Teaching evolution at a catholic school

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spanky1975
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
What experiments do science classes do to reaffirm the taught age of the earth?
Click to expand...
Radioactive decay. Didn’t you ever use a cloud chamber or a Geiger counter? A number of astronomical observations are also relevant.
An experiment that shows the repeatable steps from molecules to man?
Click to expand...
Probably a bit advanced for High School, but a lot of universities will run experiments on fruit flies, zebra fish or similar.
 
o_mlly said:
Oh, please. We don’t permit God? You’ve got it backwards, friend.
Click to expand...
Science started before Christianity: Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth about 240 BCE. Even after Christianity started there were non-Christian scientists. Do you want to let Vishnu and Amaterasu into science? Should the Qur’an be taught in science classes?
 
rossum said:
Science started before Christianity: Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth about 240 BCE. Even after Christianity started there were non-Christian scientists. Do you want to let Vishnu and Amaterasu into science? Should the Qur’an be taught in science classes?
Click to expand...
The true religion will win.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman:
Science classes are taught with a heavy focus on experimentation to demonstrate the truth of the things said. Nothing is blind faith, nothing is to be unquestioned. It’s all about testing and proving.
Click to expand...
What experiments do science classes do to reaffirm the taught age of the earth? An experiment that shows the repeatable steps from molecules to man?
Click to expand...
I believe rossum has answered this. But we are still waiting for you to tell us what method you would use to detrmine the agee of something say a million years old.
 
Freddy said:
But we are still waiting for you to tell us what method you would use to detrmine the agee of something say a million years old.
Click to expand...
Without some very basic assumptions about starting %, infiltration. decay rates? It is very problematic.

Do you agree as fact soft tissue was found in dino bones?
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Freddy:
But we are still waiting for you to tell us what method you would use to detrmine the agee of something say a million years old.
Click to expand...
Without some very basic assumptions about starting %, infiltration. decay rates? It is very problematic.
Click to expand...
So it’s problematic. What’s your best guess at some method? Make some assumptions. It can be a pretty rough guesstimate. I don’t mind if you’re out by a factor of 2 or 3. No, let’s be generous and say a factor of 10. Go for it.

And we all did the bones. Read the thread why can’t you…
 
buffalo said:
ou have modified your claims? Evolution is limited to adaptation? Good.
Click to expand...
You have modified the word you use. You accept evolution but give it a different name. Your vocabulary is what you are limiting with your Humpty-Dumpty argument. You are not limiting evolution.
 
buffalo said:
Without some very basic assumptions about starting %, infiltration. decay rates? It is very problematic.
Click to expand...
How do those issues affect thermoluminescence dating? How do those problems affect varve counting? How do those problems affect tree-ring counts?

There are many possible dating methods. If you don’t want to use one, then use another.
 
rossum said:
How do those issues affect thermoluminescence dating? How do those problems affect varve counting? How do those problems affect tree-ring counts?

There are many possible dating methods. If you don’t want to use one, then use another.
Click to expand...
In general, an indirect observation derived from specially designed machines whose output is interpreted by specially trained technicians renders that inference less reliable than direct observations. Counting tree rings would, under this premise, be more reliable than thermoluminescence dating.
 
rossum said:
How do those problems affect varve counting?
Click to expand...
We have varves showing 4 billion years? Have you forgotten so soon that many varves can happen per year? BTW, tree-rings can be more than one per year as recently demonstrated. But, we have tree rings showing 4 billion years?

Themoluminescence dating? 100K years RC is better/more accurate.

If one build 100 different houses in the sand, they still are all built on sand.

You well know the two used for looooong ages. You also no doubt know the assumptions.
 
buffalo said:
There should be no reason anyone should still be in the dark about current findings and challenges to Darwinism. Sooner or later students will find out and then they will be upset they were not told. This is wrong
Click to expand...
Most sceintists already reject Darwinism though:
Well, current understanding of evolutionary science shows that “Darwinism,” which is defined here as “random mutation and natural selection,” cannot account for the complexity of life. Other mechanisms are important too. It matters too, because we have to take into account the full complexity of current thinking to make argument against evolutionary mechanisms. In a debate with Behe a couple weeks ago, I explained this in part.

The Dissent might as well be a “ Scientific Dissent From Newtonian Mechanics ,” somehow forgetting that physicists know the law of gravity is just an approximation, and for almost a century have been teaching that relativity works better. I have not even touched on the fact that science does not even purport to give a complete account any ways, so even then we will not be able to fully account for much of anything.
Click to expand...
 
rossum said:
You are not limiting evolution.
Click to expand...
Evolution itself has limited itself. Natural selection and random mutations cannot produce the complexity we now observe. More comes every day.

Evolution is incapable of what you claim. It is limtied to adaptation/variation within.

Consider this rubber band illustration. A relaxed rubber band is the organism. The rubber band can stretch to accomadate environmental changes. It has limits or the rubber band snaps. Over time the deleterious mutations degrade the rubber band and it can no longer stretch as it once could. This is the brittleness I have posted about. Even if a mutation confers a temporary benefit, the rubber is degrading long term.
 
Professor, welcome to Catholic Answers Forum. I have referenced some of your work here especially in the Adam and Eve threads.
 
Spanky1975 said:
Is this legit catholic diocese approved teaching or do we have wolves in Shepard’s clothing?
Click to expand...
Yes, is Catholic teaching. I did raise my eyebrow when you mentioned “insubordination.” Are you in the U.S.? I’ve never heard of parochial schools punishing students for disagreeing with the teacher.
 
I’ve seen that too. Thank you.

About Varves, I believe they go back about 200,000 years, which does not demonstrate millions of years, but is still not possible to reconcile with a recent global flood.

These articles might be helpful:


Notably, the Varve record provides strong validation of carbon dating. Christians should be cautious about disputing carbon dating. Although it undermines the belief in a global flood (which Scripture doesn’t literally teach), carbon dating also adds confidence to the dating of Biblical manuscripts, including the Great Isaiah Scroll with the Isaiah 53 prophecy of Jesus’s Resurrection.


Which is more important, a recent global flood or the prophecies concerning Jesus? There should be only one correct answer to this.
 
buffalo said:
We have varves showing 4 billion years?
Click to expand...
No. We have about 1.5 million years at Lake Baikal and about 6 million years in the Green River formation. That is enough to destroy any young earth dates I have seen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top