Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

I'm seeing a paper by Dr. Robert Lee quoted time and time again in YEC circles and I'm trying to find the actual paper.

quote:

---

Lee, Robert E., 1981. Radiocarbon: Ages in error. Anthropological Journal of Canada 19(3): 9-29. Reprinted in Creation Research Society Quarterly 19(2): 117-127 (1982).

---

Any help would be appreciated. I'm always suspect of content when a paper is quoted and quoted but never shown the light of day - when found they never quite seem to say what it is said they say. I went though this with the widely quoted Lammerts paper on bristlecone rings and once found my suspicions were again confirmed in that case.Any help would be appreciated. The only option currently is to by the entire CRSQ back catalog and I'm pretty sure I don't want to pay for that much slime.Thanks
JB

Just a quick reference:CD011: Carbon dating.ETA: Heh, heh...Anyone that says this:

quote:

---

"If the earth and life on earth are really as ancient as the theory of evolution requires, a great proportion of radiocarbon ages should be infinite. This is because, with a half-life of only 5,730 years, initial radiocarbon in a fossil decreases in about ten half-lives to a level too low to be measured."Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1982, pp. 116-117.

---

...doesn't have a clue. In radiocarbon dating anything over 50ky, depending on the sample characteristics, IS an infinite age.Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I contacted Dr. Lee some years ago and he sent me a copy of the journal.The famous quote used by creationists begins somewhere in the introduction and after the ellipsis (...) ends somewhere in the conclusions many pages later.I have it at the office and I'll try to remember to dig it out. Maybe I could scan it or something.

Thanks for sharing that pollux. It's always good to hear from others on the same path.JB

Yes, I got a real kick out of that as well.I saw a study somewhere (it's very old) showing that of the many thousands of samples dated, only some small fraction were in the extremely old (50k or so as I recall) and up range. The argument seemed to be that since according to geology almost everything is much older than that, almost every sample should come back older than that. I almost choked I was laughing so hard. You see, scientists are generally not total idiots -- they are not going to blow wads of money sending is samples of rocks in to be carbon dated. I suspect (guess actually) that the greatest number of sample would come from archaeological sources where there is ample reason to believe that the dates will fall in the testing range.I thought that train of thought there (and I use 'thought' loosely) was a bit like saying: "We know that the general populace is only sick about 15% of the time, yet the hospitals report a far higher percentage - clearly the tests they administer in hospitals are flawed."JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Oh that would be awesome if you could. Much appreciated.Thanks
JB

Another one to look out for is Don Batten -- see Dendrochronology Fact and Creationist FraudHave you heard about the Quote Mining Project?
Quote Mine Project: ContentsYou can buy ($8) a copy of
CRSQ 1982 Volume 19, Number 2.pdfhttp://crsbooks.org/...ck-issues/crsq-back-issue-single.htmlGetting a copy from Coyote would be cheaper

I tried that earlier, but it says right on that link that single issues can only be bought back to 1984 and what I need is from 1982.Thanks for those other links, I'll check them out.JB

I'm trying to imagine what the world has come to when someone 'needs' an issue of CRSQ...

Desperate times, desperate measures. I'm trying to set an example that says basically: If you're going to quote/paraphrase/reference an article, actually know what the article says. And as we know, the best ammunition against YEC claims is often the paper they claim the claim came from.I especially love the reliance on quotes from papers written in the 50's regarding the limitations and accuracy of Rcarbon dating. Get out much?JB

I have the article as a pdf, about 1.7 megs in size.If you send me an email address via private messaging I'll forward it to you.

Thanks a TON.Message sent.
JB

So many cool things to learn about -- so little time. In my continued study of geology, I came across something really freaking cool (maybe). It was the discovery by Luis and Walter Alverez of the iridium rich clay layer at the Cretaceous—Paleogene boundary. I have a question that I'm trying to answer regarding the acceptance or debate about this 'iridium anomaly".I see much active/historical debate about the proposed causes of this anomaly. I'm not so interested (for current purposes) in the cause so much as whether it's accepted and demonstrable that it exists as a world wide layer. If you understand the theology that I'm up against (all life killed all at once), having such an identifiable marker laid down world wide, smack in the middle of all this death is a nice arrow in the evidence quiver.I'm wondering how broad the confirmation is of this layer. Is it a solid accepted fact of geology? I reading the Wiki page for Luis Alverez, I saw this statement: Luis Walter Alvarez - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Publication of the 1980 paper brought criticism from the geological community, and an often acrimonious scientific debate ensued.

---

Was/is that debate centered around cause of the layer or the existence of the layer? I don't want to put this arrow in my quiver without confirming it's validity and understanding any controversy. It would seem to me that with as many holes as we drill in the earths crust, confirmation of this layer could be pretty broad if it exists.I have been unable to find any reference to this yet in the excellent Wiki-book on geology provided by Dr Adequate, but I'm not even close to being all the way through that reference and I can't seem to find a way to search the contents of that book electronically (without searching the entire site).Any suggestions appreciated.Thanks
JB

quote:

---

I see much active/historical debate about the proposed causes of this anomaly. I'm not so interested (for current purposes) in the cause so much as whether it's accepted and demonstrable that it exists as a world wide layer. If you understand the theology that I'm up against (all life killed all at once), having such an identifiable marker laid down world wide, smack in the middle of all this death is a nice arrow in the evidence quiver.

​

I'm wondering how broad the confirmation is of this layer. Is it a solid accepted fact of geology? I reading the Wiki page for Luis Alverez, I saw this statement: Not Found
quote:

​

"Publication of the 1980 paper brought criticism from the geological community, and an often acrimonious scientific debate ensued."

​

Was/is that debate centered around cause of the layer or the existence of the layer? I don't want to put this arrow in my quiver without confirming it's validity and understanding any controversy. It would seem to me that with as many holes as we drill in the earths crust, confirmation of this layer could be pretty broad if it exists.

​

I have been unable to find any reference to this yet in the excellent Wiki-book on geology provided by Dr Adequate, but I'm not even close to being all the way through that reference and I can't seem to find a way to search the contents of that book electronically (without searching the entire site).

​

Any suggestions appreciated.

---

What you are seeing is the nature of science and learning about the earth. There were several issues with the origination of the impact theory.As with many debates in the sciences, there was a problem with the mechanism. Some people had a problem with the concept as there was no known source for the iridium layer. As the wiki article shows, the Chicxulub crater was discovered later.The next problem was timing and duration of the extinction event for the dinosaurs. Even to this day, there is still some debate as to how long it took the dinosaurs to go extinct and exactly when it happened.These are not critical to the interpretation of an impact origin for the iridium layer or that it occurred near the K/T boundary, or that the event occurred millions of years ago.And yes, debate in the scientific community can by 'acrimonious'. Bad theories don't last very long in that environment.AFAIK, the layer is global except where it is eroded away. The thing about iridium is that it is a rare element in the earth's crust, and anomalies are pretty well-defined and easy to detect. Even tiny amounts are significant. Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

The thing is, the existence of a worldwide deposition of iridium can be explained in terms of the Flood of Noah too, as evidence of a meteor hit during the Flood, dispersing its iridium along with all the sediments the Flood deposited. I've mentioned it many times here and HERE's one of those posts.