Home School Dads

Line


Spacespace
Message Boards
Stripes

space
Home School Dads
A Website for Fathers who Home School
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

rationalism
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Home School Dads Forum Index -> Other Teaching Ideas
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
basilosaurus



Joined: 16 Dec 2005
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 2:52 pm    Post subject: rationalism Reply with quote

Anyone interested in talking about schooling from a reasom embracing or rationalist approach using scientific or methodological naturalism as a guide?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bartii



Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Boise, ID

PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Could you give me an example of what you are talking about. I teach my boys both evolution and Creationism.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
basilosaurus



Joined: 16 Dec 2005
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:04 pm    Post subject: Rationalism Reply with quote

Barti,

I teach evolution within science. I teach the many creation myths of religion within mythology.

I am looking for people interested iin people who embrace reason as the foundation of their world view. Belief in supernaturals lies outside this realm.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
basilosaurus



Joined: 16 Dec 2005
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:05 pm    Post subject: Rationalism Reply with quote

Barti,

I teach evolution within science. I teach the many creation myths of religion within mythology.

I am looking for people interested iin people who embrace reason as the foundation of their world view. Belief in supernaturals lies outside this realm.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bartii



Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Boise, ID

PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh. I would have to say that we probably wouldn't get anywhere between the both of us. I believe that Evolution is false. I believe Creationism(young Earth) is true. Without God there would be no science.

I would have to say that reason and rationality is not evolution just as you think Creation is a myth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
basilosaurus



Joined: 16 Dec 2005
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Barti,

You may believe in creationism, however, it is contradicted by many scientific lines of inquiry, and as I have stated elsewhere, The age of the earth is 4.5 billion yrs....unless of course you can provide a shred of evidence that would suggest that radioactive decay rates are not constants, thereby rendering radiometric dating to be inaccurate. I will look forward to your publishing as it comes up for scientific peer review Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bartii



Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Boise, ID

PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

C14 dating should have other testing methods that prove it. However, other methods don't agree with C14 and even with each other. Therefore, this is not an accurate way of dating.

So we are just assuming that decay is going to be constant. Has this turned into putting someone down because according to you, "I will look forward to your publishing as it comes up for scientific peer review" what I say and other scientists say goes against what you believe. Confused

If it is going to get dirty then I will cease on this discussion. Being reasonable is not being condemning.

Bartii
Genesis 1:1-26
John 1:1
John 14:1 & 6
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
basilosaurus



Joined: 16 Dec 2005
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is clear you know little of C14 dating, and how it differs from radiometric dating. C14 would never be used for dating the earth. Your lack of scholarship on the issue is now at the forefront
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are absolutely right. C14 can only be used on those things that were once alive. Thank you for that correction.

Radiometric Dating still can be flawed. Evolutionist scientist have to make unproven assumptions to get the dates they desire. Many scientist believe that the measuring of isotope concentrations gives the age. That is not true. There has to be a known time of when that substance or matter had begun. Then there is the ASSUMPTION that the decay rate was always constant.

Also, other radiometric dating methods should also support that time line. In most cases, the different dating methods don't even agree.

bartii
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Barti,

Again, you err with your comments on radiometric dating as you did with C14.

All of science is pretty much falsifiable, and "could be in error....otherwise it would not be science. Secondly, there is no such thing as an evolutionist scientist.....no such term. 99.9% of all scientists accept the facts that underpin evolutionary theory, and thus the theory as well. No unproven assumptions are made. Radioactive decay rates have been observed as constant in all radioactive materials including the more than 200 isotopes discovered after WWI. One needs no time reference frame as you suggest, only the measurement of the amount of radioactive parent element, and that of the stable daughter element produced from the decay. As you know all radioactive isotopes have their own unique half life. Radioactive decay occurs at a constant exponential or geometric rate. The proportion of parent to daughter tells us the number of half lives, which we can then use to find the age in yrs. EX if there are equal amounts of each...one half life has passed. If there is three times daughter as parent, then two half lifes have passed. Carbon 14 has a half life of only 5730 yrs, and is thus not useful for dating much more than a very recent 70,000 into the past. 120,000 yrs later than the first appearance of modern man.

Other dating methods do support radiometric dating to be accurate.
Back to top
bartii



Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Boise, ID

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, now I get to learn something. However, the assumption of 99.9% of the scientist don't agree with the theory/belief in evolution.

The proof that we have come from apes or some other species isn't there. There is the assumptions, no proof, that this earth is 6.5 billion years old and the list goes on.

I never admitted that I was a scholar in dating methods. I am learning though. What I have learned is that evolutionist can not say that definitely this earth has been around for billions of years. It is just an assumption. There is no proof. However, I am willing to keep learning. I hope you will debate Dr. Bob, I am sure this will come up.

I will have to do some further study on radiometric dating and some of the things you talked about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Barti,

The facts of our lineage from proconsul-australopithecus-homo erectus-modern man, are on display at any major natural history museum. You can see the evolution of humanity within the fossil record. Paleontology,comparative anatomy, cladistics, and paleobiology are all well established science, and the fossil record is more than adequate proof that would pass in any courtroom. Scientific proof requires a mathmatical proof which most scientific theories lack...or they would become scientific law. However, well established scientific theory is looked upon with the same high degree of confidence that laws are.
Back to top
bartii



Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Boise, ID

PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think I understand what you said about the parent atoms to daughter atoms and half life. If we have an hour glass the sand on top would represent the parent atoms. The middle narrow part of the hour glass represents half life. The bottom part of the hour glass represents the daughter atoms.

Lets say we have a rock. We want to date this rock and our assumption is it is 1.5 million years old. This rock is decaying and has been for 1.5 million years. If this rock is decaying wouldn't it be fair to say that this rock will not give an accurate date of 1.5 million years?

Unlike the sand in the hour glass, where there is a presumably constant change because the sand is in an enclosed environment, the rock is in the open. In the hour glass nothing can come in and nothing can leave. It is in a controlled environment.

However, the rock is in an open and uncontrolled environment. Couldn't there be factors that make the decay inconsistant? Isn't it possible, even probable that the parent and daughter atoms could enter or exit a rock at any time during its time on earth and it's decay. Thus, this would give scientist a false reading of it's age. Therefore, the age of the rock is not 1.5 million years old but possibly much younger.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
guest
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

radioactive decay rates are quite stable and constant. There is no scientific evidence suggesting that open or closed systems might alter those rates.
Back to top
MarkLeavenworth



Joined: 13 Sep 2010
Posts: 5
Location: Northern California

PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:30 am    Post subject: Rationalism/Reason Reply with quote

Here is a link to instruction videos (roughly produced) outlining the Aristotelian Grammar (Classical Reason). While there is nothing to distinguish fact from opinion, apart from opinion, to reason from a premise that is not excepted by both parties is 'contentious'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L07LVlZJCM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Home School Dads Forum Index -> Other Teaching Ideas All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Space

Space
Space
space