Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

I think your list is pretty good. Actually if you get them out to about 30,000 years you can talk about those famous cave paintings in France and Spain that put intelligent life well beyond dates associated with Adam and Eve.Astronomy is another area where the conflicts with a 6000 year old universe and reality is pretty stark.

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.

quote:

---

For I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

---

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.

The word 'compared' in the following sentence (Emphasis added by me) means to take a ratio:

quote:

---

where ln is the natural logarithm, Nf/No is the percent of carbon-14 in the sample compared to the amount in living tissue, and t1/2 is the half-life of carbon-14 (5,700 years).

---

So if the amount of c-14 in the original sample was .5% and in the final measurement was 0.05%, the Nf/No is 0.05%/0.5% or 0.10. So Nf/No is the ratio of two percentage numbers.

Assuming that to be true, then the comparison is still a ratio, which is the question that you asked. But in what units is the C14 measured? Clearly when taking a ratio, the two units of measure must be the same. Let's focus on what is being compared...

quote:

---

percent of carbon-14 in the sample compared to the amount in living tissue

---

To take a ratio, or to make a meaningful comparison, both of these numbers must be expressed in the same units, or in the same non unit quantity such as percent, or some other fraction relating the C14 and C12. The term 'amount' must be taken as meaning the same type of number as the percentage, or we cannot meaningfully make a comparison. So what is being described here is actually a ratio of ratios. (Or a ratio of percentages since a percentage is also a ratio)Perhaps the word amount is giving you difficulty as it could suggest a bulk measurement.

This does not make sense. There are places in this description where you are using the second derivative of the amount of C-14, when only the first derivative is appropriate. If you want to answer the question of why the amount of C-14 is declining, that happens only when the rate of production is less than the rate of removal.

The answer ought to be pretty obvious.No discovery can be inconsistent with the Flood, because Flood believers will just invent properties for massive amounts of water that can reproduce any phenomenon. Because the Flood happened in the past, and you weren't there, then whatever they say is beyond challenge.Of course if you know anything about chemistry, geology or physics, that knowledge simply interferes with the spiritual discernment necessary to know the truth. Or something like that.

I don't know who is forcing you to post here. But I'd be happy to put a headlock on him/her so that you can act according to your own will.

Nonsense. You were already here posting Flood nonsense before I made any remarks about your participation. I suppose this is yet another example of Faith's revisionist view of history.The only thing you need to 'force' your participation is to know that a Flood discussion exists. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Iridium is fairly unique with respect to density. Almost nothing is more dense. I'm not sure you've quite made your point here.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Right. But one of your points was the discredit of a 'flood hypothesis'. You said that material being sorted by density was understandable. Well, iridium is really dense.

Why don't you tell us? One of the criticisms of 'Creation Science' is that no one cannot discovery anything by employing it. Creation Science is limited to 'explaining away' anomalies that contradict creation and flood stories.If Creation Science really worked it ought to be able to predict stuff like this.

Very funny. Particularly after denying operating in exactly this way. Unfortunately none of the explanations you come up with can withstand the slightest scientific scrutiny. That why Creation Science is 10% assertion and 90% denial.

Feel free to quote someone who knows better. But the truth is that Creation Science is purely about explaining away real science. Real science dictates what creationists have to make up stories about.

Probably the best tactic of all. In fact, it is the easily discernible lies that are the reason why many Christians despise lying ass Creation Science. There aren't any creationists here anymore who bother doing any substantial research, but many of the ones who have done so have no shame at being caught at quote mining. The more brazen insist that it is not their job to vet what they post.