Creationism vs. Evolution

[gallo]

Quote by: Redemption Dinosaurs are large reptiles. Correct?

No. They descended from a class of reptiles known as the Sauria, then through the Archosauriformes, Archosauria, Ornithodira to the Dinosauria.

This would make them...reptiles.

No. They are dinosaurs. It is sad that you aren't even aware of the difference since it is your point.

Noah could have taken the smaller reptiles onto the Ark. As I mentioned before if the dinosaurs did go onto the Ark, only a small number would have gone on.

That's not what the Bible says. It says two of each kind, doesn't it? The Bible doesn't mention "small" as opposed to adult either. Boy! Creationism can sure be fun because you get to make it up as you go along.

In my other post I mentioned reasons that the dinosaurs would have died out.

Cram them on an ark for a year and then let them die out.

Fewer varients of dinosaurs existed and several environmental factors would have caused them not to survive.

But that would have been true of all animals. Why did just the dinosaurs die out?

Not completely. Some species apparenty started to go extinct before the crater impacts, even if a lot of them did correlate with the supposed date.

But since no one claims that impact events are responsible for all extinction events, isn't the fact that there seems to be a correlation for some of them evidence? That's a lot better than making an assertion based on no evidence at all, as in the case of the creationist great flood.

Dog-kind, cat-kind, horse-kind. They are all kinds. If a poodle is considered a species, and a bulldog another species, they still belong dog-kind. If they are sub-species so to speak, they still belong to dog-kind. So it may or may not mean species, depending on what you would consider a species.

Then you admit that evolution is a reality - in fact, macroevolution is a reality and that several species can evolve from a single ancestor population. For example, the 36 species of cat or the 23 species of dog. You are asserting evolution at rates that make the heads of evolutionary biologists spin. And if what you say is true, where is the evidence for these "kinds" and the evidence for the hyper evolution that you claim happened?

How can you tell how strong a long dead creature is by some fossils?

By applying the principles of comparative anatomy. Big animals with big bones mean strong. The scars where the muscles attached to the bones are still visible in many cases. Big muscle scars mean big muscles. Big muscles means strong.

How can you tell the gender?

Educated guess. You can't tell for sure in most cases.

[gallo]

Quote by: Jinei I read somewhere that there isn't even enough water on the planet to cover the highest peak. And if there was, there's no way that water levels could get to be their current levels.

That's correct. The calculation isn't difficult. All you need to know is that there is about 332,500,000 cubic miles of water on earth and the diameter of the earth at sea level. As I recall, it would require a bit more than 4 times as much water as exists on earth to cover the mountains. When creationists claim that the mountains weren't as tall, they then need plate tectonics (already dismissed as jibber jabber) to make the mountains, and that runs into the problem of heat. Tectonic movement is what causes volcanoes, and when you cram enough to build the all the mountains (the Himilayas, the Alps, the Andes, the Rockies, the Urals, and on and on) into a few years, you would get enough heat to turn it into a molten blob.

[lynn]

I don't know if this subject has been brought up, but I have not seen it...Do any of the creationists on here ever take antibiotics? If so, you are taking advantage of something you do not believe in. Antibiotics are simply substances produced by bacteria that kill other bacteria. In nature, they do this through the process of evolution. When bacteria A is living in the same environment as bacteria B they compete for nutrients, space, etc. One bacteria could even be harmful to the other. So, bacteria A will eventually (through random mutations) produce a substance called an antibiotic that will inhibit the growth of the invading organism. Just be glad we picked up on this phenomenon because you don't have to understand or believe in it to benefit from it.

[Redemption]

Quote by: lynn I don't know if this subject has been brought up, but I have not seen it...Do any of the creationists on here ever take antibiotics? If so, you are taking advantage of something you do not believe in. Antibiotics are simply substances produced by bacteria that kill other bacteria. In nature, they do this through the process of evolution. When bacteria A is living in the same environment as bacteria B they compete for nutrients, space, etc. One bacteria could even be harmful to the other. So, bacteria A will eventually (through random mutations) produce a substance called an antibiotic that will inhibit the growth of the invading organism. Just be glad we picked up on this phenomenon because you don't have to understand or believe in it to benefit from it.

Natural Selection IS NOT Evolution. It happens, and is part of the hypothisis on how Evolution works, but it not Evolution itself.

"Again, every animal that appears under the Iridium layer seems to have been left by Noah to die. Not all were dinosaurs. Why?"

Because not all creatures were dinosaurs. Noah took 2 of every other kind of creature (and 7 of 'clean' creatures).

"That's not what the Bible says. It says two of each kind, doesn't it? The Bible doesn't mention 'small' as opposed to adult either."

Well he could have taken the smaller ones. Many of the dinosaurs weren't mega tall, much less than 10ft tall.

"Then you admit that evolution is a reality - in fact, macroevolution is a reality and that several species can evolve from a single ancestor population. For example, the 36 species of cat or the 23 species of dog. You are asserting evolution at rates that make the heads of evolutionary biologists spin. And if what you say is true, where is the evidence for these "kinds" and the evidence for the hyper evolution that you claim happened?"

Again, Natural Selection is not Evolution.

O.K. I won't lie, i'm not expert on Carbon Dating. You now Mt. St. Helen, how it erupted in 1980. After the events a new mound of rock had hardened around the volcanoe's hole (I know, unscientific name).

Now some scientists used Carbon Dating on that newly formed layer, it is supposed at least 350,00 years old according to the dating. Obviously the mound is no older than 20 years old. Can you explain this?

"No. They descended from a class of reptiles known as the Sauria, then through the Archosauriformes, Archosauria, Ornithodira to the Dinosauria."

What would make these variations not reptile? Fossils can be unreliable, they are thousands of years old remains of dead creatures. We as humans can do so well at trying to see into the past.

'Not enough water for the flood'

To my understanding, I can only pressume supernatural intervention (A pretty big one at that) created the flood. I doubt I can pursuade you that that anything supernatural can happen though.

"jibber jabber"
I was refering to the whole tectonic plate area, I wasn't calling it a load of evolutionist poop.

[lynn]

Redemption, I know that natural selection is not evolution. However, when organisms evolve, the ones most adapted to their environment will survive to reproduce. So, natural selection pretty much determines which evolution track the universe is going to follow. Evolution itself occurs because of mutations in genes, and through natural selection, only a small percentage of organisms with those mutations will go on to produce offspring and further evolve. So, yes antibiotics are produced through a process of evolution and natural selection.

[gallo]

Quote by: Redemption Natural Selection IS NOT Evolution. It happens, and is part of the hypothisis on how Evolution works, but it not Evolution itself.

Natural selection is one of Darwin's original theories of evolution. Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, and one of the most important. If you accept natural selection as happening, then you are also accepting evolution.

Well he could have taken the smaller ones. Many of the dinosaurs weren't mega tall, much less than 10ft tall.

Actually, the Bible implies adult organisms since it mentions mates several times. That means a breeding pair. Besides small dinosaurs, some dinosaurs were some of the largest land animals ever.

Quote by: gallo Then you admit that evolution is a reality - in fact, macroevolution is a reality and that several species can evolve from a single ancestor population. For example, the 36 species of cat or the 23 species of dog. You are asserting evolution at rates that make the heads of evolutionary biologists spin. And if what you say is true, where is the evidence for these "kinds" and the evidence for the hyper evolution that you claim happened? Again, Natural Selection is not Evolution.

But I didn't mention natural selection. I was talking about the hyperevolution that you were proposing. The evolution of 36 species of cat from a single pair in a few years is evolution, plain and simple. I didn't mention any of the mechanisms of such imagined evolution. You actually have no idea what natural selection is, do you?

O.K. I won't lie, i'm not expert on Carbon Dating. You now Mt. St. Helen, how it erupted in 1980. After the events a new mound of rock had hardened around the volcanoe's hole (I know, unscientific name). Now some scientists used Carbon Dating on that newly formed layer, it is supposed at least 350,00 years old according to the dating. Obviously the mound is no older than 20 years old. Can you explain this?

No. They didn't use carbon dating on that rock. You can't date rocks by carbon dating. You can only date things that were once alive in the last 50,000 years. The dating you are talking about K/Ar dating that was done by a creationist who wanted to lie to you. Of course, he knew that he could fool people who didn't know anything about it in the first place. What he did was to date what are known as mafic inclusions. They are pieces of very old rock that get pushed to the surface. Actually, the new lava is still too young to get any kind of meaningful date from it so people who know what they are doing and people who are not intent on lying to the faithful just don't do it.

What would make these variations not reptile?

They were more than just variations. They were groups of animals that had a mixture of characteristics, some reptilian and some dinosaurian. But you are correct in a way. Dinosaurs were reptiles just as mammals are reptiles, and birds are dinosaurs.

Fossils can be unreliable, they are thousands of years old remains of dead creatures.

Actually they are not the remains of dead creatures. The remains have been replaced by minerals. Fossils are rock and it takes more than a few thousand years.

We as humans can do so well at trying to see into the past.

I'm not sure what point you are making.

To my understanding, I can only pressume supernatural intervention (A pretty big one at that) created the flood.

The standard creationist answer when an unsolvable problem is encountered. Just fall back on miracle and ignore reality. For a creationist it is always preferable to assert mythology as fact and throw in a miracle or two when the mythology doesn't make sense.

I doubt I can pursuade you that that anything supernatural can happen though.

And I doubt that you are willing to accept reality. You seem to prefer mythology. Miracles don't answer any questions.

"jibber jabber" I was refering to the whole tectonic plate area, I wasn't calling it a load of evolutionist poop.

Yes you were. By the way, tectonic plate movement is an observation. There is no doubt that it is happening. But of course, creationists prefer miracles as answers to what they don't understand.

[gela]

O.K. I won't lie, i'm not expert on Carbon Dating. You now Mt. St. Helen, how it erupted in 1980. After the events a new mound of rock had hardened around the volcanoe's hole (I know, unscientific name). Now some scientists used Carbon Dating on that newly formed layer, it is supposed at least 350,00 years old according to the dating. Obviously the mound is no older than 20 years old. Can you explain this?

Firstly, do you have a source of this info?
Secondly, in terms of the earths history, 35000 years is nothing.
We are talking about a period of 3 billion years - thats just the time since life has been on the planet.
When scientists date something, it is only accurate to about 10000 years. But that is more then enough.

For the record.. I don't think what we are talking about is 'carbon dating' anyway. You can't carbon date rock, you can only carbon date something that was once living.
I can't remember the name of the dating method they use for really old rocks, but its something like radio isotope dating.. they do it by measuring the half life of nuclear isotopes.

[oades11]

Quote by: gallo Really? I haven't heard that a lot. I have seen creationists claim that Einstein (a secular Jew) was a christian, but nothing about Spinoza.

If you look at page 2 of this Thread, the user jpapadpapa said:

"Also, I find it very interesting that Gunboat Diplomat has chosen a quote by Einstein for his signature line. Here's a little more information about Einstein that is very apropos to our discussion:

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." "

I haven't heard a particularly large number of Christians mention Spinoza as if their opinion about him was original, but they seem to use him as a reference sometimes when they simply don't know what they are talking about (and probably hope, at the risk of admitting some fallacy, that the reader/listener doesn't know either.)

Quote by: me Some may call all of existence God, the Universe, A Flying Spaghetti Monster, it doesn't matter. THey're referring to the same thing, but not in any way the same as how so many of you Creationists see God- as a supernatural being, a personal god who may directly influence actions of individuals or sit in direct judgment of objects of "His" own creation. (this is paraphrased from Einstein's famous quote).

Quote by: gallo I don't think so. It's closer to Deism than atheism. Actually, they're not all the same. Perhaps you should put a bit more thought into that statement.

No, actually it isn't. Deism is the belief that an intelligent, complex entity, i.e. God, started the universe and just let it be. A pantheist believes that God is the Universe itself. So, for a pantheist, it would be no different to refer to such a seemingly supernatural entity or 'God'(that which is simply outside of our realm of understanding [unless you're arrogant enough to think you understand the entire universe]) as the universe. That's why it's just semantics, because substituting the word 'God' for the word 'universe' doesn't really change the meaning of a pantheists perspective. Spinoza's view, like Einstein's, wasn't superstitious, as theists might claim (though they'd rarely refer to their own beliefs as superstitious). It was scientific (Spinoza was a secular pantheist that grew up in a family of religious Jews, as you've mentioned. For his time, his views were as scientific as you could get). Einstein believed God was simply all the energy in the universe. That says nothing, absolutely nothing, about a complex, intelligent creator who left the universe to run its course. In fact, it says the opposite, that the universe itself had simple beginnings, probably in the form of a superdense ball of energy, as most scientists now believe.

I'm sure they'll find something. At least that seems to be Dawkin's view

Have you even read Dawkin's book? You act as if I'm committing the fallacy of an appeal to authority, when really Dawkins is extremely qualified to make such statements (as an expert in evolutionary biology)- that life has simple beginnings, and analogously, the universe has simple beginnings. So, in all likelihood, the origin of all of existence as we know it did not come from an intelligent designer or 'God'. Dawkins argues this point far more clearly than me, so you really need to read his book if you haven't already.

Creationists might try to find something wrong with his arguments, but they'd fail.


By the way, I apologize for taking so long to respond. I had to figure out the format of the website since I'm new to this place. So far, I love this forum. There's so much intelligent input here. I used to debate in a teen-based web forum and I got so sick of how immature and illogical people were.

[wyoguy]

Please forgive me for not reading through all the previous posts. I'm hoping this hasn't already been covered. I remember reading Darwin years ago and recalled that he'd said that if the fossil record ever revealed something like the Cambrian Explosion, that it would knock the legs right out from under his hypothesis. If this has been addressed, kindly direct me to it. I don't want you all to reinvent the wheel for me and my laziness.

[gallo]

Quote by: wyoguy Please forgive me for not reading through all the previous posts. I'm hoping this hasn't already been covered. I remember reading Darwin years ago and recalled that he'd said that if the fossil record ever revealed something like the Cambrian Explosion, that it would knock the legs right out from under his hypothesis. If this has been addressed, kindly direct me to it. I don't want you all to reinvent the wheel for me and my laziness.

Actually you don't remember that from reading Darwin. You got that from some religious site that tries to dupe the uneducated. They lied to you and you fell for it. You see, Darwin was quite aware of what is called the Cambrian explosion, but he didn't call it that. So it would have been stupid for him to remark that if something like it could be found it would have any effect on his theory.

By the way, Darwin referred to his theory as a theory since it was long past the hypothesis stage. To call Darwin's theories hypotheses would be like referring to the heliocentric theory as an hypothesis.

At any rate, the closest Darwin came to saying anything like what your source claims was in Chapter X of the sixth edition, published in 1872. I don't know if Darwin introduced this particular discussion in an earlier edition. It wasn't in the 1st.

The topic of Chapter X is the Imperfection of the Geological Record, and the specific subsection is On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata.

Darwin said the following:

"There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. Most of the arguments which have convinced me that all the existing species of the same group are descended from a single progenitor, apply with equal force to the earliest known species. For instance, it cannot be doubted that all the Cambrian and Silurian trilobites are descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Cambrian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal...Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures."

So you see, Darwin didn't come close to saying what your source says. Darwin actually had the answer, but of course the swarms of living creatures weren't discovered until much more recently. What Darwin was really concerned about in this part of the book was the fact that calculations by Sir William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) about the time required for the cooling of the earth didn't allow the time that Darwin supposed was necessary. That was a problem.

But we know today that Darwin was right and that Kelvin was wrong. In fact, when it was explained to him, Kelvin accepted his error without comment. And those swarms of precambrian life have been discovered on several places around the globe.

If you have any questions I recommend that you read Solution to Darwin's dilemma: Discovery of the missing Precambrian record of life by J. William Schopf of the Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics (Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life), and Molecular Biology Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567 (PNAS, June 20, 2000. vol. 97 no. 13, 6947-6953) That should help give you a little background that will help in getting you founded in realilty. That paper has lots of references and sources for more information.

[wyoguy]

Actually, I do remember it, dear. In fact, I'm looking at it right now. Chapter 10, page 355.

"If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection."

I'm still looking for the book by Schopf. I'll be back when I've given it a looksy.

[gallo]

Quote by: wyoguy Actually, I do remember it, dear. In fact, I'm looking at it right now. Chapter 10, page 355. "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection."

Already dealt with above. As Darwin predicted, there were lots of lifeforms that preceded the Cambrian so that numerous species in the same genera in the same strata isn't a problem.

I'm still looking for the book by Schopf. I'll be back when I've given it a looksy.

It isn't a book. PNAS. That means Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. I thought it would be enough to tell you that.

Try HERE

Tell me, sweetie. Which creationist site are you getting your questions from?

[wyoguy]

Thank you for correcting me on the PNAS, my darling. Most of these, and more, questions cropped up about 7 years or so ago when I started going to church. They've been rattling around in my head ever since. I don't have a computer at home and the one at work has only recently been upgraded to access the internet. Since I'm one of about 7 or 8 people in the State of Wyoming that could give a fig about creation/evolution, resources have been tight. My computer skills are about one year old and my education has lain stagnant for about 20 years. Please try to be patient and forgiving when you encounter what appears to be my ignorance and lack of education. I'll try to do the same if any have questions about theological matters. In the past, I've approached this site in entirely the wrong manner and would like to make a fresh start, beginning with you. I think we each have a great deal to offer one another if we can get past the antagonistic air that exists between our respective camps.

Now that I given you way more info than you asked for, I go to Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry for science class.

[Jinei]

Quote by: wyoguy Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry

These people throw around the word "evidence" like it's going out of business .

[Jinei]

Quote by: Jinei These people throw around the word "evidence" like it's going out of business .

[note: If it's "Christ-Focused" then it cannot be unbiased, which makes it unscientific.]

[oades11]

Quote by: gallo Actually you don't remember that from reading Darwin. You got that from some religious site that tries to dupe the uneducated. They lied to you and you fell for it. You see, Darwin was quite aware of what is called the Cambrian explosion, but he didn't call it that. So it would have been stupid for him to remark that if something like it could be found it would have any effect on his theory. By the way, Darwin referred to his theory as a theory since it was long past the hypothesis stage. To call Darwin's theories hypotheses would be like referring to the heliocentric theory as an hypothesis. At any rate, the closest Darwin came to saying anything like what your source claims was in Chapter X of the sixth edition, published in 1872. I don't know if Darwin introduced this particular discussion in an earlier edition. It wasn't in the 1st. The topic of Chapter X is the Imperfection of the Geological Record, and the specific subsection is On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin said the following: "There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. Most of the arguments which have convinced me that all the existing species of the same group are descended from a single progenitor, apply with equal force to the earliest known species. For instance, it cannot be doubted that all the Cambrian and Silurian trilobites are descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Cambrian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal...Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures." So you see, Darwin didn't come close to saying what your source says. Darwin actually had the answer, but of course the swarms of living creatures weren't discovered until much more recently. What Darwin was really concerned about in this part of the book was the fact that calculations by Sir William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) about the time required for the cooling of the earth didn't allow the time that Darwin supposed was necessary. That was a problem. But we know today that Darwin was right and that Kelvin was wrong. In fact, when it was explained to him, Kelvin accepted his error without comment. And those swarms of precambrian life have been discovered on several places around the globe. If you have any questions I recommend that you read Solution to Darwin's dilemma: Discovery of the missing Precambrian record of life by J. William Schopf of the Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics (Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life), and Molecular Biology Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567 (PNAS, June 20, 2000. vol. 97 no. 13, 6947-6953) That should help give you a little background that will help in getting you founded in realilty. That paper has lots of references and sources for more information.

You know, I really value your input so far in this thread. You seem to know a lot about evolution and biology, and just from reading some of the stuff on here (though not exclusively your posts), I've spent the last three hours reading other related materials on the subject in a frenzied curiosity. Heh, this definitely keeps me busy.

You never did though, give any feedback to my response that Einstein's view, like Spinoza's, was closer to atheism than deism. I wouldn't mind hearing what you have to say, and if I'm wrong, I absolutely welcome being corrected. That's one of the best way to learn, in my opinion. What say you?

(I know this is kind of off-topic, but the fact that some creationists try to fallaciously use Einstein as some kind of authority/reference on the existence of a supreme being makes this idea related enough, in my opinion, to pursue in this particular thread.)

[gallo]

Quote by: oades11 You never did though, give any feedback to my response that Einstein's view, like Spinoza's, was closer to atheism than deism. I wouldn't mind hearing what you have to say, and if I'm wrong, I absolutely welcome being corrected. That's one of the best way to learn, in my opinion. What say you?

Actually, I'm not really concerned with that. My point was that a creationist had actually told me that Einstein was a christian, not just that he believed in god. Einstein stated that his god was Spinoza's god. As I understand that, it means that nature and god are the same. I don't know if that's closer to deism or atheism. I usually see it called pantheism. But on the other hand, Jefferson and his "Nature and Nature's God" is pretty close, and nobody denies that Jefferson was a deist.

[gallo]

Quote by: wyoguy Thank you for correcting me on the PNAS, my darling.

No problem, sweet thing. Now, if you want to stop with the attempts to trivialize by using disparaging names, I will do the same. It really isn't a trait that makes you likable and gets you nowhere.

Most of these, and more, questions cropped up about 7 years or so ago when I started going to church. They've been rattling around in my head ever since.

No surprise. Church, where the interest is trying to make mythology seem rational, seems to be the source of such questions. The questions aren't based on an interest in science, but an interest in making religious mythology sound scientific.

Please try to be patient and forgiving when you encounter what appears to be my ignorance and lack of education.

If you interest is to learn what science says, that won't be a problem. On the other hand, if it is you intent to present incomplete, twisted, or invented information in an effort to make mythology seem real, it won't fly.

I'll try to do the same if any have questions about theological matters.

I presume you meant if I have any questions about theological matters. Actually, I suspect that my religious education is as good as yours or better.

Now that I given you way more info than you asked for, I go to Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry for science class.

Not a good site for learning about science. You can tell right off the bat. The name tells you that they aren't interested in science. Their primary concern is supporting the mythology of ancient, bronze age nomads as reality. And, of course, they don't do scientific research. They do research in how they can pick and choose certain aspects of reality to support their mythology. The ICR doesn't do science, they do creationism. They intentionally dupe the ignorant. Duane Gish after he was informed about his gross error about the bombardier beetle, continued to pass on incorrect information to the faithful without change. John Morris selected mafic inclusions from lave deposits at Mount St. Helen's and submitted them for radiometric dating without informing the lab as to the source or giving any expected age. A competent geologist wouldn't try to date such samples since it is quite clear that they will not reveal valid dates. First, the actual new flow from the volcano is too young to date. Second, even bad geologists are aware that mafic inclusions will yield bad dates. So the claims from the ICR about the unreliability of radiometric dating because of old dates returned from new lava flows is dishonest or incompetent, or both.

The ICR isn't interested in science. They only care about what they can use to make it seem if their mythology is real.

If you want to learn science, the go to a reputable institution and take science classes. The University of Wyoming would be perfectly acceptable, if that is close. Or there are a number of sites on the Internet. Look at sites the end in .edu, or sites that aren't represented as a "ministry" (that's a sure give away that they don't want to teach you science). I suspect that you have heard about Talk Origins. An excellent site that is authored by many very respectable scientists. Most of the questions that you will learn from creationist sources have already been answered there.

You might also check out Glenn Morton's story. Really, the ICR is not the place to go for an education in science.

I have degrees from Montana State University and the University of Montana, among others, so I understand what you mean about the people around you not caring about the creationism/evolution debate. I grew up with it. Most people outside of academia in that part of the country believe the mythology and could care less about the science.