The Florida department of education heard arguments from evolution supporters and opponents in Orlando on Monday in the final public hearing before next week’s panel vote on the state's new science standards.
The school board is considering whether to mandate the word "evolution" into the state science curriculum for the first time. Currently, "biological changes over time" is used in science classes.
If the panel votes in favor of the new science standards, schools would not only be required to teach evolution by name but also more in-depth to students. The State Board of Education is set to vote on the revised science standards on Feb. 19.
More than 100 people weighed in at the Orlando meeting. The majority in attendance spoke against the teaching of evolution as a fact and wanted evolution taught alongside alternative theories such as intelligent design or creationism.
"No one can say with certainty that evolution is a fact," said Lee Hyatt, a 20-year-old college student from Leesburg, reported The Associated Press.
"To be scientifically proven, it has to be observable and no one was around 6,000 years ago. We want students exposed to all theories so they can become critical thinkers."
Other critics worried that the proposed standards requiring the study of evolution would leave little room for academic freedom.
"The standards deny academic freedom to students and teachers," said Patricia Weeks, chairman of the Baker County School Board, one of nine school boards in North Florida to pass resolutions against the proposed standards.
Those who spoke in favor of the new standards said the teaching of evolution was needed in light of poor test scores and would help Florida compete academically with other states.
Opponents, however, noted that Darwin's theories are already taught under the current curriculum.
"There is nothing about this language that is going to make Florida smarter or make kids have better education," said John Stemberger of the Florida Family Policy Council, according to WESH-TV.
A group of parents and pastors held a news conference before the meeting expressing their disappointment that no commissioners from The State Board of Education would be in attendance, reported the Orlando Sentinel.
"All I want to do is have my voice heard and before the seven people who will make the decision," said Kim Kendall.
The meeting in Orlando was similar to those held across the state in recent weeks in Jacksonville, Miramar and Fort Lauderdale.
In addition to comments made at the public hearings, the state board is also expected to consider views reflected in over 10,000 online comments on its website.
Comments
Nice comments. I recommend Lee Strobels Book called "A Case for a Creator" in which he interviews several serious and well known scientists. Some of them predicting that in 20 years we will look back asking ourselves how on earth we could ever belief in things like evolution.
Easy to read by with clear facts from serious scientists who answer hard questions on evolution.
By the way some of them are top of the rank scientists, who also appear on the list I mentioned recently. Scientist question evolution.
Get this book and find out out that science and God fit perfectly together and there is stil no room for evolution.
Chris,
“Sure molecules work according to set principles, but they do not work according to set principles that would make inorganic molecules randomly form into organic molecules.”
Does the energy that results in the stars fusion of atoms and molecules occur purely randomly, OR, is the result of fundamental forces? Right, it’s not random, it’s from fundamental forces. We see molecules that work together under gravity to cause stars to form, and we see the same with regular matter in its formation with other such forces, why can’t certain molecules under such forces come to form replicating matter that uses this given off energy from other matter (stars)?
“The bottom line is that the necessary building blocks, such as amino acids, proteins, RNA would be extremely difficult to achieve randomly”
Well there is random nothing about it when they act according to their fundamental forces, for this illustration molecules have to work in a certain manner to result in regular matter, other wise they wouldn’t exist to begin with. Moving up in complextiy as in forming chain amino acids, RNA and protiens are also depedant on these forces and dont operate in a pureply randomize fashion. True we haven't cultured organic systems, but Venter and his team are very close at creating an entirely new species of synthetic bacteria from scratch. Perhaps in a year it will be done. But I digress, they clearly do not work in a 'purely random fashion', they work according to these fundamental forces.
“Dawkins admits this, I believe in his "God Delusion" book, he takes the examples of chimpanzees typing Shakespear by randomly bashing at a computer”
I
’ve read his biology books (including this one) many times, and this illustration never occurs in the GD, but I get your point. However a ‘monkey typing randomly on a keyboard’ isn’t analogous as this would be occurring purely at RANDOM, while molecules don’t function in this manner and instead operate in accordance to those forces mentioned.
“What he doesn't understand is logic and math, it does not matter how long or how many monkeys, they would never produce shakespear.”
Given enough time and chances all probable outcomes become effectively = ‘1’. IE, if you could play the largest lottery imaginable, with infinite, or even enough time and chances you’re guaranteed to win (= 1) at least once despite the overwhelming odds that you’ll lose, and keep in mind a lottery IS totally random, while molecules and how they react isn’t.
That said, a monkey randomly hitting keys is as equally as likely to hit ‘Shakespeare’ as he is to hit any other equally probable string of consecutive comparable letters. Comparable by length of course. Furthermore, when multiple chances are occurring in parallel (as symbolized by many multiple of monkies randomly typing) their collective likely hood of hitting any string of letters (including Shakespeare) rises.
Star, cite a link and don't spam this is horrid, besides I'd already addressed some of these on the Appolgetics page.
"According to evolution, the total world population today should be 3.62 x 10^41. But the world population is only approximately 6.8 x 10^9."
This calculation is wrong b/c poplations don't just grow exponetionally, they require resources to grow and thus are limited by said resources available, hence the term 'carrying capacity'. This is why even with modern H. Sapiens appearing about 190,000 years ago the population isn't that high, it all comes down ot RESOURCES at give time period to support a popluation. A population can bang away and try to reproduce all it wants, but if their aren't enough resources for the next generation it doesn't matter.
Evolutionists
I just submitted two posts. My first post, Population Growth, has 3 parts and the second one, Anomalies in Radiometric Dating, has 7 parts.
Evolutionists
Part 1
Re: The current population of the earth is approximately 6.8 billion people. Did the current population come about from Evolution or, as the Word of God says, from the Earth being repopulated by just 6 people (Noah's 3 sons and their respective wives) after the worldwide flood that occured 1656 years after the fall of Adam?
This is something that we can determine mathematically.
Data Sources:
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
The Population Growth Formula at time t for a length of time is:
P(t) = Po e^rt
where
P(t) = Population at time t
Po = Initial population
r = Average rate of population growth per year
t = Time
According to my sources the current world population growth is 1.3%.
In 1963, it was 2.2%.
Obviously, the world population growth is not constant. It can vary greatly for a number of reasons. Some of the reasons would be famine, war, diseases, natural disasters, and etc..
Man has been keeping records of the world population since 1750. Here is the data:
1750 : 791,000,000
1800: 978,000,000
1850: 1,262,000,000
1900: 1,650,000,000
1950: 2,521,000,000
1999: 5,978,000,000
2008: 6,800,000,000
Let's compute the average annual growth rate, r, by solving for r in the Population Growth Formula, P(t) = Po e^rt.
P(t)/Po = e^rt
taking the natural log of each side and dividing by t,we have
r = ln[P(t)/Po]/t
I computed the average annual rate of growth, r, in terms of percentages for each of the following time periods:
1750 - 1800: 0.42%
1800 - 1850: 0.51%
1850 - 1900: 0.54%
1900 - 1950: 0.8%
1950 - 1999: 1.76%
1999 - 2008: 1.43% (quite close to the current 1.3%)
We can see that it is not constant and, of course, unpredictable. So, I calculated the average annual rate of growth from 1750 to 2008 and found it to be 0.83%.
1750 - 2008: 0.83%
Evolutionists
Part 2
Now, Agentorange has previously said to me ".... cosomology, astronomy, geology kill any notion of a 6000 year old universe/earth and biology and genetics kills the idea of 8 people repopulating the earth only 4000 years ago..."
Let's see if that is true.
Recall,
P(t) = Po e^rt
From the Biblical record, I have determined that the amount of time that transpired from the fall of Adam to the time of the flood was 1656 years.
Even though there were 8 people saved during the world wide flood only 6 were used in repopulating the Earth. The Biblical record does not mention that Noah and his wife had any children after the flood. Thus, we can conclude that the Earth was repopulated by Noah's three sons and their respective wives.
We really don't know exactly how much time has transpired since the fall of Adam. However, we, YEC, believe that it has been approximately 6000 years.
Most likely the average annual growth rate probably has changed since the flood until present time. So, to account for wars, diseases, famine, natural disasters, ethnic cleansing, etc let us assume that the the average rate is 60% of the 0.83% rate from 1750 to 2008.
From this information
P(t) - Population at 6000 yrs or 2008 AD
Po = 6
r = 60% of 0.83% = 0.6 x 0.0083 = .00498
t = 6000 - 1656 = 4344 yrs
let us now calculate what the world population would be in year 6000 from the time of the flood.
P(t) = Po e^rt
P(6000) = 6 e^(0.00498)(4344) = 6 e^21.63 = (6)(2476222375) = 14,857,334,250
We see that the population grew from 6 people to approximately 14.8 billion people.
Now, this number is almost twice as much than what we have today, 6.8 billion. The guess I made as to what the average annual growth rate was was a little too high.
So, mathematically, after the flood, it is possible to replenish the Earth with only 6 people after the world wide flood.
Evolutionists
Part 3
Let's see what the Earth's population would be today if Evolution was correct.
There is differences of opinion as to when the first humans appeared. I have heard millions of years, 200,000 years, 190,000, 180,000, and 160,000 years.
Let's just pick the 190,000 years.
Let us assume that through macro evolution only 2 humans appeared, one male and one female.
Because these two humans didn't have the technological advances that Noah's three sons had and they had to develop their language skills, technology skills, etc. from scratch, let us say that their average population growth from the time of their appearance until now was 0.05% instead of the 0.498% that was used for Noah's sons.
The value of the variables are as follows:
P(t) = Population after 190,000 yrs.
Po = 2
r = 0.05% = 0.0005
t = 190,000
Substituting these values into the equation, we have
P(2008 AD) = 2 e^(0.0005)(190000) = 2 e^95 = 2 (1.81 x 10^41) = 3.62 x 10^41.
According to evolution, the total world population today should be 3.62 x 10^41. But the world population is only approximately 6.8 x 10^9.
Conclusion: The Biblical account of the history of man is true. Evolution's account is false.
Evolutionists
Part 1
Re: Radiometric dating of the earth and fossils: Are they trustworthy?
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_earth:
Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years.
Can we be so sure?
Taken from http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/creation_truths/evo_radiodating2.html
Anomalies of Radiometric Dating
Logic and science dictates that if something which is assumed to have a uniform rate is shown in a single example to not be uniform, the theory must be abandoned as unreliable.
Creation scientists as well as secular scientists have found that it is entirely possible for the uniform rates of radiometric dating to be very easily changed through enviromental conditions. (Remember, I mentioned to you that my Nuclear Physics Professor Dr. Spangler and a Nuclear Chemist Dr. Anderson published a paper in 1974 showing that the radioactive decay constants were not constant when radioactive substance were placed in a charged field? Others have found that not only charged fields will affect the decay rate but also magnetic fields, pressure, cosmic radiation, and when a radioactive substance is near another radioactive substance.)
Here are 19 specific examples of the unreliabilty of the radioactive dating methods:
1. Rock from a dactite lava dome at Mount St. Helens that was formed in 1986 during the eruption there was dated (using the Potassium-Argon [K-Ar] method) at 0.35 ±0.05 million years. (S.A. Austin, "Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dactite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano," CEN Technical Journal, 10(3):335-343, 1986)
2. A British Engineer, Sidney P. Clementson, studied a variety of modern volcanic rock. Knowing their ages as 200-300 years old, he carefully compared them to Soviet uranium tests of the same volcanic rocks. What he found was surprising. In every instance the dates were found to be hugely incorrect with a 14 billion year (the dates varied from 50 million years to 14.5 billion) discrepancy. ("Critical Examination of Radioactive Dating of Rocks," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1970.)
Evolutionists
Part 2
3. Five andesite lava flows from Mt. Ngauuhoe in New Zealand. They were Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dated from <0.27 to 3.5 million years. The only problem was that one was laid down 1949, three were laid down 1954 and one in 1975. (A.A. Snelling, "The Cause Of Anomalous Potassium-Argon ‘Ages’ for recent andesite flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon ‘Dating’" Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, ed. E. Walsh, 1998, pg. 503-525.)
4. A single uranium deposit in the Colorado Caribou Mine had a radiometric error spread of 700 million years. (G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, pp. 139-140.)
5. Swedish kolm from Scandinavia was (using the uranium method) dated with an error spread of 420 million years. (G.A. Kerkut Implications of Evolution, pp. 139-140.)
6. Granite from the Black Hills gave strontium/rubidium and various lead system dates varying from 1.16 to 2.55 billion years. (L. Ferrell, "Dating Methods", Evolution Disproved, 2001)
Evolutionists
Part 3
7. In 1800-1801, lava flows off the coast of Hawaii near Hualalei formed volcanic rock. It was dated using K-Ar (Potassium-Argon). The K-Ar dating gave dates ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years. (Journal of Geophysical Research, July 15, 1968; Science, October 11, 1968)
8. Doctor Read, in a presentation before a special meeting of the California State Board of Education, presented his research into the radiometric dating of lunar (moon) rocks. Many lunar samples were brought back from the missions and carefully dated usingthorium dating, uranium dating, potassium-argon dating, and agglutinate dating. Yet the dates vary from 2 million to 28 billion. ("Proceedings of the Second, Third and Fourth Lunar Conferences," Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volumes 14 and 17)
9. Freshly-killed seals have been dated at 1,300 years. Seals which have been dead for 30 years were dated (using the carbon-14 method) at 4,600 years. (W. Dort, "Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land," in Antarctic Journal of the U.S., June 1971, p. 210.)
10. Oxford Castle in England was built 725 years ago, and yet its mortar has been radiocarbon dated at 7,370 years old. (E.A. Von Fange, "Time Upside Down," quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly, November, 1974, p. 18.)
Evolutionists
Part 4
11. Scientists dated the shells of living mollusks and it was determined through radiocarbon dating that these <I>living</I> mollusks had "died" about 2,300 years before. (M. Keith and G. Anderson, "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells," in Science, 141, 1963, p. 634.)
12. Wood only a few days cut out of living, growing trees was dated, using radiocarbon, to have existed for 10,000 years. (B. Huber, "Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions," in Physiology of Forest Trees, ed. by K.V. Thimann, 1958.)
Evolutionists
Part 5
13. Here is a quote which further demonstrates the accuracy problems of radiometric dating, and the carbon-14 method in particular:
"Hair from the Chekurovka mammoth that was found in the Lena River delta region of Russia has a radiocarbon age of 26,000 [years], while the radiocarbon age of peat only eighteen inches above the carcass is 5,610. At normal [present] growth rates, between 500-2,000 solar years would be required for the development of an eighteen inch peat layer.
"Muscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk ox found in frozen muck at Fairbanks Creek, Alaska, has a radiocarbon age of 24,000, while the radiocarbon age of hair from a hind limb of the carcass is 17,200. A life span exceeding 7,000 years for a specimen of this species is doubtful.
"In a gravel deposit at the Union Pacific Mammoth Site near Rawlins, Wyoming, a mammoth skeleton was found together with artifacts that indicate the animal was killed by man. Radiocarbon dating of ivory from the center of the tusks establishes the kill date at approximately 11,300 radiocarbon years ago. Wood fragments from the gravel in which the remains were buried have a radiocarbon age of approximately 5,000 years. The bones would not have survived 6,000 solar years of exposure, nor could they be expected to remain in an articulate relationship during erosion and reburial by natural processes.
"A mastodon skeleton found at Ferguson Farm near Tupperville, Ontario, provided a radiocarbon age of 8,900 for the collagen fraction of bones and a radiocarbon age of 6,200 for high organic-content mud from within the skull cavities. It is unlikely that this skeleton could have survived exposure for 2,700 solar years before emplacement in peat." --Robert H. Brown, "Radiocarbon Age Measurements Re-examined," in Review and Herald, October 28, 1971, pp. 7-8.
Evolutionists
Part 6
14. Basalt from Mt. Etna, in Sicily (122 BC) was tested using the K-Ar method and found to be 250,000 years old. (G.B. Dalyrmple, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55; also see Impact, #307, Jan. 1999)
15. "Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old." (Science, Vol. 224, 1984, pg. 58)
16. "One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the 'wood immediately around the carcass' was 9-10,000." (T.L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. printing office, 1975) pg. 30)
17. "The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY." (H.E. Anthony, "Natures Deep Freeze," Natural History, Sept. 1949, pg. 300)
18. "The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 ±670 and 16,150 ±230 years respectively." (R.M. Thorson and R.D. Guthrie, "Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth Locality, Alaska," Quaternary Research, Vol. 37, No 2, March 1992, pg. 214-228)
19. "In the last two years an absolute date has been obtained for (the Ngandong beds, above the Trinil beds), and it has the very interesting value of 300,000 years plus or minus 300,000 years." (J.B. Birdsell, Human Evoluion, 1975, pg. 295)
Evolutionists
Part 7
Conclusion:
Every one of these anomalies are on the dating of objects of known age. Why then should we trust radiometric dating to be accurate about objects and rocks for which we do not know the ages for?
A single "anomaly" in radiometric dating would invalidate it as being reasonable for use in determining ages. Yet here we have 19. This indicates that radiometric dating is totally useless for age determining.
Danny,
Give it a rest, I think Slacker explained it well enough.
Agentorange,
"This is why the probabiltiy you used doesn't quite work, as each 'try' wouldn't be to assemble the first molecule in the nucleotide chain, but it would be post amino acid at least and the 'try' thereafter, but I am not a astrobiologist and don't work in aiobgensis."
Sure molecules work according to set principles, but they do not work according to set principles that would make inorganic molecules randomly form into organic molecules. (As far as we have been able to see) The bottom line is that the necessary building blocks, such as amino acids, proteins, RNA would be extremely difficult to achieve randomly (indeed we have a very difficult time trying to force it in delicate labratory situations, and it is only after using pre-organic material) The probability is for all intents and purposes zero. Dawkins admits this, I believe in his "God Delusion" book, he takes the examples of chimpanzees typing Shakespear by randomly bashing at a computer (which is what the probability for random life is equated to, and is also consequently mathematically zero) Dawkins just says that if there were enough monkeys and enough time, then shakespear would eventually emerge. What he doesn't understand is logic and math, it does not matter how long or how many monkeys, they would never produce shakespear. I think the only cop out that there really is for atheistic evolution, is that there must be something we do not know yet that will explain the origins of life in a much easier way. Again this is just a big guess, and it would take a good deal of faith, but hey, that's life, scientists really ought to get over themselves.