Why do we want to teach our children science?

[TheBeardedDude]

Now, could the Grand Canyon be a result of this violent breakage instead of rushing water leaving the desert? Absolutely...either way, the Flood is behind it....not billions of years.

A) there is no evidence of "violent breakage" associated with the Grand Canyon

B) The pattern, distribution of the pattern, erosion, and deposition, indicate that the agent generating the Grand Canyon was water.

C) Who said "billions of years" for the Grand Canyon? That feature is somewhere on the order of 10-15 million years old.

 

[Naraoia]

A) there is no evidence of "violent breakage" associated with the Grand Canyon

B) The pattern, distribution of the pattern, erosion, and deposition, indicate that the agent generating the Grand Canyon was water.

C) Who said "billions of years" for the Grand Canyon? That feature is somewhere on the order of 10-15 million years old.

The rocks at the bottom of it, though, are billions of years old. Perhaps that's where the confusion comes from.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

The rocks at the bottom of it, though, are billions of years old. Perhaps that's where the confusion comes from.

Perhaps. In that case...

The Vishnu Schist at the base of the grand canyon is over a billion years old (but not 4.56 Ga that would imply it is a rock from the initial coalescence of the Earth) and is a metasedimentary rock. Meaning that the original sediments that comprised it, where deposited and then buried to such depths that they were metamorphosed to schist-grade. The material on top of them was then eroded off so as to allow for the deposition of the layers on top of it, causing the Great Unconformity.

 

[Cearbhall]

The law of gravity and the theory of evolution do not have the same scientific backing and proof, but teachers teach both as fact.

I am all for teaching science, but not worldviews hiding behind the mask of science.

Evolution is a theory and is taught as such. No other hypothesis has anywhere near the amount of evidence that evolution has, and so it is taught alone. There is no hidden agenda behind a theory.

 

[Split Rock]

A) there is no evidence of "violent breakage" associated with the Grand Canyon

B) The pattern, distribution of the pattern, erosion, and deposition, indicate that the agent generating the Grand Canyon was water.

C) Who said "billions of years" for the Grand Canyon? That feature is somewhere on the order of 10-15 million years old.

The rocks at the bottom of it, though, are billions of years old. Perhaps that's where the confusion comes from.

There is no confusion...jpcedotal just couldn't care less about all this "evidence" stuff, or how old the Grand canyon is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Uhhh.... No. Thalidomide did not have over a century of research behind it.

I believe the focus was on consensus.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

There is no confusion...jpcedotal just couldn't care less about all this "evidence" stuff, or how old the Grand canyon is.

This is not really surprising.

 

[Split Rock]

I believe the focus was on consensus.

I suppose the "focus" is whatever you happen to want.

 

[sfs]

That the Flood was global.

Sorry for the confusion: I meant "what do you know that's true".

 

[And-U-Say]

It is not science, it is a worldview...a popular opinion...

I do not want Creationism taught in schools either btw. No, religion should be taught in school, unless it is taught as a relgion

You don't understand this Science thing, do you. Science is not about a world view, it is about evidence. You can have the most dogmatic worldview in history, but in the world of Science this is easily crushed by a handful of evidence.

What you don't get, is that 150 years ago, creationism was the "worldview" that dominated Science. As more evidence was discovered, creationism was crushed and replaced by a theory that actually agreed with the evidence. Things have only gotten much worse since then.

So you problem here is not with opinion or worldview, it is really with evidence. And that is the problem, because evidence RULES. You lose.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Grand Canyon was formed by a large quantity of water rushing back to the depths of the earth,

Another claim made with no evidence, and mountains of evidence demonstrating that it is wrong. Who do you think you are convincing by making empty assertions that flie in the face of fact?

 

[Loudmouth]

So did Thalidomide.

Yes, there is a clear scientific consensus that thalidomide causes birth defects. Your point?

 

[sfs]

I believe the focus was on consensus.

The focus was on "what's science", and yes, that involves consensus. The scientific consensus is sometimes wrong (whether it was in the case of thalidomide I neither know nor care.) So what? No one -- certainly no scientist -- is stupid enough to think that science is infallible. That science has gotten things wrong has absolutely nothing to do with whether evolution is science.

It does, though, have something to do with why we teach science. Part of learning to do science is learning to question claims and beliefs. Does the evidence really still support this idea? Could we have been wrong? Systematic skepticism is critical to the success of science, and is probably why you hate it so much.

 

[Loudmouth]

If this is true then that is a very sad commentary on science. From what I know about science they tend not to be able to deliver on what they say they can deliver on.

And they have.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[TheBeardedDude]

Another claim made with no evidence, and mountains of evidence demonstrating that it is wrong. Who do you think you are convincing by making empty assertions that flie in the face of fact?

I'm still baffled as to what it means about "waters of the deep" anyways. Some mysterious ocean in the crust of the Earth that is larger than the reservoir of the oceans combined?

 

[Loudmouth]

One thing to remember, it did not rain before the Flood.

Another empty assertion with no evidence to back it.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

Another empty assertion with no evidence to back it.

Plants didn't need it then? Reservoirs that humans used that were replenished via rainwater just filled up with...with...pee?

 

[Loudmouth]

Now, could the Grand Canyon be a result of this violent breakage instead of rushing water leaving the desert?

No. Rushing flood waters do not produce gooseneck meanders. Only slowly flowing water is able to do that.




Rushing waters like those you propose would not produce these features. They would produce a braided channel with those multiple channels all flowing in the same direction. That is not what we see. Your claims are directly contradicted by the facts, not that this will stop you from making the same false claims over and over.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm still baffled as to what it means about "waters of the deep" anyways. Some mysterious ocean in the crust of the Earth that is larger than the reservoir of the oceans combined?

In the olden times rock was able to float on water, or so it appears.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

In the olden times rock was able to float on water, or so it appears.

LIKE PUMICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!