A video of most of the first part of Don Patton's first lecture at Bullard High School can be found here. Don spends the bulk of the video cherry-picking divergent predictions from radiometric dating, most of them unsourced in the presentation. Some of the observations are not even pertinent to the reliability of the method, or even misrepresentative. At one point he complains that potassium-argon dating of Mt. St. Helens ash eleven years after the 1980 eruption yielded a range of values from about 0.5 to 3 million years, ignoring the fact that potassium-40's half-life is 1.3 billion years, which is to say about eight orders of magnitude greater than the time scale he wishes to measure. This is like taking the blunt end of a meter stick and using it to estimate the diameter of an atom.
4/24/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Hey Mr. Hatfield, I was the student attending with the long hair (I find this to be the most suitable method of describing myself) and I'm glad you're actually making rebuttals.
I look forward to more facts as many of the things, as a young anti-creationist, intrigued me to the point of considering Deism.
Let me know of any updates, and if you actually talk about this sort of thing in the "Deep" club, I may join.
Well, hello long-haired student!
First of all, the DEEP Club is student-driven, and they can talk about anything of interest to them. I don't tell them what to talk about, and a lot of times I leave the room or pretend I can't hear what students are saying. I'm a sensitive soul, but more seriously, it's not my job to tell students what to believe. It provides a safe place for students to hang out and, if they want to, talk about deep topics.
There will probably be some DEEP kids in my room during lunch tomorrow, so you're welcome to check the whole scene out.
Dear Long Hair,
Proverbs:23:23 Buy the truth, and sell it not; Yea, wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.
You are on the journey of a life time, why not spend it looking for truth.
Please do not let these words haunt you:
Psalm 14:1 " The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works"
Please keep reading:
1Co 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And the discernment of the discerning will I bring to nought.
1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1Co 1:21 For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe.
1Co 1:22 Seeing that Jews ask for signs, and Greeks seek after wisdom:
1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumblingblock, and unto Gentiles foolishness;
1Co 1:24 but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1Co 1:26 For behold your calling, brethren, that not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
1Co 1:27 but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them that are wise; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things that are strong;
1Co 1:28 and the base things of the world, and the things that are despised, did God choose, yea and the things that are not, that he might bring to nought the things that are:
1Co 1:29 that no flesh should glory before God.
The beak of a bird,The DNA of a cell the list goes on and on.
Consider the facts: But the truth, beacuse a lie has no value.
I live by a little moto: " When you buy the best you only cry once"
All the best to you,
Homeward Bound
It's important to remember that claims based upon faith about what is and isn't true can not be addressed by the scientific community, and that fallible human beings could sincerely incorporate things which are widely regarded as falsified into a set of beliefs that are true. This goes for me as well as for those I've criticized in these posts.
Having said that, however, the previous would constitute a category mistake if offered up in a scientific proceeding. This or that interpretation of scripture carries no weight with the scientific community. None. It MAY well be true, or at least true to the extent that they can understand it. But it isn't science, and the repeated attempts of Mr. Patton to imply that those of us who stand up for science are blinded by our own 'faith' is just nonsense.
Instead, it's an example of the psychological phenomenon called projection: the believer sees everything in the context of belief, and so they assume that scientists who support evolution education are driven by a similar 'faith' in evolution. But that's not the way things are. Scientists, like everyone else, hold a wide variety of metaphysical views privately---yet virtually all scientists accept evolution as the best scientific explanation for life's diversity, regardless of what they believe privately. This acceptance is provisional, subject to change as new facts emerge. Contrast this with the believer whose faith is in fact immune to any contrary evidence.
Heb 11:1 "Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen."
All scientific communities use this standard do they not? I think the correct term they use is Hypothies.
Men of old begain this long befor we did,
Mat 16:1 And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and trying him asked him to show them a sign from heaven.
Mat 16:2 But he answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the heaven is red.
Mat 16:3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to-day: for the heaven is red and lowering. Ye know how to discern the face of the heaven; but ye cannot discern the signs of the times.
Mat 16:4 An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of Jonah. And he left them, and departed.
Using you own words is this an example of what you are talking about.
it's an example of the psychological phenomenon called projection: the believer sees everything in the context of belief, and so they assume that scientists who support evolution education are driven by a similar 'faith' in evolution. But that's not the way things are.
We know have measures that predict the weather, complex as they are at best are 50% of the time correct. Did these men of old have a better way?
When is Faith no longer Faith? When it becomes sight.
Homeward Bound
Heb 11:1 "Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen."
All scientific communities use this standard do they not? I think the correct term they use is Hypothies.
You mean a hypothesis. I'm sorry to correct you, but a hypothesis is most assuredly not the 'conviction of things not seen.' Many times, the goal of the experimental program is to falsify the hypothesis, and even when this isn't the goal, we never say that the hypothesis is confirmed by such-and-such a finding. The truth is that all scientific claims, even so-called 'laws' are held provisionally. Faith claims don't work that way. It would be ludicrous for someone to say 'My hypothesis is that Jesus is Lord' unless they have a way to objectively test the claim. Doesn't mean it isn't true, of course! Just means that those sorts of claims aren't science!
We know have measures that predict the weather, complex as they are at best are 50% of the time correct. Did these men of old have a better way?
If they did have a better way, it wasn't science. Do you have evidence that the claims the 'men of old' made were in some way better, more objectively reliable? If so, present this evidence. If not, acknowledge that these are claims based on faith, rather than reason.
When is Faith no longer Faith? When it becomes sight.
Don't know what you mean by that cryptic comment. Perhaps you are trying to distinguish between blind faith based on authority, and a living faith based upon assurances you have received through personal experience? I would never deny that this is a valid distinction, and I would say that for me personally that latter experience counts.
But it is still subjective, and doesn't count for evidence in science. You give me the impression that you are fumbling about without a real understanding of the conceptual differences between claims based on faith and those based on evidence that would be recognized by the scientific community. If I'm wrong, I invite you to explain why.
(Hint: Bible verses aren't relevant. The Bible is not a science textbook or a primer on how to reason)
Post a Comment