|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
GREAT IDEA.
ThanksJB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
RAZD writes: I'm not aware of this claim... 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: This is what my SDA friends hear when Doug says that (my paraphrase):
quote: 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. JB Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Kbertsche writes: I wouldn't be surprised if Libby decided, based in the data, that it really WAS in equilibrium, and then became somewhat stubborn in this conclusion. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
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 suggestions JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
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? JB Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Tangle writes: I think it's perfectly reasonable to be confused about the absolute meanings of the terms because in practice they DO mean different slightly things to different sectors of the sciences. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Coyote writes: When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith. That's a very useful paragraph. Thanks JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
1: Jar.
2: Dirt. 3: Water. 4: Shake. 5: Wait. 6: Observe. 7: Repeat. You're welcome. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Faith writes: ...ONLY AFTER THE WHOLE STACK WAS IN PLACE, from Precambrian to quaternary, do we then see EROSION of the stack. 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. JB Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024