zzang

Nice double standard. It's ok for evolutionists to extrapolate micro-evolution backwards in time but the second a Bible believe does the same thing with respect to the Earth's magnetic field he is labeled a fool and said to be wrong.

pangloss

Interesting - when I first started visiting creation/evolution discussion boards, about 5-6 years ago, two of the most stubborn creationists I encountered premised their beliefs on the goings on in English classes.


One chap had an older brother who received an "A" on an english paper on how Denton had refuted evolution.
His argument was basically that his brother would not have received an "A" if we wasn't right...

The other guy wrote such a paper himself (I don't believe that this was the other kid's brother), and claimed that because the english prof was also an atheist, the fact that he got a good grade meant that there was really something to what he wrote.


No arguing with that logic...

Philosoft

You have to be joking. Did you read any of the fine articles linked to just above?

Wyz_sub10

Maybe because the evolutionary process leaves a wide breadth of evidence along the way. No biologist or paleontologist or embyologist looks solely at the present and works backwards.

What is often done with the magnetic field decay argument is to take only *some* of the information (selected information, purposely ignoring the rest) and extrapolate that backward *in direct opposition to evidence* to produce an argument that, by the way, has no bearing whatsoever on evolution.

Even as a kid, I remember hearing how the magnetic fields reversed at times. Anybody truly interested in investigating the decay argument as a proof of the world's young age would realize that it is hollow.

It's obvious you haven't read any of the articles linked above, and it is even more obvious that you don't care to.

If you think there is a "double-standard" at work here your logic is deeply lacking beyond your inability to comprehend basic science.

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]</p>

lpetrich

(pangloss on the creationist argument of students getting good grades for pro-creationist papers...)

However, they may have gotten good grades for having produced well-written papers.

lpetrich

That is because there are good reasons for supposing one extrapolation to be valid and another not. Rock magnetization clearly counterindicates the exponential-decay hypothesis, while many macroevolutionary changes are very similar to many known microevolutionary changes.

That is why Charles Darwin started his magnum opus with a discussion of various breeds of domestic pigeons. He used that as an example of selective breeding in action -- selective breeding that has produced a great variety of breeds of domestic animals and cultivated plants.

Neruda

I liked my writing teacher. he gave me an A on my evolution paper and then used my arguments to show two students who had written creationist papers why they were wrong, and then gave them poor grades.

aaanyhoo, good luck perchance on that student you've got. Do some extra studying on the subject when you have the time and make a fool out of him the next time he brings it up. There's just too much info out there to absorb it all, particularly if you work as hard as some of the teachers I've met during my education, but I'll bet this student of yours isn't very savvy about his arguments so it shouldn't be difficult to trap him. Especially if you bring up all the examples of bad design worldwide. Bring up the human body especially, like the appendix that's useless (and dangerous) to us, yet a necessary part of the digestive system in other mammals from which we clearly evolved. Or the poor design of our own eye, or the fact that we get lower back pain because our spine was designed to act as a horizontal girder for our bodies, and not a vertical one...the list goes on...

Tom Sawyer

It seems to me based on this thread and a lot of other ones that the standard creationist argument goes something like this:

1) See small piece of data that could conceivably verify the existence of God/veracity of the Bible

2) Blow the evidence of that data out of proportion and take it to an illogical extreme

3) Ignore any contradictory arguments that question that data

4) Use that data as inviolate proof that God exists/Biblical account is correct

gsx1138

I had to laugh at this post because I had someone in my Speech class give a little talk on his theory of a Young Earth. His main point was the ¨inaccuracy of carbon 14 dating¨. Why do christians think carbon 14 is the only dating method? He also mentioned the magnetic field thing. I´m not as good at debating this sort of topic as some of you guys so I didn´t get into it with him. It also didn´t help that I was totally stunned by his stupidity. He also mentioned some crap about tree rings but at that point I was lost on what he was saying.
He also tried to get into it with me when I gave my speech on Wiccá and Paganism. He actually tried to say we have no morality because we don´t believe in the Bible while trying to use some sort of child molestation example. I thought that was kind of funny as well.

Perchance

Thanks for the articles and advice, you guys. It really helps.

We were discussing Darwin and evolution today because we're starting a unit on (drum roll) "Interconnections between Science, Humanity, and Nature." I wanted to do a unit on science, but I think the "technology" aspect has been done to death (in the freshman English class I took as a student, it was), and the argument papers against or for cloning, genetic engineering, and the Internet are so canned now that students can just pull them out of their asses or off the Net without slowing down. And my school has enough problems already with sloppy writing and plagiarism.

One of the essay options I'm going to give them is explaining and defending a particular attitude towards science, and this first-day discussion was a preparation for that. We constructed a web on the board linking science, humanity, and nature all together, or one to another, or defining them one by one. I asked what they thought was the most interesting term on the board, and "Darwin" and "evolution" immediately popped out of their mouths.

Now they're going to go read a little Twain thing called "Reading the River" and Whitman's poem "When I Heard the Learn'd Astronomer." I'm going to follow that with an article on how prehistoric man may have been the prey as well as the killer of large predators. The first two pieces take a wavering, unsure look at science education; the next just assumes it and goes on.

I'm trying to let them get a good look. I'm hoping that I won't have them just saying, "Huh?" instead of, "Hmmmm. That's interesting."

-Perchance.