Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

Not being familiar with the geology of the Grand Canyon, does this layer appear? My guess would be "no", but that's only because I hear ages of the GC being much much older than this layer. Would that mean that the layer had been eroded away before (during?) canyon formation?Thanks
JB

What a FUN story. One the most interesting aspects (to me) is the possibility that this discovery may have lead to the knowledge that kept some damn finger of the big red nuclear button. Who would have thought that the study of geology might have saved mankind (from themselves). I will check out those links you provided. I real a lot and it's very little fiction, mostly science and biographies. Those sound very interesting.JB

In a way, that would be one of the coolest things learned from the discovery -- it would provide 'snapshot in time' of what areas where exposed and what areas were underwater at that moment.Just speculating the possibilities, backed up by no knowledge whatsoever. JB

So Coyote generously provided me with the paper in question (appreciated). Pretty interesting.I'm not sure what reputation the Anthropological Journal of Canada (AJC) had in the field, or what the qualifications of the writer were in regards to carbon dating. The journal has apparently been out of publication since 1982/83.The very first thing I noticed that it listed Thomas E Lee as the Editor. A little research found that Thomas Lee is the father of Robert Lee (the paper author). Additionally, Thomas E Lee died right at the same time the publication of the AJC ceased. I would suspect that the timing was not a coincidence and that the AJC was likely not a peer reviewed publication of a well established organization, but rather a pet publication of one man (please note that last sentence is near total speculation but based on what I found). What we do know is we have son writing in daddy's paper. Take that for what it's worth.As a note on the positive side, Thomas Lee is a person of enough renown to have a wikipedia page: Thomas E. Lee - WikipediaHere's where it gets interesting for me -- I came to the paper because its oft quoted presence on YEC sites. First remember it's a near 35 year old paper, but as it turns out, Robert Lee is repeatedly throughout the paper trying to make the point that reported carbon dates are TOO YOUNG. While he does mention a few situations (mostly hypothetical rather than examples) that could cause older dates, it's clear his problem with carbon dating up that that point was one of it reporting dates that were younger than what he considered reality.This of course is just a perfect example of how the YEC crowd lies and misrepresents and quote mines to the ends of the earth in an attempt to keep their fantasy alive.So now I know the full content of the paper and can respond if asked about his 'finding'. Thanks for the helpful resource.(and on the topic or quote mining, I learned something from the paper (related to another author) that shows just how dishonest the YEC crowd is. I'll write about that in another post).JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

I'm looking for a paper (or papers) authored by Harold Gladwin from the mid/late 1970'sPossible Title(s)"Radiocarbon and bristlecones"
"Dendrochronology, radiocarbon and bristlecones"Supposedly published in the Anthropological Journal of Canada.Any suggestions as to who perhaps might have the back catalog of the AJC wold be appreciated.Thanks
JB

In my dealings so far with my YEC family I have been able to score valuable points in two ways:1: Show that the YEC sites and speakers regularly/usually/overwhelmingly quote mine in a blatantly dishonest manner.
2: Back up my own claims religiously with meticulous cites and references (in other words the opposite of #1).This stark contrast between the two methods is creating a fair bit of forward motion with two of my family in particular. Today they actually got vocally outraged when they discovered how badly one of the high profile SDA YEC evangelists was editing quotes to twist what was demonstrably true into something false.My frustration is this: Clearly there is value in demonstrating just how much blatant dishonesty is on display in the YEC world, but I'm finding it a gargantuan task to unwind lie after lie. YEC sites often quote papers from 30-75 years ago to criticize current science. They regularly misrepresent what is actually in the paper. They don't understand the terminology in science papers and so they simply look for a sentence that sounds like it can be used as a weapon against OE and lift it off the page and swing it around like it's a sharp sword. It's pathetic, but apparently quite effective when used on the uneducated or people of faith.I've got to figure out a balance between demonstrating how these lies and misrepresentations and sleight of hand quoting methods are both morally and technically wrong VS showing them good science. I've learned it's simply too big of a task to unravel ALL the YEC lies -- it's the Gish Gallop of nonsense.I'll figure out the right balance and where to spend my time. Just venting, that's all.Thanks to those who have been so generous with their scientific knowledge.JB

Well, the cite you quoted from your link ...

quote:

---

Harold S. Gladwin, "Dendrochronology, Radiocarbon, and Bristlecones," Anthropological Journal of Canada 14(4) (1976): 2-7

---

... is in fact the paper I'm looking for.Now if I can just find that issue of the AJC.Thanks
JB

Oh, believe me I've been aware of that since as a young child I figured out the shell game.JB

Yep -- same with the Hugh Miller dinosaur bone carbon dating fiasco. They were told by the lab that there was no collagen in the bones but there was plenty of carbon in the shellac surface treatment. Knowing the bone would be dated according to the surface contamination he still asked that the test be done - with predictable dating results.http://www.fleming-group.com/...20for%20Dinosaur%20Bones.pdfAnd these folk try to sell themselves as following the ultimate moral compass. Shameful.Fortunately for me, these countless examples are providing the basis for my demonstrations. These folk have always head how the scientists are lying to them about the evidence. In the information age, it's getting easier and easier to expose them.JB

Though I *may* disagree with many of their spiritual conclusions (big deal), I have great respect for scientists like kbertsche, Francis Collins, and countless other religious scientists. I respect them because while in spiritual matters they follow their heart (or whatever explanation works for them), in matters of science they follow the evidence.One cannot practice science if in the scientific matter in question you have a sacred cow (ANY sacred cow). If your field is dendrochronology and you insist that trees always and without fail produce one single ring per year and spend your time hand waving away the evidence to the contrary, you aren't doing science, you're doing pseudoscience. The difference between the answer of Nye and the answer of Ham on what would change their minds regarding evolution made this starkly clear. Bill can do, judge and rationally comment on earth science - Ken can't. It's simply a matter of the definition and integrity of science.My curriculum is not anti-creation, it's anti-YEC and anti-Noahic flood - something undoubtedly false if one is willing to follow the evidence. If one has the position that evidence contrary to their own pet interpretation of a text they deem holy must necessarily be flawed or ignored or hand waved away through ad hoc explanations, they are not using a scientific approach. One does not get to make up one's own definition of 'science' and then try to palm it off as real science.Asking nicely - biblical pseudoscience is off topic on this thread. Please.JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

That's a theological position. Please take your theological position, observations and theories to a thread whose topic allows it.Thanks
JB

I disengaged from you pages ago and am I am only interacting with you at this time to highlight your off topic statements to the moderators.That "endless garbage" you think is being thrown is actual science, backed up by evidence, while your assertions are by your own admission based on something completely different.Please take your biblical pseudoscience to a thread where such is appropriate. Yes, science IS the holy cow on this thread. Please respect that.Thanks.JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Much appreciated and respect given for the move.JB

Because of an off thread conversation I just had, I realized that I used one of the terms above in a way that does not accurately reflect my position. If the Noahic flood is interpreted as a regional event, I have no issue whatsoever with the story. It's the world-wide aspect of it that doesn't fit the evidence.I will try in the future to make sure I'm more clear.Thanks
JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

The whole 'what settles at what rate' is to me, the cleanest and clearest of the geological evidence against a world-wide flood (as insisted by the fundamentalists). It's so easy to understand and demonstrate it just baffles my mind how someone can claim it's fuzzy in the least.Thanks
JB