Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

GREAT IDEA.Thanks
JB

Thanks RAZD.I'm looking for that particular paper because the YEC folk I am dealing with insist that Libby stubbornly opposed the notion that the atmosphere wasn't in equilibrium. I've read everything I can get my hands on and of course nothing of the sort is true (the opposite is true in fact). I'm just trying to read his work all the way back to the beginning so I can be knowledgeable.JB

Oh, I promise you that it isn't any sort of reasoned claim, it's just built on nonsense passed around our SDA community as fact. Here is a quote from the highly regarded (in SDA circles) SDA evangelist Doug Batchelor

quote:

---

In science experiments, assumptions are critical. But if the starting assumption is false, the ensuing experiment will lead a scientist to draw a flawed conclusion, even if his calculations appear correct. Willard Libby, the developer of carbon dating, drew his conclusions based on the assumption that the earth was millions of years old. He calculated that it would take about 30,000 years for an atmosphere’s 14C/12C ratio to reach equilibrium. When he discovered that earth’s ratio was not in equilibrium, meaning it must be younger than 30,000 years, he dismissed it as an experimental error!

---

This is what my SDA friends hear when Doug says that (my paraphrase):

quote:

---

Libby's results told him the earth was younger than 30,000 years but because of his stubborn assumption that the earth was old, he was dismissive of those results on the basis that the results of the experiment were a mistake.

---

Now what they hear is neither here nor there to the fact of the matter, but one of the facts of the matter is that I have to deal with what they hear in the process of educating them. It's a pain in the ass, but it's the truth.I have found one of the easiest ways to show them how much BS is included in quotes such as the one above from Batchelor is to to dig up the original material and read it with them.JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Yeah, I'm sorta seeing that. If the results coming back were within the expected error rate of the testing methods, it would initially be hard to show that it wasn't in equilibrium.JB

I have not found the article yet, though I have not had time to get to the library and try that route.It's not a top priority -- I just like collecting all the parts of the story that I can collect for knowledge sake.Thanks to all for the explanations and suggestionsJB

I'm struggling a bit with what is considered theory, hypothesis, study, etc. (yes, I've read a TON on this)Evolution -- one of the best tested theories in history.Big Bang -- some good evidence for it, but evidence is hard to come by that far back. Not sure if theory or hypothesis by science standards.Abiogenesis -- seems to me it's more of a study. I'm not sure I've even seen something as cohesive as a hypothesis.Am I off here? Do we in science cut slack to fields where data is hard to come by and elevate things to theory status sooner than in areas where data is simply a matter of pounding out the lab work?JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Thanks RAZD. Your second response makes more sense to me than your first (and I now understand the brevity of your first).Yes, I understand the difference between the fact and theory of evolution and as you expected, I was referring to the theory.JB

That seemed to me to be the case. I likely worded my original question poorly because I'm not so much "struggling" with the labels ast I'm struggling how to explain their usage to my 'wavering fundamentalist' audience.It would be nice if science were a nice neat package -- but it's not (that's an acceptance of reality, not a criticism)Thanks

That's a very useful paragraph. ThanksJB

Thanks Kbertsche.Fundamentalists want to believe everything is clean (and will create clean out of fuzzy at will to suit their needs). Things are either proven or they are not proven, etc. I'm trying to introduce them to the nuance that is reality. Some theories are better supported than others, but that doesn't mean that those less supported are just wild guesses.JB

I'm interested in how well we understand the process of lithification.For a moment let's leave aside how long it takes for fine sediments to fall out of suspension -- this will drive the time to deposit enough weight to get the desired results. So leaving deposition out of it, if I take a big glob of sediment in the lab, put it in a press and force the water out pronto, can I make sedimentary rock that quick?Thanks.JB

Your answer is about what I imagined -- lithification being driven by the weight from above no matter the cause. Of course in most cases we know the cause was progressive deposition rather than catastrophic because it's not hard to tell the difference.Many of the questions I ask here are just that -- stupid YEC questions, but they are questions that I get asked by my YEC family and I like to have a cohesive answer ready.Appreciated.JB

1: Jar.
2: Dirt.
3: Water.
4: Shake.
5: Wait.
6: Observe.
7: Repeat.You're welcome.JB

I am displaying here a rather low resolution map of Tennessee showing the geologic column boundaries.Does anyone know of a source for such maps (hopefully higher resolution) for the US (state by state is fine)I've searched and not found what I'm looking for.Appreciated.JB

Of course if that were true, there wouldn't be unconformities throughout the stack.I'm always amazed at how you make statements so disconnected from reality and seem to actually believe they are true.Thanks for the image -- that is exactly what I'm looking for and now I have one for Tennessee. JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.