Slashdot Mirror
World's Oldest Rocks Found
Smivs writes "The BBC reports that Earth's most ancient rocks, with an age of 4.28 billion years, have been found on the shore of Hudson Bay, Canada. Writing in Science journal, a team reports finding that a sample of Nuvvuagittuq greenstone is 250 million years older than any rocks known. It may even hold evidence of activity by ancient life forms. If so, it would be the earliest evidence of life on Earth — but co-author Don Francis cautioned that this had not been established. 'The rocks contain a very special chemical signature — one that can only be found in rocks which are very, very old,' he said."
And you can see McCain's shadow stacking the layers...
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
They'll find proof I had first post!
No, but I did throw granola at a deaf person once
Isn't it inaccurate to say "World's oldest rocks found" ? I'm a fan of Schroedinger and all that, but just because their the oldest we've observed doesn't mean they are the oldest.
Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
So, it smells like earth.
Reddit's headline for this story: Oldest rocks on Earth found in northern Canada - 5999.98 years old! No, just kidding, 4.28 Billion.
I'm sure glad we're from an alien colonization, 'else we'd be all almost this old too =)
...I hear there are some rolling stones that are even older.
According to any religion-respecting Christian, the rocks are only 5,000 years old.
I have no problem with Christians. I have a problem with someone that wants to run the country according to their religion, though. But if she keeps religion out of her office, I'd be fine with it.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
And until recently she was living under it.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
When asked for comment on what they intended to do with the rocks now that they had them, the lead researcher responded:
"Oh well, you know. Put them on a shelf. Maybe look at them from time to time. We might, when people come around to visit, take them down and let people not touch them! It's all terribly exciting... in fact, I think I need a lie-down."
We're geeks... We're the sorcerers of the modern-day world. --
So we're all descendants of Canadians, eh?
Fucking kids. Graffito-tagging anything. Who tagged it? Jesus.. I'm looking at you.
I record my sleeptalking
Here's a picture of world's oldest stones
Why is a story about rocks in Canada tagged "McCain"?
According to any religion-respecting Christian, the rocks are only 5,000 years old.
Your claim is Wrong. It is easy to find "religions-respecting(*) Christians" who accept old earth. It has been accepted (**) Catholic doctrine for at least fifty years.
(*) Beware of the no-true-Scotsman fallacy here.
(**) It is officially permitted but not required.
1. The age given is 3.8 to 4.28 billion years (why billion, not giga. Dunno.) The scientist favours the oldest possible date, at a guess because that increases funding,
2. The evidence for life was speculative at best.
As the earth is known to have had liquid water for some time before the 4.28 possible date, this is not startling news. But they are rocks, and there is the possibility of establishing a case that they needed bacteria to create their striations. That's where the interest lies. It seems a bit too soon for life to evolve by too haphazard a route in that time.
Which implies a catalytic life-shaping environment, or an extra-terrestrial source, or of course, intelligent design. I've no objection to the latter, provided it is taught in a scientific manner. I've also no objection to proposing pigs can fly provided the analysis is, if not scientific, then nicely based on engineering.
Well, I'm a Catholic (although not a practicing one) and it was never, ever taught in Church or any Church extra-curricular activities that the earth is only 5,000 years old. This is something that is only believed by the crazy Evangelical Christians that belong to "fringe" churches; not the larger more accepting churches. Unfortunately, their numbers are growing.. and fast. It's frightening.
I agree that the good thing about this country is that you can believe anything you want - but the Evangelicals always try to take it too far and push, push, PUSH their way into politics, policy, and law.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Now all we have to find is the world's oldest hard places.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It has been accepted (**) Catholic doctrine for at least fifty years.
-- snip --
(**) It is officially permitted but not required.
Can someone PLEASE point me to some documentation on this? I've always heard it, but I want something official I can print out and show to a few family members.
Not everyone agrees.
This was covered a few days ago on New Scientist...
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14818-discovery-of-worlds-oldest-rocks-challenged-.html
catholic's are a moderate group, it's the baptists and the like that are scary.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Ppppphhhttt. I'm a religion-respecting Christian, and I have no problem believing the rocks are 4.28 billion years old, for the following reasons:
1. God could have created them at that age. For example, if I take my filesystem and slap it onto a CD, preserving the original timestamps... what's the true age (or timestamp) of the files on the CD?
2. If I'm going to try to explain something complex to someone who's incapable of understanding it, I generally break it down into chunks they can understand. So if God's going to explain how he built the universe, and he knows it's beyond our understanding, saying "it was a week's worth of work" might just give us a comparative idea of how much work was involved.
It's rather like the whole evolution versus creationism arguement. I fail to see why both can't be believed in... the Bible says God created man from dirt, if'n I remember correctly. He didn't go about laying all the details out, though. Take all the matter in my body, break it down to its basic molecular compounds, and you've got a pile of mud (dirt and water). Just because the Bible says God made us out of dirt doesn't mean he couldn't have used evolution to build us. Try explaining the concept of evolution to humans still banging rocks together to get fire, and see what you get. Seems to me it'd be simpler to just say "Yep, made you out of dirt."
Of course, I'm tired, it's late at night, and I might not have explained myself well enough. If that's the case, then simply take the above as evidence that some of us Christians are still relatively sane, if a little eccentric ;o)
I don't know about "50 years", or how deeply this counts as documentation, but there's a decent run-down here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis#Contemporary_Christian_considerations
The "money quotes" are from Pope John Paul II -
The full discourse from the pontiff is linked on Wikipedia, but it's here for your convenience: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2COSM.HTM
HTH.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
That's impossible! The earth is only 6000 years old!
Actually, upon reading the full discourse, the following is an even-more-money-quote: (emphasis mine)
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
As is stated in the New Scientist article, the technique used might actually date the protolith (the material from which this rock formed) and not the actual rock itself. From a geochronologist's stand point, this rock is actually 3.8 billion years old, based on the U-Pb zircon age given in the Science article. The age determination for the reigning oldest rocks discovered was found through U-Pb zircon work. The authors are very clear to point out that this 4.28 Ga date is not a definitely age for the rock. Gotta love the media jumping head long in front of the science.
He may know of older, you should ask.
On how they "teach the controversy".
The way it was handled in my high school science class was simple: a discussion of what "science" meant. Science, after all, is more of a method of discovery by certain rules than a true monolith (such as "science says"). This was then distinguished from spiritual approaches by focusing on physical evidence, falsifiability, etc.
Essentially, the teacher better defined science and distinguished it from religion. She then stated that, as we were in science class, we would learn the scientific take. We were free to believe as we wished - as is the fundamental right of every man, enshrined in the First Amendment and various case law interpreting it - but, regardless of what we believed, we would learn the scientific take in a science class - it only meant sense.
That, to me, is the appropriate way to handle the situation. I particularly liked the way it reminded us more of the scientific method and of the epistemological differences between the hard sciences and other subjects. This planet and its people would benefit a great deal by learning the ability to approach matters in different ways and to even learn to hold two, conflicting ideas in their heads for a moment's time, if not but for the purpose of comparison. We need to trust people to think about things for themselves. Teaching epistemological approaches and focusing on process rather than product is vital to this.
The best source is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the official book of what is and isn't Catholic doctrine.
You might be surprised what you read in there. There are a lot of common misconceptions about Catholic belief (even among Catholics)
http://www.amazon.com/Catechism-Catholic-Church-Second-U-S/dp/0385508190/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222670838&sr=8-1
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
For the world's scientists to calibrate their instruments for 6,000 years.
Deltron 3030 - Virus (music video)
When they said "world's oldest rocks found" I did wonder if someone had dared to examine CowboyNeal's testicles.
Looks like ancient shamans used a DWORD in the Good book to represent the age of the earth. When it was downloaded, the figure of 4.3 billion years overflowed and wrapped around to around 6000 years.
Problem solved.
It's funny though, because, you know, as much as everyone deservedly knocks the 6000 year old figure, few actually probe the ancient conceit that drove it - that is, the universe could not exist without mankind, and so, it more or less exists to serve mankind, and therefor we can spread out across the world and conquer it.
Now, with all of our fancy science of course, we know much better. We know that the universe is billions of years old, and that, we've not actually found a shred of life within it that is not from our planet. Not a peep out of SETI, a hello from another world - not even a cell on Mars- nothing. So, it really looks like, that, we can spread across the world and conquer it.
So, the upshot is that ancient man and today's scientists drew exactly the same conclusion. If we can see it, we can take it. All of this mumbo jumbo about the age of the thing doesn't matter a bit. In the mind of the Pope and Goddard alike, its -ours-.
This is my sig.
This is indicative of what really is exciting in Science--- the debate over methods, that reveal the real history of the world.
One of the methods these scientists used--- which has been potentially thought to be reliable--- disagrees with another method that is more commonly considered reliable.
Aging the oldest rocks on Earth is important because it helps us understand when extraterrestrial impact slowed to the point that would allow solidification of the Earth's surface. This places important bound on the age of life on earth--- which has been pushed back more rapidly then the oldest rocks over the past decades. Life, it seems, is more resilient then may have been thought previously.
The important part of this research is the questions it raises--- and the future research it will spur!!
I think it's pretty obvious that if these rocks were around before God was born, or at least before he started doing anything useful then the rocks must be mega gods and could well have actually created God themselves. God is probably just their houseboy or something.
'Cuz Sarah Palin told me the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
No, it's only the fundamentalist Christians who would think that, in the rest of the world you can be a Christian without believing every single word in the Bible is the absolute truth.
BTW, I'm not a Christian, I'm just saying you shouldn't judge a faith or set of beliefs by the crazy extremists, otherwise you end up with the "because most suicide bombers are Muslims, most Muslims are suicide bombers" type of argument.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
>I recall from some study claiming, that identifying age cannot
>be accurately estimated by carbon-dating beyond 40000 years or so.
Fortunately the rock was not made up of carbon and hence carbon-dating was not needed. The rock did contain neodymium and samarium though which could be used for dating it.
....Nuvvuagittuq?!
I think I might need to take a different track on this.
Isn't there a well accepted scientific theory that most, if not all, of the heavy elements in existence are the rest of past supernova? At the very least, the matter making up the earth, us, etc., must have been part of the original dust cloud/disk.
It's not a far jump from dust to dirt. Stick a pile of it next to your dirt, then a pile of garden soil next to it (your dirt plus lots of organic material, right?), and the average layman will probably call them all dirt. Some farmers may beg to differ, but to most of us, it's all dirt.
That being said, I'd encourage you to believe whatever you want to believe. I may be right, you may be right, but there's one way we're going to find out, and I'd rather not take that step quite yet ;oD. As long as you're not trying to blow me up, we'll get along fine.
Dick Clark reports he's been trying to pass them since he was a teenager.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
I don't believe them, there are to many rocks to determine this.
You're missing my point. I complete agree:
1. People (and other organic matter) are not silicon based.
2. There is no transmutation of elements outside suns, supernovae, nuclear reactions, etc.
3. "Anything that formed on the earth, then, was forged out of the same elements that is is now made up of." Well said.
We differ on the use of "dirt". You're using it in a narrow definition: dirt = silicon dioxide. I'm using it in a wide defintion: dirt = pile of some matter of unknown and varied composition.
For example, if the sweepings off my kitchen floor probably contain little silicon dioxide. It's probably composed of dust, bits of food, hair from my cats, etc. If I talk about the activity later, I'm not going to break down the materials. I'm simply going to say "The kitchen floor was dirty. I swept a lot of dirt off of it."
Two definitions of dirt: one specific, one generic. You're using specific, and I'm using generic.
Why would He use the generic term? I figure He's trying to break it down so "everyone" can understand it. Try explaining the concept of an operating system to someone who's never used a computer before. Saying that "Windows is the big program that runs everything else" may not be technically correct, but it's something most people can wrap the heads around until they grow in understanding.
Saying "I made man from dirt" might not be technically correct, but it gets the basic understanding across.
Does that make sense?
that identifying age cannot be accurately estimated by carbon-dating beyond 40000 years or so.
In fact, the precision is even worse and carbon dating can't estimated accurately even more recent dates (carbon-14 has a fixed half-life, but atmospheric concentration can vary widely), but...
Conversion tables have been made that help map the apparent measure of Carbon-14 and the actual date. Dendrochronology (= making time charts using growth rings of wood) is one very often cited and know for a long time method to build conversion charts. Along with other methods of building a time scale, carbon-14 becomes a pretty good method to tell age.
Also, as pointed by another /.er, rocks happen *not* to be made of carbon thus carbon dating imprecision of carbon-14 isn't relevant.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
It's a hoax. My priest says the oldest rocks can't be older than 10000 years. :p
"Sum Ergo Cogito"
"If your Bible says that people were made from mud, then either: that Bible story is utterly and completely mistaken; or it is deliberately lying to you."
Spoken like someone who wishes this to be true and in his arrogance claims it must be true.
Why do you have a problem with someone having faith in a religion if they don't let it screw up how they view the world?
Behold! You have someone who believes in God AND thinks evolution is a right clever idea! But rather be grateful that not everyone is insane, instead of seeing hope for the future, you have to attack the person.
You sir, are a moron.
If you are *ever* going to begin convincing people that science has nothing to do with religion (which it doesn't) then STOP attacking them on theological grounds.
Embrace this guy's beliefs the next time some archo-conservative nut tells you the universe is 6000 years old and the world was made in 3 days and that there is no point planning for the future because the world is going to end anyways.
"Any story that tries to tell it otherwise is simply incorrect. Wrong. Utterly mistaken. There is nothing else to it."
You've never heard of allegory then have you? Take a literature class and learn something. There is a reason civilizations have myths and legends they tell stories about, and its NOT because we like to be entertained (though it helps).
Some atheists need to stop treating everything as a personal attack. The egotism sets my teeth on edge.
Not to worry. There are human footprints on them.
It may even hold evidence of activity by ancient life forms.
Thrintun? Tnuctipun?
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Anyone that's been there would find that very hard to believe.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
These rocks date almost to the formation of the earth and still no signs of The Flintstones or Bedrock. Sorry
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Jon Stewart or Tina Fey must have added that tag.
...unless it repels tigers, of course.
It might still be a story intended to convey basic ideas or concepts to an unsophisticated people of long ago ... but clearly it simply is not the literal truth.
We agree there. I see the Old Testament as more of a story: "Hey, this is what happened before." As much as it may be the word of God, it's been translated by man... and I don't believe in the infallibility of man, divinely inspired or not. To take the Old Testament literally, word for word... well, that's probably where the crazy Christians come from. :oD
Since we can't trust the Bible as a source of knowledge about even basic organic chemistry, then we can't take it as literal truth about anything.
Sorry... I have to disagree with you there. I've got an textbook from my highschool days that references Bernoulli's Principle as the primary reason aircraft fly, that the air moving over the top of the wing speeds up so it "meet up" with the air below it. We now know that to be false. It may be a simplified answer, and it might partially explain lift, but it doesn't do the whole job.
See a pattern here?
Now, just because the textbook can be considered incorrect (at the very least incomplete) in that one location, does it mean I'm going to toss the rest of the book out, since obviously the author has no idea what he's talking about? Nope. There's still a lot of good stuff in that textbook that applies.
Same goes for the Bible. Even if the creation of man (and the rest of the universe) was glossed over, there's still a lot of good stuff in the Bible.
But isn't EVERYTHING at the subatomic particle exactly the same age (from the big bang on)?
Only in God years.
I'm as old as the universe (since all my subatomic particles are the same age) but I can only reliably remember back only a week or two.
No, it's only the fundamentalist Christians who would think that, in the rest of the world you can be a Christian without believing every single word in the Bible is the absolute truth.
You seem to imply that all churches in the U.S. believe in a literal interpretation of scripture, and that no church outside the U.S. does. I know from experience that neither is true. There are both very liberal churches in the U.S. and very conservative churches outside it.
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
I guess you've never heard of the Clergy Letter Project then. It's specific to evolution but a requirement for the theory of evolution is an ancient earth. The text also explicitly supports modern science in general, which would include geology anyway.
Theres evidence on the moon and Mars of massive meteor impacts up to 3.9 billion years ago, or a half billion years after planet formation. This means Earth and Mars may not have been habitable for life until then. Rocks as old 4.28 billion years could disprove or attenuate this meteor event.
No, it's only the fundamentalist Christians who would think that...
You seem to imply that all churches...
How did we get from "fundamentalist Christians" to "all churches"? (And, no, those quotes aren't out of context. The poster to whom you were responding didn't say that all churches in the US were biblical literalists, he/she said that only "fundamentalist Christians" were.)
First couple of posts already covered the, "conservatives suck" remarks.
"Conservatives" != "young earth creationists" (although there's probably a depressingly large overlap).
Behold! You have someone who believes in God AND thinks evolution is a right clever idea! But rather be grateful that not everyone is insane, instead of seeing hope for the future, you have to attack the person.
I think atheists take this view because it's completely 100% contradictory. Both points are mutually exclusive. They can't overlap in the slightest, even though some people try to warp it to fit their brainwashed religious view.
The belief in a (christian) God and evolution don't mesh because if we were made in God's image then we couldn't have evolved from single-cell organisms. Unless God is a single-cell organism, in that case we've evolved to become something better - but now I've just moved into blasphemy, and used the subjective 'better'.
So if you're going to try to convince an atheist that you're 'one of them' yet you still cling to an ancient dogma that is racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-science, and tribal, don't be surprised when they rebuff you.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Along with dinosaur ones?
For that matter, it almost NEVER advocated taking the Bible literally.
True, but I was just dumbing things down for the masses as religion in the USA is identified more with protestant fundamentalism than judeo-catholicism.
This is my sig.
... They had in the stone age, right?
I'm not sure what you mean by a "religion-respecting Christian", but I don't know of any who believe that the earth is 5000 years old. 6000 years would be a more accurate figure. This was calculated in the 1650s by Archbishop Us[s]her an Anglican who came up with a figure of 4004BC for creation based on the chronologies in the Bible.
This was amazing scholarship for its time. However, there are some problems with it. First, there are several different versions with different chronologies. Second, there are several gaps in the chronologies. For example, there is no mention how long people were in Eden before the fall.
un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
Try explaining the concept of evolution to humans still banging rocks together to get fire, and see what you get.
Actually, you might find it pretty easy to get the idea across.
"Suppose you were to eat all the larger of your sheep and cattle, and keep only the smaller for breeding. How large would your grandchildren's animals likely be? Or suppose you eat only the smallest ones and keep the largest for breeding; what would the results be in a few years?"
Substitute dogs or turnips or sunflowers or strawberries any other edible crop, and the example works just as well.
I've actually asked questions like this of anti-evolution people. They always understand, and agree that selecting for size or other desirable feature would have the expect results after a few years of breeding. Their problem is that they don't understand that this is how "evolution" works. They usually have some idea that "evolution" means only that humans are descended from monkeys, or some equally silly caricature. They have never read (or maybe listened to) an accurate description of evolution. And they're usually offended when I point out that they've just agreed with the basic concept behind evolution. They "know" that evolution is against their religion, and they know that selective breeding obviously works, so they aren't going to listen to any explanation that might show that they don't understand the issue.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
No, it's only the fundamentalist Christians who would think that, in the rest of the world you can be a Christian without believing every single word in the Bible is the absolute truth.
No, you really can't be a Christian without believing every single word, since at that point you've either decided that you know better than god, or that god wasn't involved, hence it's not really a religion. You can call yourself a Christian, but so can anybody, and you can find backing for any sick shit you want to do in the Bible, making it totally worthless for any "moral" guidance.
BTW, I'm not a Christian, I'm just saying you shouldn't judge a faith or set of beliefs by the crazy extremists, otherwise you end up with the "because most suicide bombers are Muslims, most Muslims are suicide bombers" type of argument.
All Muslims are suicide bombers or similar. The Koran is quite explicit about it. All Christians and Jews are evil vile brutal murdering scum as well.
The thing you're missing is that there really aren't very many of any of the above in the world these days. If you go read the bible and the Koran, that will be obvious. The ones who believe it are absolutely required by their gos to be savage murderers. Most who claim to be of a given faith don't really believe it though. We'd still have stoning for a whole host of petty crimes if they did. Well, I guess there are a fair amount of Muslims who actually believe their idiot book, but Christians of faith mostly died out in the Enlightenment, and that is an absolutely great thing. Look how far the world has come since.
How did we get from "fundamentalist Christians" to "all churches"?(And, no, those quotes aren't out of context. The poster to whom you were responding didn't say that all churches in the US were biblical literalists, he/she said that only "fundamentalist Christians" were.)
Well, the original post said:
... in the rest of the world you can be a Christian without believing every single word in the Bible is the absolute truth.
That to me implies that churches (maybe I should have said "Christians"?) in "the rest of the world" are different from those here. I'm challenging that part of the statement because based on my visits to churches in other countries, I don't see Christians in other countries being that much different from those in my country. Some are very "fundamentalist", some are very liberal and some are in between.
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
If you believe the Earth to be round (a really weird idea, but I accept it), then proving it is easy. On the inside back cover of New Scientist of 20 Sept (about a week ago), there is a discussion of how high you have to be to see curvature of the Earth. The answer is simple - about 18 km high. That's a genuine, yep-it-really-is-round observation. No place on Earth is that high. Below that you get into weasel arguments.
By weasel arguments, I mean explanations that occur when publicly arguing with a devious, well educated, cynical opponents. (Think Boston Legal.)
That page on New Scientist supplied four letters, and all are interesting. One is the 18 km one. Another gives a formula and concludes that at ordinary elevations, you have a difficult problem of proof.
A third was from a seaman. Quite simply, the higher you are on a ship, the further you see, but the horizon is horizontal. So why do ships 'disappear below the horizon'? That is simple. Sound carries over water due to differences in refraction between close to the water. (Depending on what answer you want to get, you argue for a higher near-water speed because the molecular weight of water is about half that of air, so the molecules move faster, or argue that it is cooler and they move slower. Plenty of weasel room there.) Similarly, light doesn't quite move in a straight line. I would argue that it is refracted up just a little over water, especially over salty water. So a ship sailing off into the distance keeps heading across a Euclidian plane, but it dips below the upwards bend of light. As the 'effect' can be ascribed as due to water vapour, salt crystals, or a periodic effect due to the waves on the water, it is difficult to disprove. (In public, you then cap it off by saying to the audience. "There are similar but more difficult phenomena that explain whey the full moon is bigger near the horizon that when high in the sky". As far as I know, this is now believed to be an illusion. But try convincing a jury who dislike you of that.)
However, there are very high places where you can see the sea and a wide horizon. The Andes would be a preferred site. That is where the fourth letter came from. A climber who had done the experiment, at 6000 m high. A nylon line was stretched tight between two ice-axes, and a 6mm bulge above the line was noted. That's really high, heroic and convincing. But only convincing until there is money or beliefs at stake. Then someone says, how did you prove the line wasn't dipping. It might have been tight initially, and then lost elasticity in the cold. Another says, at high altitudes, and low oxygen, decision making gets a bit problematic. I expect you saw what you expected to see. A third says. "Got any photos", and even if you do, they are blurry as the line is much closer than the horizon.
So my answer to your 'where from' question is: High in the Andes, but go really prepared.
Getting back to the 'Intelligent Design' versus 'Darwinism' debate, I think all the posts I read (including my own) came from believers in evolution, or at least neutral. Mostly, they are fervent opponents of ID. And most, like me, will be quite ignorant of the ID arguments. I didn't see anyone putting up some good examples of what the better ID exponents find as problems in evolution. Well, that is like a bunch of round-earthers laughing at the flat-earthers. Just being right isn't good enough. You should know what they find as spurious in your belief, and why you still accept it. Letting them teach it, in a hostile scientific environment, would be educational for all. The buggers might have some good points to make.
oh right... can't point out that the Emperor has no clothes.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school for 8 years with nuns, the whole bit. They don't teach you this stuff. They don't teach real science. They don't teach you anything about other religions, or that there even are other religions.
That may have been the case when you went to school, but it's certainly changed. I also went to Catholic schools, and we were taught evolution in biology class, but not creationism. We learned that in our religion classes, but as an analogy. In fact, my senior religion class covered all the scientific inaccuracies with the Genesis account.
We also did learn about other religions, and where they differed from Catholic doctrine. It did still have a definite bias towards the Catholic way being better than the others, but they were even up front about that bias.
Of course, this is only representative of two Catholic high schools (my sisters went to a different school, and were taught the same stuff). It may be different elsewhere.
Of course, this is only representative of two Catholic high schools (my sisters went to a different school, and were taught the same stuff). It may be different elsewhere.
Which honestly - it shouldn't be like that! How come there is no united front (if you will) for Catholicism? If there is one head, one voice for the Catholic Church, wouldn't you think that there would be one direction? This is what I meant by my last statement. If the Pope is the voice of God, how can positions change so drastically? How come different Catholic churches/schools teach things so differently?
And I do understand the logistics of it all, which would make it very very difficult. But they seem to change their stance on things when they feel like it. My brother, because he was divorced, couldn't get re-married in my hometown church were we grew up. He went 30 miles away, and they didn't have a problem with it.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.