|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2382 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
When it comes to #4, I only started studying radiocarbon dating a few weeks ago but it didn't take me long to figure out that many statements made about it were hogwash. I do have one question from your response.
RAZD seems to know lots more than I do about dendrochronology, but my understanding is that the tree species chosen for dendrochronology (N American bristlecone pine, European Irish oak) rarely have more than one growth ring in a season. I believe they are more likely to have missing rings due to drought or other factors than to have extra rings. But with multiple independent specimens these ambiguities can be identified and eliminated. For calibrated dates, the only "assumptions" are that trees grow one ring per year (which can be validated), and that we can count tree rings.
To me, that makes it sound like science insists that trees always and only grow one ring per year - but we know that's not true (and I'm pretty darn certain that isn't how you meant it). Might it be better to say that we have ways to differentiate the times that trees occasionally *do* stray from the one ring per year norm, and that we have several ways to double check any such instance? If I'm wrong, school me by all means. BTW, you might also be interested in R.E. (Erv) Taylor. Erv was raised SDA and became a world-renowned expert in radiocarbon dating. He's written a couple of standard texts on radiocarbon. I believe he also wrote a paper on his personal experiences going into radiocarbon from an SDA background, but I can't find this paper at the moment. You might also be interested in this paper by Yang which mentions Erv: Radiocarbon Dating and American Evangelical Christians. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The response (and we see it here fairly often) is that conditions in the past were different. The speed of light might have been different.
The answer is that Change Leaves Evidence. What would this universe look like if basic constants like the speed of light were different? What happens to E=mc2 if c doubles? The Large Magellanic Cloud (a close by galaxy) is about 160.000 light years away. If the speed of light changed so that light 160,000 light years away got here so that it could be seen in 964 AD, how fast would the light have to travel?
Other galaxies are even further away. For us to see them today, how fast would the light have to travel? What would that do to E=mc2?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2356 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Interesting, I did not know that about Erv Taylor.
I have followed his excellent writings and even worked with him on a project about 25 years back. That subject never came up.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2382 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
But here is another angle: Though I never studied astronomy, I am told that through telescopes we can/have observed at least the death of stars if not the birth of stars and even have photographs us such. This means we are not seeing just 'innocent' shafts of light from distant starts, but EVENTS. In the YE scenario, for us to witness the death of a star shown to be say a million light years away, the event would have had to have been inserted' into the far end of a relatively short shaft of light 6,000 light years out. It also means that the star never even existed. Clearly this requires a god who is inserting manufactured events in the light stream that never happens and thus is deceiving us. If you approach it rationally, you end up with either a very small universe where everything is closer than the widely accepted (by both science and religion) evidence shows, or you end up with a deceptive god. At any rate, it's just a thought at this point. I would need to learn a lot more about astronomy before I would be willing to use it. I need to be able to have some excellent examples available and be able to answer basic questions. But I do think that it has potential to get them thinking on another level. Yes, I think this is a worthwhile line of reasoning. I have a missionary friend who abandoned YEC after SN1987A was discovered. This supernova is ~170,000 light years away from us. My friend reasoned just as you did above; God would not have fooled us with all of the details of this supernova (its type, light curve, etc) if it never existed."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1655 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
deleted
Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1655 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
kbertsche mentions sn1987a. There are several threads on this forum that discuss this supernova event, and it is a special case ideal for your questions: this star exploded twice -- the first time it threw off a layer of gas that expanded away from the star, the second was the nova event. What is measured is the light from the nova striking the shell of gas from the previous explosion by the time delay in seeing light from the nova star directly and then the light from the interaction with the shell. This star is also close enough so that the subtended angle can be measured, and this defines a triangle by simple geometry. Thus you can calculate the actual distance.
So not only the Nova would need to be faked, but the previous explosion that formed the outer shell. A similar distance measurement is Eye of Sauron - the ring to "rule" them all ... distance 19 megaparsecs If we assume that god/s don't lie or lay traps (no jokers) then we can assume that evidence represents reality, and that last assumption is all we need to do science. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2623 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
kbertsche writes: Yes, I think this is a worthwhile line of reasoning. I have a missionary friend who abandoned YEC after SN1987A was discovered. This supernova is ~170,000 light years away from us. My friend reasoned just as you did above; God would not have fooled us with all of the details of this supernova (its type, light curve, etc) if it never existed. RAZD writes: kbertsche mentions sn1987a. There are several threads on this forum that discuss this supernova event, and it is a special case ideal for your questions: Awesome. That's what I really needed was a good example to use. I'll study that.
RAZD writes: If we assume that god/s don't lie or lay traps (no jokers) then we can assume that evidence represents reality, and that last assumption is all we need to do science. That's a powerful sentence and reminds me of the words of Galileo (quoted from memory so forgive errors)
quote: JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Bishop Sims (at the time the Episcopal Bishop of the Atlanta Georgia diocese ) in a Pastoral letter from 1981 explaining the churches opposition to the attempt to insert Creationism into the Atlanta public schools uses similar reasoning.
You can read the letter here. From the Pastoral Letter. (a Pastoral Letter is read aloud in every church within the diocese)
quote: Edited by jar, : fix sub-titleAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
kbertsche mentions sn1987a. There are several threads on this forum that discuss this supernova event, and it is a special case ideal for your questions: this star exploded twice -- the first time it threw off a layer of gas that expanded away from the star, the second was the nova event. A super nova event, actually. A nova event is the throwing off of gas by stars that are too small to go supernova. In addition, SN1987a helps address other YEC questions such as 'How do we know that the speed of light has been constant over time?' and 'Isn't it just an assumption that decay rates are constants'. We get a data point on those issues 170,000 years ago. Another good resource for people who would devote time to pursuing astronomical arguments is the Wikipedia article covering the techniques for measuring the distance to stars. It gives some pretty good support to the idea that the visible universe is way larger that a 6000 light years bubble around our solar system.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2623 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
NoNukes writes: Another good resource for people who would devote time to pursuing astronomical arguments is the Wikipedia article covering the techniques for measuring the distance to stars. It gives some pretty good support to the idea that the visible universe is way larger that a 6000 light years bubble around our solar system. Thanks. Another great suggestion. As a general comment to all the wonderful contributors to this thread, know that I am very busy studying the links and topics that you have suggested. I spending often 6-8 hours a day on the topic. And I'm enjoying the hell out of it. A lot to learn. Thanks to all JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1655 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In addition, SN1987a helps address other YEC questions such as 'How do we know that the speed of light has been constant over time?' and 'Isn't it just an assumption that decay rates are constants'. We get a data point on those issues 170,000 years ago. Indeed, you can watch Cobalt decay just as it does on earth. As I recall there was discussion of this on at least one thread here. Message 72 shows how we know the distance, and Message 109 discusses why we know the speed of light AND the radioactive decay rates have been constant for 170,000 years. Another indication that decay rates have been constant for a goodly while are Uranium haloes
Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1655 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
As a general comment to all the wonderful contributors to this thread, know that I am very busy studying the links and topics that you have suggested. I spending often 6-8 hours a day on the topic. And I'm enjoying the hell out of it. A lot to learn. You are now hopelessly hooked on EvC. I look forward to your 1,000th post ... There is no cure by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
quote: Any fundy worth his salt can provide you with half a dozen or so Bible verses warning of the folly of relying on 'human understanding' without even opening a concordance. Many of them have internalized these verses based on years of ignoring evidence. As bizarre as it might seem to people who practice science, technology, or engineering to make their living, you can actually function at a high level in this society without understanding (or even despite totally rejecting) the science taught in junior high school. I sometimes find myself celebrating even the tiniest knowledge breakthroughs in a manner disproportionate to any real accomplishment in a fundy's education. I recommend extreme patience and a substantial amount of humility when pursuing educating a YEC. It isn't worth losing a friend over this stuff. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1655 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
These are two topics you can introduce without challenging theistic beliefs.
From Atheists can't hold office in the USA?, Message 618 quote: Good resources for logical fallacies are:http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm Formal fallacy - Wikipedia Page not found - Nizkor Logically Fallacious - Webpages Other peeps may have other references.
quote: Logic and skepticism are natural and necessary parts of science, as is the intellectual caution due to the tentativity of knowledge. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2623 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
Good suggestions and I agree.
It seems that primers on logic, skepticism and the scientific method would sort of be the prerequisites for delving into the actual earth sciences. JB
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024