Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

Faith, I did not response to you or refer to you in that post. RAZD suggested a well thought out science experiment and I responded as to it's value. Full stop.Please be respectful of the thread topic and discuss verifiable science.Thanks
JB

Faith, notice that the RAZD post that I quoted from includes a note to me (#450):

quote:

---

ThinAirDesigns: possible experiment: take marbles to a pool and time how long it takes for them to reach the bottom.

---

See how that portion was direct SPECIFICALLY at me and not at you. I only responded to what RAZD directed at me. I had no comment whatsoever on this conversation with you.Before you insist that I was continuing a discussion you are involved in, please read what is written. I will not be having ANY exchanges with you other than to ask you to respect the thread topic. Nothing more.JB

Excellent idea. Different sizes of same materials as well as and same sizes of different materials.I wonder if anyone has ever worked out any formula for this and was able to predicted the results? Thanks
JB

I should have been more clear than just the big grin that I had moved to humor. I have a long background in engineering with a fair bit of aero thrown in so I'm reasonably familiar with the formula, Reynolds numbers, etc. Sorry to throw everyone off track, but it's just another demonstration of how folk on this thread are super willing to help and educate.Appreciated.
JB

Just before the thread post rate went through the roof, I asked a question in Message 222 that may have simply been lost in the crowd. It also may be just that biology isn't well represent among the participants, but I'll ask it one more time. If there's not local answer, I'll find a forum where I can get it answered and report back.Thanks
JB

quote:

---

I'm familiar enough with plants to know that they uptake C02. I also know that decaying plant material produces C02. I'm trying to roughly figure something out in my mind and I'm hoping there is a reasonably simple answer - I just can't find the right Google search term that will pull up an answer.
(Note: though the core purpose for my question circles around C14 dating, when I refer to C02 in this question, I'm not referring specifically to C14)

​

Core question: In a general world wide sense, are plants
A: a net user of C02?
B: a net producer of C02?
C: just a reservoir?

​

I hear in the climate discussion that the deforestation of the world is at least partially to blame for rising C02 levels in the atmosphere. This would make sense to me knowing what I do know about biology, however as someone who has only observed the arguments on the climate side from afar I can see that there is a lot of weird religion going on over there as well so I'm hesitant to just trust what I hear.

​

I'm reading all this crap from Morris, etc. regarding how the vegetative state of the world pre-flood (and just after that it) would have been so different that the C02 ratios would have been all screwed up. Now, frankly they can't seem to make up their minds what exactly the starting point is, for instance: Do they think the flood cause great burial of vegetation causing sequestering of C02 that would have normally been produced by decay (C02 goes down?), or do they think that the flood deposited much decaying vegetation on the surface (C02 goes up?). Either way, they always seem to imply that the results always go in their YEC favor carbon dating wise. All I actually see is the FUD principle in play frankly. Now know that I recognize the validity of the calibration charts which answer these charges definitively, but in my current crowd I need to be able to understand and explain the implications of these charges without just pointing to the calibration charts.

​

At any rate, I'm not looking for any answer to the above paragraph (I don't think there is one), I'm just looking for a biologically sound answer to my core question -- with that answer I can prepare myself to address the YEC claims as they arise. Perhaps there is not simple answer - I'm aware that's one possibility.

​

Thanks
JB

---

Thanks. That makes a ton of sense.The reason I wanted that understanding is so I can create a hypothetical calibration curve, one that would show what the curve *would* look like if what Morris was saying was true. There would be serious departures in the steady line shown in the actual curve if it were true.It's interesting to read where may YEC sites now say radiocarbon dating is no good past about 4000BC. This allows them to fit it in to the biblical artifacts where they want to use it, but claim it's unreliable otherwise.JB

That's very interesting how that would change. The 'battery' part is rather easy to understand though.Thanks
JB

Ah yes ... don't know why I didn't think to search that term. The Wiki link for that is excellent.Thanks for that and the other info.JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

LOL, yeah - it's that biblical water canopy theory on one site and magnetic fields on another and rotting vegetation on another and sequestered rotting vegetation on another. It's always something.In reading the history of the multiple failed and surviving creation "science" organizations, it's funny how most of them failed by breakup due to no one being able to agree on what version of the Creation/Flood story to "prove". That's what happens when you dive in with your mind made up ... every story that someone decides on needs a different set of evidence.JB

Wow -- who'da thunk that people have spend entire lives working out the ability to predict such fine details. That really is something that people who have been sheltered (willfully or otherwise) from the world of science don't realize.I was telling a family member about the CERN large hadron collider and describing it's forerunners (such as SLAC) and the shutdown of the amazing SSC in Waxahatchie. She really had no idea that humans expended SO much effort attempting to learn how things actually work. I could tell she still had no idea as to the scope of human effort planet wide related to science so just to rock her world I explained the 17 mile long tunnel and then showed her this picture: She couldn't fathom that sort of project just to explore things we can't see.I'm pretty sure she has imagined all her young life that science operates just like the religion she knows -- new knowledge in that realm comes from some charismatic (or charlatan) fundamentalist theologian interpreting portions of the bible in some new way and argument ensues. If enough people are convinced to follow the new guy a split occurs. Groups die and are born based purely on the ability to persuade folk of some meaning of some text. Fingers are pointed. Accusations of apostasy are hurled. In the end, nothing REALLY settles it.Science is SO different from that and I have to figure out ways to show them that.JB

After nearly 35 years in the SF Bay area, currently reside near Chattanooga, TN.Suggestions welcome.JB

The ORNL is legendary in my family due to the despicable way they treated Robert Gentry, the Seventh Day Adventist man who while doing research there proved beyond a shadow of a doubt through polonium halos that the earth was created ex nihilo just a few thousand years ago. Once he proved this conclusively and exposed their satanic lies, they blacklisted him from the scientific community and destroyed his reputation and his work. His example is proof that the scientific community is evil and isn't interested in the truth at all but will terrorize anyone brave enough to go up against it.Great story ... all true. (EDIT: I'm not always good about make sure folks get my version of humor. The above story is true only from the perspective of my family).I grew up at the base of Lookout Mountain, staring up at Covenant College soon after it became such. The only scientific instrument I was allowed as a child was a 6" reflector telescope. From my house I entertained myself watching activities through the College windows. I'm staring at it out my window now. Having such a local resource as your friend would be FANTASTIC.Appreciated.
JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

One of the things I'm up against with fundamentalists is as you know, the position: "Science is often wrong and has been wrong about almost everything at one time or another, so why should be we believe science on anything".. This has been just *drilled* into the young minds for generations and they of course can come up with scores of examples to highlight that position.When they say to me "Turns out science was wrong about X", my first and honest reaction is to grin and say "Yeah, ain't it cool? Science insists on change as new information comes to light." For me, growing up in a rigid environment where everything was supposedly perfect and fixed for eternity (when I could see it wasn't), the relatively supple nature of science was freedom to explore and discover. To me that's a strength of science, not a weakness and I really can't help but smile when I think about the changes science has gone through. But then I broke free of the programming fairly early.Here's the weird part -- no matter how much they complain about science being wrong, they drive cars packed with technology and use satellites to spread "the word of God" (just two examples). No matter how much they bitch about the "traditional medical establishment", when their life is on the line they dial up 911 (from their cell phones) and beg to be taken to an emergency room. I have to figure out a way to get them past the "Science can't be trusted because it makes mistakes" programming. They fly on airliners for crying out loud. Yes, I know it will take time, but I'm in for the long haul. My methods need to be just step by step, but I do need a plan in the curriculum.Do you folk think that as science has broken free from theology it has come to react faster to mistakes than in the past? Do you think that as science participation has multiplied (exponentially?) more eyes on the prize have created a more robust correction mechanism? Was the 1300 years of scientific error between Ptolemy and Copernicus caused by lack of scientific participation, lack of scientific tools, or theology holding science back (or all of the above)?Perhaps it's just wishful thinking on my part, but it seems to me that science has the basic knowledge, the tools and the participation to be far better at getting things right in a timely manner than in the past.JB

Oh, that is PERFECT!!ThanksJB

That's really interesting and highlights something that I've wondered about as I read the accounts -- there was a delay of something like 65 years between the death of Copernicus (and the publishing of his seminal work) and the decree that his book(s) be put on the banned list of the church. I never could figure out why that delay. Would love to read more about that.Distinctly different from the Catholic Church, the Protestant reformers (Calvin, Melanchthon, Luther, et al) responded quite rapidly with denouncement. I've always wondered why the Protestants responded 50 years quicker than the Catholics and then why after waiting so long, the Catholics responded with such fervor.JB