|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:25 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| koreajim wrote: |
| I could be wrong (which is perfectly fine by me), but...people seem to always focus on how evidence or proof validates one theory from another. |
That's the very core of science. Marshaling evidence for your hypothesis until you reach some critical mass that the hypothesis now becomes a theory. The science class is for science. We want to teach the core fundamentals of science. Evolution is core to modern biology just as the periodic table is core to chemistry or germ theory is core to much of medicine. You simply don't teach a christian science or scientologist idea of disease because you want kids to hear the controversy.
| Quote: |
| My biased opinion: Creationists tend to set more time trying to dissolve the idea of evolution (or point out unexplainable), |
Nearly the whole of creationism is predicated on a false dichotomy. If evolution is false then creationism wins by default. This idea was thrown out in the 1980s by the American court system but Creationists seem not to have noticed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tomato wrote: |
| Creationists sit in the office writing religious propaganda. |
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| well what do you expect them to do? |
If the geologic column is an accurate record of the history of the world, I expect them to go out and find mammals, reptiles, birds, and amphibians dating all the way from Cambrian times till the present.
If the world was created in 4004 BC and a worldwide flood took place in 2348 BC, I expect them to show us a radiometric instrument which indicates this.
Duane Gish, and all his comrades at the Institute for Creation Research, tell us that the geologic column is not a record of evolution, but rather a column of sediments laid by the world flood. They have made three hypotheses along this line, and I expect them to go out on the field and find some proof.
First, we shall look at the hydraulic selection hypothesis (Saladin 1988), hydraulic sorting (Schadewald 1982), or hydraulic characteristics (Kitcher 1982: 131). According to this hypothesis, species are sorted by their specific gravity: those which settled the quickest are found in the lower layers and those which settled the slowest are found in the higher layers. So Saladin (1988) asks why microbes appear lower than animals with hard shells.
Furthermore, size is a factor in hydraulic sorting. So Schadewald (1982) asks why smaller trilobites are not found in higher strata than larger trilobites.
Next is the ecological zonation hypothesis (Saladin 1988), victim habitat (Schadewald 1982), or habitat (Kitcher 1982: 131). According to this hypothesis, the lowest layers will be occupied by species with lowest habitats, Here, Saladin (1988) asks why microbes had the lowest habitat. Schadewald (1982) asks why marine fossils are often found in higher places than land animals and plants.
Finally, there is the upward mobility hypothesis (Saladin 1988), victim mobility (Schadewald 1982), or mobility (Kitcher 1982: 131). Here, the Creationists argue that those species which can run the fastest were those species which could run uphill the farthest before the Flood got to them. But plants cannot move by themselves. So Saladin (1988) asks why there are no plants in the pre-Cambrian and Cambrian layers.
Schadewald (1982) adds that plants should appear at the bottom of the column for two reasons: their habit as well as their immobility. So why don't flowering plants appear until the Cretaceous Period (Mesozoic Era)?
As long as Creationists keep preaching all this nonsense, I'll keep asking them to dig into the lowest layers and find hard-shelled animals, smaller trilobites, marine animals, and plants, including flowering plants. That will convince me better than all the religious tracts in the world.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kitcher, P. 1982. Abusing science: The case against Creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Saladin, K. S. 1988. Saladin-Gish debate, May 10, 1988 at Auburn University, Auburn, AL: Opening statement for the affirmative.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/saladin1.html
http://www.geocities.com/evoatheism/articles/saladingish/one.html
Schadewald, R. J. 1982. Six "flood" arguments Creationists can't answer. Creation/Evolution 3, 3 (Summer): 1-11.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9626_issue_09__volume_3_number_3__1_3_2003.asp#Six%20Flood%20Arguments%20Creationists%20Cant%20Answer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nateium
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Location: Seoul
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
