|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Parable of the candle - should million/billion year dating be taught as fact? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The only convincing argument in defense of macroevolution, in my opinion, is shared genetic mistakes. Well ... what about all those intermediate forms?
Its subjective because at some point, one organism will always appear more closely related to another. That does not necessarily mean one is related. But evolution predicts which organisms will be most closely related by genetic criteria. We knew, before we had the tools to test it, that birds should be genetically closer to crocodiles than to anything else, and that lobe-finned fish should be closer to, for example, mice, than to ray-finned fish. And we were right. "Subjective" doesn't come into it. Evolution doesn't just predict that there should be genetic similarities between species, it predicts which similarities, and the predictions are rather startling ... I mean, birds and crocodiles? Or ... whales and ungulates? Or ... coelacanths and mice? These are really startling, outrageous predictions. And the predictions always turn out to be correct. Like every creationist, you have confused the interpretation of nature that we can make once we're certain that evolution is real with the predictions we can make from evolution to test it if we want to find out if it's real. Evolution doesn't just tell us that birds should be genetically similar to something, it tells us that they should be genetically similar to crocodiles. Which turns out to be the case. Sorry, complete derail. Back to the fairytale about the candle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
Well, the candle parable is good, but there's another one that actually take into consideration one of the things that evolutionists use to date: the Grand Canyon.
A class was taking a field trip through a small desert to learn about the Grand Canyon, a few miles away from the school. However, the bus broke down next to a smaller canyon, about fifty feet deep. Seeing this as an opportunity, the teacher stood up in front of the bus and said, "Class, do you see this canyon. How many years do you think it took that small stream to carve it out?" Nobody had a good answer, so he asked a passing man who happened to live nearby. "I'd say about three days," the man said. "Three days," the teacher yelled. "That stream could only carve out that canyon in a minimum of two thousand years, at the rate it's going." "Well," said the man calmly, "three years ago a flash flood went through this area. That canyon was carved out by the runoff. I can tell you're smart, but there's one thing I have over you in this case. You weren't here when it happened." I think that the old age dates should be taught as an 'intelligent guess', not 'fact'. Nothing that happened before writings can be considered 'fact', and not even some writings. I think that kids should know that the best scientists could do is the 'couple million years' guess.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I think that the old age dates should be taught as an 'intelligent guess', not 'fact'. Well, in essence, that is in fact what is taught in science classes. A defining characteristic of science is that all findings are tentative. Everything is subject to revision if new evidence comes to light, or someone develops a better theory to explain our observations. Every time a scientist says something, by definition it includes the caveat, "As far as we can tell right now." This is perhaps the most significant factor of science that distinguishes it from creationism. Creos begin and end with certain beliefs and hold those beliefs beyond the scope of questioning. A scientist will question anything, given an adequate quantum of evidence suggesting that the conclusion is wrong. If from time to time someone teaching science omits the phrase "As far as we can tell right now," perhaps they can be forgiven because of the overwhelming weight of evidence in support of a given proposition and a complete absence of evidence suggesting the proposition is in error. However, if you ever hear anyone teaching that any proposition in a science class as an absolute truth, no longer subject to doubt, there's nothing wrong with pointing out to them that all of science is tentative. If they don't understand that most basic fact, they ought not be teaching science. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aviator79 Junior Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 17 From: Chandler, AZ Joined: |
The "you weren't there to see it, so you can't know" argument, if we accept it, refutes ANY explanation of how the world came to be in its present state including religious explanations. You can beleive in a 6000 year old earth because your book says that's true, but I can easily refute it by claiming that a mischievious leprechaun on a pink pony wrote that book to deliberately mislead you.
...Not that I'm willing to make any bets as to the existance of leprechauns. Edited by aviator79, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
God made all things mature. Adam wasn't a baby. Maybe he made the earth mature, too!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
But people walk around stating evolution as fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
Yes, it may predict which is closer to which, but what about in-transition macro evolution? A horse has generally the same limb bones as a human, but they have hoofs. Where are the half-foot, half-hoofs now, if evolution existed/still exists? Where are the half-man, half-apes? How come we don't see things with three eyes (if eyes came from freckles). How come all things have eyes on their heads, when people get freckles on their arms. How come things don't have legs on their legs, when people get warts on their legs?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Aqualegia writes:
so....whats a fact? How do we know that God spoke? How do we know that Biblical Creationism has any merit?
But people walk around stating evolution as fact. Websters writes:
fact \fakt\ n 1 : deed; esp : crime 2 : the quality of being actual 3 : something that exists or occurs 4 : a piece of information
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1406 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The topic is the (silly creationist PRATT) "Parable of the candle" - and whether million/billion year dating be taught as fact.
Given that the age of the earth IS fact it should be taught as such. If you want to talk about evolution, horse hooves and the like, try starting a new thread. Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics. Welcome to the fray. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aviator79 Junior Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 17 From: Chandler, AZ Joined: |
quote:Evolution is taught as valid theory. In the mind of a scientist, this is the same thing as fact. However, when you say fact, it seems you mean absolute truth. If you mean "should we teach evolution as absolute truth?" I say no. We should teach it and all other scientific theories as theories which are subject to revision in the light of new evidence. But we should definitely be teaching evolution as the process by which all the current plants and animals have arrived in their current forms. The parable of the candle does nothing to discredit evolution any more than it discredits the biblical creation fairytale. The difference is that evolution has a HUGE body of supporting evidence and biblical creation has none.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aviator79 Junior Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 17 From: Chandler, AZ Joined: |
quote: Have you thought about or researched these questions? Because the answers are readily available to anyone who looks for them. I'll refrain from going off topic here. If you're interested in the answers (I suspect you aren't) Then start a thread in an appropriate forum. Edited by aviator79, : Added quote for clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
Yes, it is a widely accepted theory, but creationism is a widely accepted religion. Most, if not all, of the world's religions have creationism in it. Most, if not all, have a story of a world-wide flood. How is it that around the world, people get the same ideas when they had absolutely now way of communicating through the vast distances?
I think that both evolution and creationism should be taught in school. Then, kids could choose which they wanted to believe. As for the evidence, it has the Bible (and any other ancient writings based on religion). Sure, it may be false, but people thought Homer's Iliad was false, until Troy was found.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
Why do you suspect I'm not wanting answers? I'm open to opposition, but I will not deviate from my beliefs. Not to deviate, but I do want answers. Back to the topic...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aviator79 Junior Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 17 From: Chandler, AZ Joined: |
quote:Again off topic, I'd love to reply in an appropriate forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Sure, it may be false, but people thought Homer's Iliad was false, until Troy was found. Huh? Are you saying that you think that Zeus and Apollo and Athena are all real gods? Man, I can never keep my creationists straight! Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024