the impression that a statement such as 'the greater the percentage of lead present in the sample, the older the rock is' and then going on to say 'The U-Pb ratio can be used only when all the lead in the rock is known to have come from the decay of uranium' gives them the impression that the latter is irrelevant but was mentioned anyways.
"Now, as I understand it, the U/Pb process is a pretty strong method. It is usually done on zircons, which are quite solid containers of the elements involved."
--Zicons themselves in SHRIMP analytical technique, for instance, radiogenic Pb is shown to vary within most tested zircon grains on a 20um spatial scale[such as in: Compston; 1997]. Some spots are found to show excess Pb of up to 30 times expected values so I wouldn't agree that they are very uniformly trustable as a dating method for zircon isochrons. Heterogeneity is vastly out of order. There is also an approximately sinusoidal, variation in 206Pb/238U apparent ages with orientations in baddeleyite crystals which are not detected in zircon or monazite crystals. Though radiogenic 208Pb/206 and 232Th/238U both vary with orientation. Usually attributed to real compositional variation reflecting zones of anisotropic primary crystal growth. Different effects in mineral grains and zones within them renders U-Th-Pb dating in high question and is pretty much up to the investigators' interpretations. Interpretations which are usually based on expectations determined by the geological contexts of the rocks being dated.
--There are also problems with Zircon Inheritance and chemical weathering.
--What do you think of the patterns in mineral U-Th-Pb Ages for Pitchblende, uranitite, monazite, zenotime, monazite, zircon and tanite, samarskite, thorite, titanite, euxenite, etc.?
"Regardless, detailed study of radiometric dating methods sure seems to be beyond the scope of a high school class. Where I encountered in was in an upper-level college geology course."
--I can agree with you here, however for the geochemical processes to go unmentioned isn't all too good. These types of class discussions with the teacher should be encouraged.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-01-2002]
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-01-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-01-2002 1:23 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 07-01-2002 5:17 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 13 of 83 (12490)
07-01-2002 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by TrueCreation
07-01-2002 2:48 PM


Don't you want to provide an attribution to Dr. Snelling (Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research), whose choice of words seems remarkably similar to your own?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 07-01-2002 2:48 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by TrueCreation, posted 07-01-2002 5:40 PM Percy has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 83 (12495)
07-01-2002 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Percy
07-01-2002 5:17 PM


But of course! Something like that Percy
. Preferably this would be more accurate:
Snelling, Rollinson, Dasch, Goldich and Gast, Baumgardner, Austin, Depaolo and Wasserburg
--My sources weren't online, but were from books. Radioisotopes and the age of the earth with linking information from other articles (dasch, Goldich et al., Depaolo et. al.)
--Oh, the rarity of me borrowing the thoughts of other YEC scientists!
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 07-01-2002 5:17 PM Percy has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 83 (12501)
07-01-2002 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Percy
07-01-2002 1:39 PM


Percy
I generally agree with you but this is a somewhat special case. Whether you like it or not these areas of science are related to religion via the origin of life issue. Hence we strongly believe, and can argue it, that mainstream science is atheistically biased so that even the most obvious arguements for either design or the flood are treated as automatically naive. That is the source of the problem and that is why we almost never can publish mainstream.
The fact that mainstream papers do not contain statements 'this argues for design' is not becasue the statemnet is without evidence but becasue of mainstream bias. Evidence for design would be agreed by a good proportion of publishing scientists but can not be said mainstream. That is an utter, absolute fact.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-01-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 07-01-2002 1:39 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 07-01-2002 10:40 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024