Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Parable of the candle - should million/billion year dating be taught as fact?
aviator79
Junior Member (Idle past 5981 days)
Posts: 17
From: Chandler, AZ
Joined: 05-15-2007


Message 31 of 98 (433624)
11-12-2007 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 4:50 PM


Re: The philosophy of science
quote:
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.
Unwillingness to accept contrary evidence = not wanting the answers.
quote:
Back to the topic...
Yes please

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 4:50 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 32 of 98 (433627)
11-12-2007 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 4:43 PM


off topic on this thread ... but
... but creationism is a widely accepted religion. Most, if not all, of the world's religions have creationism in it.
Creationism is not a religion, but an effect of literalist fundamentalist religions. Thus there are creationist christians and non-creationist christians, creationist muslims and non-creationist muslims, creationist hindus and non-creationist hindus, and there are more non-creationist believers than there are creationist believers. The vast majority treat creation as more allegorical than actual statements of truth.
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?
Because agriculture generally was first done on flood plains?
Would that fact that SOME religions do NOT have flood myths refute the concept? Certainly IF it were true THEN all people are survivors and should have cultural memories (myths) of such an event eh?
Then, kids could choose which they wanted to believe.
Are kids able to discern truth from lies?
Sure, it may be false, but people thought Homer's Iliad was false, until Troy was found.
So even well educated adults could not tell truth from lies, and you think kids will do better?
Should we teach things we KNOW to be false so that they can decide?
To NOD at the topic: should we teach the parable of the candle so that kids can decide? Should we teach about the false assumptions in the parable?
How long do you want to go to school?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added topic comments

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 4:43 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 33 of 98 (433628)
11-12-2007 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 4:43 PM


Re: Canyon
And if you want to teach religion in religion class, I suspect few here would object. Just leave it out of science class.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 4:43 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 34 of 98 (433632)
11-12-2007 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by aviator79
11-12-2007 4:37 PM


Re: Canyon
We should teach it and all other scientific theories as theories which are subject to revision in the light of new evidence.
This is why evolution isn't a fact to me. Usually I define a fact as none-negotiable. It is a fact I exist, you can't come along with another theory that I don't exist. It is a tangible reality - a true thing, a fact is a truth.
I don't see why the definition should change.
I see a theory as an explanation of facts, that has evidence for and against it, and that is why theories come and go.
Evolution is largely inductive. Things like nested hierarchies etc...are not facts of evolution, they are facts of nested hierarchies. Sea-cows are facts of sea-cows, (assuming the fossle is complete and not conjectural )
Birds' feathers, and their whole flight system is so fe**ing incredible that they must be designed mustn't they? No - it is not a fact, it is a fact that they exist. But it is very convincing that they are designed, and infact three major flight systems coming about by natural causes, being so incredible, seems unlikely to me.
If theories are negotiable I don't understand why evolutionists care so much about creationists, and get so hot under the collar. The rational few will see that they are merely exersizing their right to not believe in a theory, even if there is a lot of evidence that suggests it is true.
It strikes me as plain weird that Christians are expected to treat evolution as fact. Please define the term "fact".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by aviator79, posted 11-12-2007 4:37 PM aviator79 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by aviator79, posted 11-12-2007 5:23 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 59 by Rrhain, posted 11-12-2007 8:39 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
aviator79
Junior Member (Idle past 5981 days)
Posts: 17
From: Chandler, AZ
Joined: 05-15-2007


Message 35 of 98 (433635)
11-12-2007 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by mike the wiz
11-12-2007 5:12 PM


Re: Canyon
quote:
It is a fact I exist
Is it? Let me propose an alternative theory. An invisible, silent and odorless, and otherwise undetectable gnome can control minds. This gnome has controlled everyone "you" have ever met into thinking that you exist, even though you in fact, do not. Any evidence of your existance has been placed into people's minds by the gnome.
Now I don't believe this theory, but I cannot 100% rule it out. There is ALWAYS uncertainty. Therefore nothing meets your criterion of being completely non-negotiable. The overwhelming body of evidence suggests that you do exist, so I accept it as fact even though I'm not 100% certain. Evolution is analagous to the theory that you exist. Creationism is analagous to the gnome theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by mike the wiz, posted 11-12-2007 5:12 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 36 of 98 (433648)
11-12-2007 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by aviator79
11-12-2007 4:53 PM


Re: Canyon
I see what you mean. I guess I mis-interpreted the topic. Let me try again.
No, the old age dating should not be taught in public schools AS A FACT. It should still be taught, but not as an undisputable fact. I think they should include the theory that maybe things haven't always been a constant. Over the possible billions of years, it is more likely that a total catastrophy happened than life popping up unexpectedly. Therefore, by the fact that too many variables exist, no, 'billion-year' teaching should not be taught as a fact, but as a possibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by aviator79, posted 11-12-2007 4:53 PM aviator79 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by subbie, posted 11-12-2007 6:02 PM Aquilegia753 has replied
 Message 38 by Chiroptera, posted 11-12-2007 6:03 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2007 7:03 PM Aquilegia753 has replied
 Message 61 by Rrhain, posted 11-12-2007 9:06 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 37 of 98 (433652)
11-12-2007 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 5:57 PM


Re: Canyon
I think they should include the theory that maybe things haven't always been a constant.
They will teach what the evidence leads them to conclude is likely accurate. Where there is evidence that conditions were not the same as they are now, that evidence can be taught. However, where there is no evidence to show that things were different, but people of a certain religion assume it must have been because that's necessary to preserve their peculiar views of the history of the planet, this will not be taught in science class, nor should it be.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 5:57 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:06 PM subbie has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 98 (433653)
11-12-2007 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 5:57 PM


Re: Canyon
I think they should include the theory that maybe things haven't always been a constant.
But there is no such theory -- just a bunch of untested, wild-ass claims made by people with an agenda.
If you know of any such theory, you should point it out to us. We have been trying to get creationists to test this "theory" out.

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 5:57 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

  
Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 39 of 98 (433655)
11-12-2007 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by subbie
11-12-2007 6:02 PM


Re: Canyon
How about the meteors that wiped out lots of dinosaurs/prehumanic life? Those could change things. The ice age has the ability to alter the climate and to change how quickly C-14 leaves an organic form. Those two are accepted facts (I'm pretty sure) of evolutionists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by subbie, posted 11-12-2007 6:02 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by subbie, posted 11-12-2007 6:14 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 41 by NosyNed, posted 11-12-2007 6:19 PM Aquilegia753 has replied
 Message 63 by Rrhain, posted 11-12-2007 9:16 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 40 of 98 (433660)
11-12-2007 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 6:06 PM


Re: Canyon
It sounds like you are in agreement that theories without evidence ought not be presented just to mollify the sensibilities of religious minorities.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:06 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 41 of 98 (433663)
11-12-2007 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 6:06 PM


Meteors as constants
How about the meteors that wiped out lots of dinosaurs/prehumanic life? Those could change things.
Yes, they did (and will) change the conditions on Earth. But they do not affect any physical laws or constants. You seem to badly misunderstand the argument you are defending.
The argument that you are trying to put forward (it's a shame someone has to tell you what you are actually trying to say) is that some behaviors of physics and chemistry has been different in the past. That is what creos are arguing. A meteorite has nothing to do with any such changes.
The ice age has the ability to alter the climate and to change how quickly C-14 leaves an organic form. Those two are accepted facts (I'm pretty sure) of evolutionists.
I am pretty sure this as just as false as all the other information you have been fed. Are you going to catch on soon? The sources you are using are both ignorant and deliberately deceptive.
However, it happens that it has nothing to do with the question of C-14 dating. C-14 doesn't measure carbon leaving an organic form. It measures the carbon that has transformed within the form into a different carbon. The measurement is not the amount of carbon present but rather the ratio of carbon isotopes present. The ice age can not in any way affect that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:06 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:42 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 42 of 98 (433670)
11-12-2007 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by NosyNed
11-12-2007 6:19 PM


Re: Meteors as constants
Yes, but in a sense, the isotope of carbon-14 is leaving. It is no longer there, changed into something else.
The ice age could cause a sudden death in quite a bit of plants and animals, possibly making the intake of carbon-14 smaller. Therefore, fossils from that time era and after would have less carbon-14 to change. So, if we think that all objects have the same amount of carbon-14 when they die (ratio-wise), then we could be mistaken and poorly overjudge the age of ice-age and post ice-age material.
In 1958 Hessel de Vries showed that the concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere varies with time and locality.
Edited by Aquilegia753, : Recent research

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by NosyNed, posted 11-12-2007 6:19 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by JonF, posted 11-12-2007 7:03 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 43 of 98 (433682)
11-12-2007 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 5:57 PM


Re: Canyon
No, the old age dating should not be taught in public schools AS A FACT.
But the age of the earth is a fact. The evidence we have for what that fact is shows a minimum age for the earth of 4.5 billion years, as this is the oldest piece of evidence that has been found.
There are also thousands of pieces of evidence showing ages from recent (lava flows and the like) up to 4.5 billion years, thus it is easy to find SOME evidence for a young earth ... but that doesn't explain all the evidence for an old - much older - earth.
If the earth were young then there should be no evidence for an old earth. Again, if you want to discuss this FACT, there is an existing thread dedicated to the Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) which not only discusses various different kinds of evidence for an old earth but the correlations between them.
Therefore, by the fact that too many variables exist, no, 'billion-year' teaching should not be taught as a fact, but as a possibility.
That life has existed on earth for at least 3.5 billion years is also a FACT.
The only way you can dispute these dates is by denying evidence, denying the truth of evidence.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 5:57 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:19 PM RAZD has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 44 of 98 (433683)
11-12-2007 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 6:42 PM


Re: Meteors as constants
The ice age could cause a sudden death in quite a bit of plants and animals, possibly making the intake of carbon-14 smaller. Therefore, fossils from that time era and after would have less carbon-14 to change.
Irrelevant. 14C dating depends on ratios, so the amount of intake doesn't matter. An organism's intake of 14C per atom of 12C depends only on the 14C/12C ratio in the atmosphere.
Also, if your mechanism did affect 14C dating, we would see a jump in the calibration curves. We don't see that jump. Your mechanism is falsified.
It's the agreement between different and independent dating methods that scares YECs more than anything else. There's a thread around here specifically for discussing that agreement, Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III). See you there?
In 1958 Hessel de Vries showed that the concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere varies with time and locality.
When you copy something from another site, you should give a proper attribution. From Radiocarbon dating
quote:
In 1958 Hessel de Vries showed that the concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere varies with time and locality. For the most accurate work, these variations are compensated by means of calibration curves. When these curves are used, their accuracy and shape are the factors that determine the accuracy and age obtained for a given sample.
So,the issue you raised was answered in the sentence after the one you copied. For the most accurate work we compensate for the variations; but even if we ignore the variations the technique is accurate enough to disprove YEC claims about the age of the universe and life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:42 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 45 of 98 (433688)
11-12-2007 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 3:19 PM


Re: Canyon
Aquilegia753 writes:
quote:
"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."
(*chuckle*)
Well, when you get to just make stuff up, let's finish the story:
At this point, the man's wife comes up and says, "Oh, don't listen to him. He just likes to pull people's chains. We didn't come here until three weeks ago. The only reason he claims it was three years ago is because his buddy, who has only been here five weeks, told him it was three years ago. In fact, nobody who lives around here has been here for very long. Nobody saw it happen."
You're making the Hovind claim, "Were you there?"
The answer, of course, is no, we weren't there. Nobody was there. What you don't seem to understand is that not even the authors of the Bible were there.
But, we don't have to have been there to learn what happened: The rocks and bones were there and they can tell us what happened. All we have to do is ask them.
And once again, we have a creationist story implying that the scientist is a complete fool:
"I'm sorry, Sir, but what you are telling us is physically impossible. Here, class, let's gather around and work on our physics for the amount of hydrodynamic pressure that can be exerted by water. Now, let's take a look at the types of rock here...we've got a granite, a sandstone, etc., etc. Who can tell me the characteristics of a granite layer with regard to its porousness and how it will react to an onrush of water?"
You see, the reason why scientists reach the conclusions that they do is because they spend a great deal of time analysing the situation and working on the problem. It requires much more work than the clumsy creationist parable-teller gives credit for.
quote:
I think that the old age dates should be taught as an 'intelligent guess', not 'fact'.
Can you give a complete writeup of the reasons why the findings of geology are nothing more than ephemeral "guesses"? Are you prepared to point to every piece of physical evidence and explain why its physical existence is only a "guess"?
quote:
Nothing that happened before writings can be considered 'fact', and not even some writings.
So the entire concept of forensics needs to be thrown out the window, eh? You do realize that this means we will need to open up the prisons and let the vast majority of criminals out, yes? Most crimes take place with no witnesses. The only way we can figure out what happened is through scientific examination of the things that are left behind.
By your logic, it's just as possible god raptured your television set into heaven rather than somebody broke in and stole it. The chisel marks on the door, the footprints on the floor, the fingerprints on the walls, all those are just a "guess" that somebody broke in and stole your TV.
Are you seriously claiming that?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 3:19 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:24 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024