P.S. - By the way, you need to learn more about science if you want to understand how science reaches conclusions on various subjects. You seem to think of science as being something more akin to “firsthand witnessing of events”. If that is all science was, it would not be very powerful since there is a very limited amount of knowledge we can gain by such firsthand experience.
I heard a great put-down, and I wish I could remember where it came from:
“Just because we talk about the theory of gravity, which by the way is inaccurate, does not mean we are about to float into space”
http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html
See, even the young’uns can refute all that evolution claptrap. 
Actually I have heard this one a few times and IMO it’s total bunk.
I may be oversimplifying it a bit but here is what I understand
According to Creationists, more salt goes into the ocean over a period of time than goes out so the amount of salt in the ocean must be a way to determine it’s age.
The calculations used to determine this are based on The Rising levels of salt being constant for the entire life of the planet, and an infinite supply of salt, (or sodium and chloride for the purpose of making it) on the planet. Since there is a finite amount of sodium and chloride on the planet, there can only be a finite amount of salt in the oceans.
When about as much salt can go into the ocean as is possible, and little is left in the remaining 29% of the earths surface, then obviously the rate at which it leaves the ocean would surpass the rate at which it enters. so it will change like the rise and fall of the tide (pardon the pun)
Here is AIGs take on it FYI:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3910.asp
I’ve yet to find an evolutionist response to this claim but I hope my ideas on the matter help in understanding what is likely wrong with it.
The poor, brainwashed kids!
Did you see the one “Women are designed for homemaking.”? My my, how far we’ve come, and have god to thank for it!!
Here is one response I found to the salinity thing. I’m no geologist but perhaps someone more informed can comment on it.
right, and these people want criteria like this taught in school?
My Wife and I especially like this one:
Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life - carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes.
It’s a good thing God didn’t miraculously create life in that Jar! He would have upset the entire creationist movement.
I hate to be a wet blanket but that creationist science fair site is a satire created by the same people who do the Landover Baptist site.
Humour. It is a difficult concept.
Yeah, but it’s just as entertaining as the real thing.
I agree.
I think that creationism should get mentioned at the beginning of the lesson, but not beyond that. My Biology 101 professor handled it in a way that I thought was extraordinary.
He said there are three theories as to where life came from and put this list on the board:
[ol]
[li]Supernatural Origin[/li][li]Extraterrestrial Origin[/li][li]Evolutionary Origin[/li][/ol]
Creationism claims supernatural origins, it is outside the realm of science and therefore shouldn’t be studied in a classroom.
It is possible that we are extraterrestrial in origin. For example, Martians could have created us and are simply using Earth as a lab as they study us, or some microbes could have been in a space rock that crashed here. But all that does is push our beginning back further. We can’t confirm or deny this, so therefore it shouldn’t be taught in a classroom either.
Evolution is the most scientifically viable theory. Therefore, that’s should be studied. When it comes to abiogenesis, if it makes you feel better to believe that God or Martians are the cause of that, go right ahead. The fact is that we have no idea what started the whole process, so we will look at what happened after it started.
I don’t want religion taught in public schools. But I feel that since our true beginnings still (and probably always will) reside in mystery, all possibilies should be examined.
Ignoring for a moment the incorrect assumption that salt intake and outtake in the ocean occur at constant rates, you can use the same methods for other minerals and get absurdly low and absurdly high times. That the figures disagree with each other is one problem, another is that for minerals such as aluminum, you come up with a figure around 100 years!
Finally, PROOF! I KNEW this planet was too nutty to be for real.
Interesting post.
Nothing is inevitable. We know that rolling dice has certain odds, but that does not mean a certain number coming up is inevitable, it is only probable within the odds. The chances of the elements needed for creation coming up are astronomical times trillions.
The reason I can not believe the universe is an accident: randomness is chaos, things happen for no reason at all. But we look at ourselves, and our universe and see much order, things working in cooperation with each other. So you are asking me to believe out of chaos comes order. Chaos and order are opposites. How can you start with chaos and get order. I have the same problem with religion. Here we have a perfect, loving God, who created a world full of imperfect and hateful things. Sorry this logic is lacking consistency. There is something here not understood by mankind.
We know that religion ruled the world centuries ago, and children were taught what the current popular beliefs about God were at the time. There was no proof, none needed. But as the children grew up and observed for themselves how the world was they had a lot of unanswered questions. The priests told them to have faith and shut up.
Now we have science ruling the world, and children are taught what the current theories about the universe are at this time. There is no real proof, none needed. But as the children grow up and observe for themselves how the world is they have a lot of unanswered questions. The scientists tell them to believe in the current theories, don’t ask dumb questions.
At some time in the future science will be discarded as religion is being discarded now. Mankind will be moving toward truth. The real thing. It is a good “evolution.”
Some morning you will wake up, happens to everyone sooner or later, and discover you are no longer a theist, atheist, scientist, religionist, or any of the numerous “ists” that one can claim to be. You will discover you are only you. For a moment it will be scary, but in short time it will become beautiful, because on that day you will come to know the truth, and no longer need the “ists.”
Love
I think you may be applying the human concepts of randomness and order where neither are relevant. Lets look at a more “down to earth” example. Pour some salt or sugar into a glass and stir it up. I think you might agree that there is disorder in the glass. Now hang a piece of string in the glass and watch as a crystal forms, a very orderly state of matter (its not quite that simple, but hopefully it illustrates my point :)). Is there anything unexplainable going on here? Of course not, atoms can only bond in certain ways. There is no randomness involved. We may or may not understand the principles behind it (in this case we do), but that does not mean that things we do not understand are inherently random. Apply the same thought process to the universe at large. Is it all random? It is incredibly complex certainly, but it is all governed by the laws of physics. Atoms and molecules interact in certain ways, gravity pulls mass together, etc… We may not understand all the laws and principles yet, but that does not mean they don’t exist.
This is absolutely false. Maybe you define “real proof” differently, but every accepted scientific theory has mountains of evidence supporting it and no verifiable evidence refuting it. If new evidence is found it will be incorporated into the theories or the theories will be revised to account for it. I don’t know how much closer to “real proof” you can get than that. Scientists themsevles have a lot of unanswered questions. They wouldn’t be scientists if they didn’t. It is their goal to refine current theories to make them more accurate, or to overthrow current theories and come up with better ones. I fail to see how this can be interpreted as blindly accepting current theories.
In fact, scientists encourage the asking of questions. That is what science is all about. Almost all scientists I know would like science education to be less the memorization of facts and more the raising of questions and exploring of the world around us.
However, it is important to recognize that in order to ask questions that challenge a well-established theory, you have to have a full understanding of the theory. And, the fact is that this will take some hard work. Imagine it like going to Japan and trying to interview the Japanese about something. First, you would have to learn their language and understand their culture. These days, there is a similar learning curve in most of the sciences, although fortunately at least some basic concepts can be understood with less work.
The sad fact is that one is never going to be equipped with sufficient knowledge to understand the evidence for evolutionary theory without undertaking at least a modest investment of energy, and to really understand it in full detail requires a significant investment of energy. As a result, many people are accepting modern scientific theories on a certain amount of faith, but hopefully it is a faith based in some understanding of the process of science, and with the understanding that if they want to learn more of the details they can but it will require a real investment of time and energy on their part. (Because the body of scientific knowledge is so large now, this certain amount of faith is required even by scientists themselves in regards to other fields…or even other subfields.)
What are you referring to here, please?
This reply was…
I’m already there. I believe what I can observe and test. Not what someone thinks I should know becuase an old book that contradicts itself says I should know.
Exactly what I said. I’m referring to basic experiments in various laboratories that reproduced the very basics of life using elements that were likely present on the Earth a billion or so years after it was formed.
Science defines randomness created life, now you seem to be saying that randomness is really ordered. If it is really ordered what intelligence ordered it. I think you are contradicting yourself all over the creation of the world.
Love