Posted on 08/12/2007 8:51:38 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
The January/February 2007 issue of Academe, the journal of the American Association of University Professors, features an article by a college teacher named Alvin Saperstein, of Wayne State University, about how his introductory astronomy and physics courses are attracting many young-earth creationists.
These may be very good students, but they frustrate him because he cannot convince them that the universe and all it contains, including our planet, came into existence in a natural evolutionary process over billions of years, rather than in the six days of creation a few thousand years ago, as creationists calculate from the literal words of Genesis.
No problem arises when the professor explains how the universe works now. It is only when he lectures about cosmology, or evolutionary theory in geology, biology, or anthropology, and asks his students if anything he has said bothers them, that discomfort begins to appear. The class skeptics are not disruptive or rude; they express their contrary opinions only after the professor asks for their reactions to his exposition of orthodox scientific theory.
Saperstein infers that the few students who openly voice their doubts represent a much larger number of silent creationist students. He asks himself, “Are they silent because of fear of professorial retribution, because they don’t know whom to believe, or because they just don’t care?” Clearly, the students who openly express their doubts deserve more respect than the apathetic ones (if there are any) who just don’t care.
Saperstein reports that “a serious, dedicated student asked me, ‘What am I supposed to believe? You have spent the semester explaining to us why I should believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old in a universe created 13.5 billion years ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at touchstonemag.com ...
What do creationists say about radio carbon dating?
Carbon dating is only accurate as far as 10,000 years, and has been used to prove living objects were thousands of years old, like that Clam.
What do they say about drill cores taken from glaciers?
What specifically about them? That NONE of them are older than 15,000 years?
What do they say about geology?
Plenty, especially how uniformatarian ideology is almost impossible to explain large structures, or how supposed rock layers which prove uniformitarianism are flipped and in diferent locations in different spots in the planet?
What do they say about the Toba eruption 75,000 years ago?
What is your evidence it was 75,000 years ago?
One can argue the merits of evolution as a theory, but it seems to me to be a proper creationist, one has to disagree with almost every branch of scientific discovery.
No, just the foolish ways men try to explain how something happened when they were there, no one wrote abotu it, and that the present theory, when applied to other geological formations, just dont add up.
Then you must be the punch line.
False.
...and has been used to prove living objects were thousands of years old, like that Clam.
False.
“If science gives inconvenient answers, just bend things around until it gives the answers you want — no matter how silly the results.”
Now that sounds a LOT like the THEORY of evolution.
I see the disciples of this religion are out in force today... makes one wonder why they give a rats patoot what “crazy” young earthers believe...hmmmmm
I really don't want to mix it up in this one, but you sir are on pretty shaky ground. I suggest you investigate the current state of quantum gravity theory and other cutting edge problems in theoretical physics before you expend any more effort putting down those among us who believe in the bible. There is a lot less "certainty" in Science than you have been led to believe, especially in the areas where you are treading.
A very readable book on the subject is "The Trouble With Physics" by Lee Smolen. You can find it at any bookstore. It is a very worthwhile read for scientists and laymen alike.
This work was done around the same time as the famous sea floor spreading studies, but independently of them, and provides confirmation of the spreading as the event is also discernible in the sea floor banding.
Here's Fred Vine:
“Look at this, Fred,” he said, “not only have we found the complete Cox, Doell and Dalrymple timescale in these cores, but we have also discovered an additional, normal event at around 0.9 million years. We have named it the Emperor event.’ ‘Well, I am sorry to have to disappoint you,’ I said, ‘but the Menlo Park group have already resolved such an event, and named it the Jaramillo.’ Needless to say, Neil was somewhat surprised to hear this. Brent Dalrymple had told me of the discovery of the Jaramillo event when we met at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, in Kansas City, the previous November.
BTW, Brent Dalrymple, who did the work along with Doell and others, was once featured in one of those "Get a good night's sleep" motel ads. He's sitting at a table on the stage next to a podium, and fails to respond when he's introduced as the next speaker. The introducer has to say, "Doctor Dalyrmple" several times before he jumps up.
It is very common for people who believe in the more fundamentalist religions to ignore readily seen and verified facts when those facts contradict their religious beliefs.
The accuracy of any article purporting to be science should be evaluated in light of this tendency on the part of some authors. It is not about scientific qualifications, but overriding religious beliefs.
Your belief in evolution does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
I find that young earthers are much more tolerant and open minding toward science and other viewpoints than the vast majority posting on this thread.
If what you are saying is true then who cares what some “ignorant” people believe... unless of course...one wants to protect something.
I really don't want to mix it up in this one, but you sir are on pretty shaky ground. I suggest you investigate the current state of quantum gravity theory and other cutting edge problems in theoretical physics before you expend any more effort putting down those among us who believe in the bible. There is a lot less "certainty" in Science than you have been led to believe, especially in the areas where you are treading.
A very readable book on the subject is "The Trouble With Physics" by Lee Smolen. You can find it at any bookstore. It is a very worthwhile read for scientists and laymen alike.
46 posted on 08/12/2007 12:00:53 PM MDT by trek
You might want to address your comments to the author of the comments: Coyoteman
A few thousand years ago God created everything in a week, but he made it look billions of years old.
Okay, now can we all get along?
“It is very common for people who believe in the more fundamentalist religions to ignore readily seen and verified facts when those facts contradict their religious beliefs.”
Really, did you think this up yourself? It seems like this is what evolutionists do when finding data that contradicts their theory.
“The accuracy of any article purporting to be science should be evaluated in light of this tendency on the part of some authors. It is not about scientific qualifications, but overriding religious beliefs.”
I would add your religion of evolution to this, as well.
Sorry Xenia. I hope no offense was taken. I am only casually perusing this thread.
C.W.
None taken.
“to be a proper creationist, one has to disagree with almost every branch of scientific discovery.’
Their denial of the scientific method is certainly at odds with the technology they use to broadcast their denial. It’s strange how effective the SM is until it brushes up against some household deity’s dogma. Then it becomes the works of the household Satan.
If electronics impacted the notion of the Virgin Birth, the Soviets would probably have won the Cold War, since Americans wouldn’t countenance using godless electronics tech to defend themselves.
Now, either that part of the earth didn't "age" along with the rest of the earth, or there is something seriously wrong with "old earth" assumptions.
Tie this all together with the "global warming" arguments and geology, which show that same region was considerably warmer in the not so distant past and ice free (4,000 years)yet has animals "hairy elephants", rhino's, saber toothed tigers, fox, wolf, squirels, rabbits all frozen and buried at the same time, which are assumed to be much older (millions of years) when found in other parts of the world, and you have a huge discrepancy of evolutionary theory and "science".
Of course, it's much more convenient to publish a weak thoery then sweep all this under the rug, and hope it's never mentioned again.
Of course, that is just one (but rather large) example of the flaws and unanswered questions of evolutional theory, there are many many others, such as-
If the grand canyon was formed over millions of years, If that happened, wouldn’t you expect to find a gigantic river delta where the Colorado River enters the Gulf of California? It’s not there. Nor can geologists find it anywhere else. Where did all the dirt, 800 cubic miles of it, go?
Catastrophic event answers that quite easily.
For those who are interested in other theories that explain what evolution theory cannot, you might want to read this
I know Coyoteman hasn't read it. It's "satanic" to him. He's afraid he might become possessed if he read it.
don't they do exorcism rituals in the church of evolution?
Marking for later hilarity...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.