Parable of the candle - should million/billion year dating be taught as fact?

Consider 'the parable of the candle':
The Parable of the Candle | Answers in Genesis Should old age dates be taught as fact in the science classroom? Teaching old age dates as fact is ignorant of alternate logical and even scientific interpretations of radiometric dating results, considering the parable of the candle.I understand that there are many different beliefs out there about origins and they can't all be taught in science (partially as some are unscientific), so may i suggest we just don't teach any viewpoints in school etc., then if people want to find out what the origins of man and the universe are they can teach themselves at home etc. thus come to a more unbias approach to a conclusion on the matter. That way it won't seem as if teaching only evolution is indoctrination. Furthermore, "It is the height of Bigotry to have only one theory of origins taught in our schools" (Clarence Darrow, see http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0354.htm - although this quote is often refuted, it is still at the height of bigotry).What do you think? Isn't that a fair solution?

I'm going to promote this along with te warning, Macuahuitl, that the "parable" you linked to will likely be shredded into tiny bits pretty quickly.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Science is tentative. What is fact today is often proved false tomorrow. The point is that you have to follow where the evidence leads, even if you currently have incomplete pictures.Should age estimates be taught as unassailable fact? Maybe. The only thing that I'm concerned about is people systematically usurping evidence to the contrary, just because its a dissenting opinion.But some say that science is exempt from the market place of ideals. Perhaps it is. But like I said, what's true today may be proved false tomorrow. The best we can do is understand as much as we can now, always in search for all the puzzle pieces. There is no doubt that a bias exists-- that science is only about empiricism. There is a very basic philosophical context to all science that no one can get around. But you do realize that your claim of bias is also inherently biased as well, don't you?You are clearly leaning in one direction. That's not necessarily a horrible thing, since we all do that to a degree, but if you are going to call out someone else for bias, it would be well with you to see those same patterns in your philosophical assumptions too.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Hi, Macuahuitl, and welcome to EvC. Actually, it's not. Alternate "interpretations" of radiometric dating results are neither logical nor scientific.- Unless you can establish some relevant similarity to candles and radiometric dating, your "parable" has no relevance.- I have a better idea. Since we all want our kids to grow up understanding the facts about the world and applying critical thinking skills to problems that will face them as adults, I suggest we teach those topics that can actually be verified by physical evidence. Like the theory of evolution.I also suggest that we don't avoid teaching certain subjects, like geology and evolutionary biology, just because some religious sect or another is offended that reality contradicts their cherished mythologies.- To sum up: yes, because the old age dates are facts.

---

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

Welcome to the fray Macuahuitl. A parable -- a story -- is not a scientific theory, nor is it necessarily based on fact. Science on the other hand can be tested against the evidence.Note that AiG is known for publishing falsehoods -- why should you trust a source that publishes falsehoods? Denial of facts is not an alternative interpretation, nor is conveniently not including contradictory evidence. For some of the evidence for an old earth see Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III). Note that no creationist has been able to provide an alternative interpretation that explains all the evidence provided in that thread, evidence explained easily by the fact that the earth is old. So ignorance is a preferred state of mind in your view? You would rather not teach anything if the truth contradicts what you fervently want to believe? A better solution is for those who don't want to learn about reality to go with home teaching, where it is eminently easy to teach ignorance. But teaching the truth is not indoctrination, it is the way to understand reality. If it is often refuted then it is really of little use except for those who want to believe in a falsehood eh?Evolution is not a theory of origins, but of the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation In all honesty I don't think it can be at all fair to the children that want to learn the truth.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.

Seriously? No, they should be taught as being the best explanation to the data we have collected. Then what the hell will we teach? I don't pay thousands of dollars (or rather, pass the payment off to the government) so that I can teach myself at home. If I wanted that, I could do it for free! And possibly most likely a wrong conclusion. To whom does it seem to be indoctrination? And regarding such people, are they really all that opposed to indoctrination in the rst place? Me, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the scientic community all say: no.Jon

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

[Philosophy] stands behind everything. It is the loom behind the fabric, the place you arrive when you trace the threads back to their source. It is where you question everything you think you know and seek every truth to be had. - Archer Opterix [msg=-11,-316,210]

Macuahuitl writes:

quote:

---

Consider 'the parable of the candle':

---

As AdminCoragyps pointed out, time to shred this to tiny bits. The "parable" tries to deny radiometric dating by saying: In short, it's saying radiometric dating can't be trusted because:1) Radiodecay is not constant.
2) The rocks are "pre-aged."
3) The rocks are contaminated.As anybody who knows anything about geology and radiometric dating, none of these things apply.1) Radiodecay is a constant. That's why we can use it.
2) You can geologically determine how a rock was created and thus determine when the radiometric clock started ticking. This doesn't mean that the rock suddenly zap-poofed into being at that moment. It simply means that the clock started then. For example, dating volcanic glass will only tell you how long it was that the glass formed...not how long it was in the fissure before it was expelled. The act of creating the glass starts the clock.
3) Contamination of the rocks is evident through other geological means. By examining the piece for those signs, you can determine if you should even attempt radiometric dating.Thus, since all of your objections as to why radiometric dating might be flawed, what are you left with to support your claim for "alternatives"?Exactly what are these "alternatives"? Where does the methodology of radiometric dating fall short?Be specific.To apply this to the candle:1) Candle wax doesn't burn at different rates in a constant environment.
2) You can tell when a candle has been relit, especially if it has drippings: They will show layers indicative of the heating, cooling, and reheating of the wax source as it starts dripping down new pathways.
3) Adding external wax is visible in a similar method: Layers appear that are inconsistent with wax that came from the dripping of a simple burn.Why is it all of these "parables" (Jack Chick, anyone?) always assume that the person doing the science is a blithering idiot, incapable of performing the experiments they are supposedly trained in?Oh, that's right: The parables themselves are concocted by blithering idiots, incapable of performing the experiments they are trying to describe as worthless. Being ignorant of the actual methods and techniques involved, they merely assume that there is no way to tell.In short, they assume that because they don't know how to do it, that means that nobody knows how to do it.

---

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.

Nemesis Juggernaut --- are you turning into an evolutionist?Your posts have gotten saner and saner ... are you finally going to switch sides?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Because they assume they're creationists.

And what is your point?You ask us to accept this made-up imaginary fairytale about the candle as though it proves something.I, in return, would like you to accept the known scientific facts as though they prove something.The difference between us is that I am appealing to facts, and you are appealing to an imaginary made-up fairytale about something that never actually happened.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hi Macuahuitl,In science class we teach the current understanding of science, at an age appropriate level, of course. The current understanding of science is that the earth and universe are old and that man and all other life evolved from earlier life forms. What you're proposing is to not teach science in science class. I can see why it is "often refuted." For one thing it seems an unlikely thing for Darrow to say, since at the Scope trial that's precisely what he was advocating, teaching the scientific theory of life's origins, of which there is only one. For another, likening it to bigotry seems unlikely for Darrow, since he actually saw the situation as a violation of the separation of church and state. Poking around I found Clarence Darrow Misquoted by Creationists at TalkOrigins, take a peek.If there were more than one scientific "theory of origins", that would imply that no scientific consensus had developed and that there was no agreed upon scientific understanding, and it would be inappropriate under most circumstances to teach either one, other than to perhaps take note of the uncertainty. It's not that there's any inherent objection to teaching two or more different theories of the same natural phenomenon, but even at the high school level this would be challenging and confusing for most students and I think it should be left out of formal curriculums, leaving teachers to decide whether any particular unresolved area of scientific study should be introduced.--Percy

Macuahuitl The candle analogy points out a very significant fact. One does not make a conclusion based on little data. That the candle/time inference had flaws is precisely the reason why scientists who study in the field of radiometric dating are careful to question the possible uncertainties that arise when they make a measurement.There are always uncertainties and you can view them for yourself when you read about such dating since they always give a date + or - factor for the level of uncertainty.The greatest assurance that is afforded to dating techniques is that they agree {within the error bars of the technique} when tested by different types of radiometric dating. Since there is no reason an inaccurate reading occurring through these methods could explain why different methods agree on the same date this fact lends great weight to the justification we assert for them.Please go right ahead and check your sources to see if they have a viable explanation for why the different techniques agree on the date revealed by them.

---

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."Albert Einstein

From the "parable":

quote:

---

Second of all, I didn’t light a new candle, but a used one.

---

So, if this is supposed to be an analogy for the real world, where did God get his "used" rocks from?

Well, to some extent I've always been an evolutionist-- just not a macroevolutionist. Thanks.... I think? Only if compelled to. Put it this way. I see the bulk of evolution as either being common sense or prefacing details in favor of one side but not the other.The only convincing argument in defense of macroevolution, in my opinion, is shared genetic mistakes. The reason being is that organisms that share similarities may just share similarities with one another without being the least bit related. 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 with shared mistakes, the preponderance of evidence specifically leads one to the other in a chain of evidence, if you will.As for my mild castigations, I was simply pointing out to the OP that while (s)he was calling someone bias, (s)he was using bias at the same time. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typos

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake