Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,041 Year: 5,298/9,624 Month: 323/323 Week: 167/160 Day: 3/38 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists
edge
Member (Idle past 1811 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 196 of 1053 (751362)
03-02-2015 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Dr Adequate
03-02-2015 12:17 PM


Re: Layers visible in salt mines
Afterthought: this can't even be the case even with underwater volcanism without sea-floor spreading. Otherwise incipient volcanic islands would basically be shaped like hollow pillars, wouldn't they?
Volcanic islands are problematic. Most subaqueous volcanics are pyroclastic; that is, they are broken up and tend to collapse or erode easily. So, what you need is a huge amount of eruptive material to actually form an island that will resist wave action long enough for intrusive and extrusive lava to be deposited and support a long lasting island. As we can see, it does happen. However, if you look at the seafloor topography around the Hawaiian Islands, you will see huge landslide deposits all around the emergent islands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2015 12:17 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-02-2015 5:04 PM edge has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22668
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 197 of 1053 (751364)
03-02-2015 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by ThinAirDesigns
03-01-2015 8:11 PM


Re: Curriculum focus
ThinAirDesigns writes:
So I've been studying a lot and also learning more about the specific positions that my YEC family are holding and why. (remember, I've been gone and greatly out of touch with them for near 40 years.)
I missed you saying this earlier. Since they obviously could have not come by their current beliefs through an examination of the evidence, are you sure your investment of time is justified? They could very easily just dismiss your evidence or not give it sufficient consideration.
Of course, the same question could be asked of this entire website...
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-01-2015 8:11 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2015 2:22 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 204 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-02-2015 5:14 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1811 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 198 of 1053 (751366)
03-02-2015 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by ThinAirDesigns
03-02-2015 12:21 PM


Re: Layers visible in salt mines
Well, not so much pillars, but steep cone shape (underwater) vs shallow cone shape (open air).
That was purely a guess and I accept that there are a TON of things I haven't considered in that 2 second hypothesis.
To amplify on my previous post, the subaqueous lavas encounter water and cool so rapidly that they fragment into tiny grains that are mostly glass and therefor are readily altered in the presence of water. So, they are not only broken up, but they are converted quickly to clay minerals. This means that they are exceedingly weak.
I'm showing a picture here of a subaerial example of clay-altered volcanic rocks in the San Juan Mountains of Colorado. The lobe of material flowed from right to left, into a valley and formed Lake San Cristobal. You might imagine that same type of material partly suspended and thinned by water and and how far it might flow.
I'm also sure that this same phenomenon is what happened in Washignton state a few years ago, killing a number of people. To my mind, a lot of these things are predictable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-02-2015 12:21 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-02-2015 5:24 PM edge has not replied
 Message 209 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2015 10:14 PM edge has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 199 of 1053 (751371)
03-02-2015 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Percy
03-02-2015 12:53 PM


Re: Curriculum focus
I missed you saying this earlier. Since they obviously could have not come by their current beliefs through an examination of the evidence, are you sure your investment of time is justified?
But of course if they're arguing at all, rather than saying, "well that's all very well but THE BIBLE, hah!" then they think they're going by the evidence. It's just that the "evidence" has been misinterpreted by one creationist, and his misunderstanding has been misinterpreted by another, and then his misinterpretation has been simplified by a third, until it isn't even evidence. (And then there's the simpler case where someone has just made something up.) And it is sometimes possible to trace the falsehood back to the first creationist who made the mistake, though it's often very difficult because they don't give references.
And in fact you can see the same thing going on among ourselves, only the other way round. I say I have a vague idea that such-and-such a thing is the case, another person questions me, I clarify my claims and find a peer-reviewed paper, and we finally get back to a statement made by someone who actually looked at the rocks and drilled through them and took core samples.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Percy, posted 03-02-2015 12:53 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-02-2015 5:45 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 200 of 1053 (751374)
03-02-2015 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by ThinAirDesigns
03-02-2015 12:17 PM


Oh, that topic comes up quite often and in fact is literally one of the BIG reasons that I have any credibility at all with them. I know that sounds opposite of what you would expect, but these kids have been told day in and day out how evil and selfish and hurtful and dangerous non-believers are. Along comes me who to them seems unusually kind and thoughtful and understanding and thus the entire model they were raised with seems in doubt to them.
And so, following on from my previous post addressed to Percy, this is something in itself that you could ask them to think about.
(1) A very very good person, for example, their pastor, could tell them that some idea is true. Where did he get that idea? Well, maybe from another very good person. Who got it from another reasonable person. Who got it from a person who was a downright liar. It is in the nature of good people to be credulous. I am myself --- in personal matters. In scientific questions, I want to see the primary source.
(2) A fairly conscientious person, for example, their pastor, could tell them that some idea is true. Where did he get that idea? Well, maybe from another less intellectually conscientious person. Who got it from another still less conscientious person. Who got it from a person who was not at all a conscientious person, who made an honest mistake. In scientific questions, I want to see the primary source.
And this happens a lot. For example. I read a bunch of creationists saying that unmineralized non-avian dinosaurs had been found by scientists. Well, where, when, isn't that the discovery of the century? But most of them didn't say where, but I used google and found a creationist that said it was in Alaska. Well, that gets me closer to the discovery of the century, so I used google and found a creationist that could say where in Alaska --- but without referring me to the original paper. But I still wanted to see the original paper, so I used google again and found a creationist that could refer me to the original paper. Which was a paper that said that scientists had found a dinosaur that was not permineralized. So some creationist had read this, and innocently, ignorantly, concluded that it was not mineralized. And ignorantly, he had passed this up the chain that I'd followed down. And so this fantastic creationist "discovery" permeated up through the layers of ignorance until everyone spreading the idea could say that an unmineralized dinosaur had been found, and none of them could say where, or when, or how this was proved.
So, there are a lot of good people there. They were all honest. Every single one of them was honest. The person at the bottom of the chain, who didn't know what "permineralized" means, may be personally a saint. He may be a much better person than you or me. He may spend all his leisure time volunteering in his local soup kitchen, and he may give all his superfluous money to the poor --- but he couldn't tell the difference between "mineralized" and "permineralized". And the people who passed his information up the chain may be even better people than him.
Well, I've gone on a bit. But I hope you see my point.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-02-2015 12:17 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-02-2015 6:11 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 211 by Pressie, posted 03-02-2015 11:35 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 223 by Pollux, posted 03-04-2015 4:44 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2479 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 201 of 1053 (751385)
03-02-2015 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by kbertsche
03-02-2015 11:47 AM


Re: Curriculum focus
kbertsche writes:
Radiocarbon will get you back about 45,000 years (the lake varve sequence), which should be enough to shake the insistence on 6,000 years.
If there is one bias they have (and of course they have a lot more than one), anti-radiocarbon is it. It's almost a demon to them.
1: They don't understand how it works and lack the basic science education to currently trust how it does works (I'm working on that with them as well.).
2: They have been lied and lied and lied to about it and their ignorance (see #1) has left them vulnerable to those lies.
To educate them about it, I'm imagining I may have to start them out in the hypothetical to avoid this bias. I'm trying to figure out a way to start them thinking of trees as clocks (but not calendars). In other words, I'll explain that I'm not attempting to prove any particular begin date but rather let's think about how we can just check to see how accurate our 'tree clock' actually is. We'll worry about figuring out dates if and only if we can determine of our clock is accurate.
One way to check any timepiece is to compare it to another timepiece. We can check with someone who has a clock nearby. If we are worried that there might be a local anomaly impacting all clocks in the area, we can compare to a clock in a totally different geographic region - perhaps a clock on the other side of the valley, country or even the other side of the world. If we are fundamentally concerned about the design of our clock, we can compare to a clock of a totally different design. The alternate design might be a 'clock' based on historical records (the year without a summer for example). Perhaps our alternate clock is based on seasonal placement of organic matter (varves). It could also be a clock based on other known and experimentally verified natural laws.
Obviously I'm giving the short version here, but that last sentence is where I introduce isotope decays - just another clock. I still don't care about dates (that's where they start to sweat), it's all just clocks.
We've observed scientifically that trees are pretty good clocks. We know that varves as we watch them, are pretty good at keeping track of time. Using carefully recorded history with all it's varied inputs has proven to be a pretty good clock as we've watched it. We've observed that isotope decays are pretty good clocks. The question is, what has happened to these clocks while we WEREN'T watching them? Is there any way to use all the clocks together to confirm/deny the accuracy of any/all of them? As all of us on this thread know, there actually is.
I'll l be back in a bit with some rough version of visual aids I'm thinking of using.
Thanks to all for helping me with my through process here.
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by kbertsche, posted 03-02-2015 11:47 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by edge, posted 03-02-2015 5:07 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied
 Message 210 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2015 10:27 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied
 Message 212 by kbertsche, posted 03-03-2015 12:10 AM ThinAirDesigns has replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2479 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 202 of 1053 (751387)
03-02-2015 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by edge
03-02-2015 12:47 PM


Re: Layers visible in salt mines
edge writes:
Most subaqueous volcanics are pyroclastic; that is, they are broken up and tend to collapse or erode easily.
Ah, so the rapid cooling makes the end product structurally weak (my guess). Interesting.
Thanks
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by edge, posted 03-02-2015 12:47 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by edge, posted 03-02-2015 5:17 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1811 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 203 of 1053 (751389)
03-02-2015 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by ThinAirDesigns
03-02-2015 4:52 PM


Re: Curriculum focus
f there is one bias they have (and of course they have a lot more than one), anti-radiocarbon is it. It's almost a demon to them.
Heh, heh ...
This always seemed odd to me. I think most YECs feel the same way to some degree; but realistically, it's not that big a deal. The other radiometric methods date much older events and are probably much easier to deal with as far as technique. Frankly, it is easier to attack than other methods because of the nature of the 'beast'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-02-2015 4:52 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2479 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 204 of 1053 (751390)
03-02-2015 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Percy
03-02-2015 12:53 PM


Re: Curriculum focus
Percy writes:
Since they obviously could have not come by their current beliefs through an examination of the evidence, are you sure your investment of time is justified? They could very easily just dismiss your evidence or not give it sufficient consideration.
Of course one is never sure of an investment, but I'm OK with that. In this case I have one family member who is essentially drinking it up as fast as I can learn to serve it (and I'm being damn careful exactly how I serve it so as to not blow it). A second member who is listening and observing from across the room and asking the occasional questions, and a few others who in conversation don't seem quite as sure of themselves with regard to their beliefs as their YEC labels might imply (similar to someone identing as a Christian while also being unable to quote a single verse of the bible, not even John 3:16)
Yep, they can dismiss my evidence at any moment (and I'm sure some of them will). I'm cool with that. I like to learn and I feel I can make a difference in this arena if I up my knowledge. Thanks to all who are helping with that.
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Percy, posted 03-02-2015 12:53 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1811 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 205 of 1053 (751391)
03-02-2015 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by ThinAirDesigns
03-02-2015 5:04 PM


Re: Layers visible in salt mines
Ah, so the rapid cooling makes the end product structurally weak (my guess). Interesting.
Thanks
JB
Rapid cooling forming glass fragments, and in the presence of water. We are talking about subaqueous volcanism here.
Here is an example of a volcanic island.
quote:
Surtsey ("Surtr's island" in Icelandic, pronounced ˈsʏr̥tsei) is a volcanic island located in the Vestmannaeyjar archipelago off the southern coast of Iceland. At 63.303N 20.605WCoordinates: 63.303N 20.605W, Surtsey is the southernmost point of Iceland. It was formed in a volcanic eruption which began 130 metres (426 ft) below sea level, and reached the surface on 14 November 1963. The eruption lasted until 5 June 1967, when the island reached its maximum size of 2.7 km2 (1.0 sq mi). Since then, wave erosion has caused the island to steadily diminish in size: as of 2002, its surface area was 1.4 km2 (0.54 sq mi).[1] The most recent survey (2007) shows the island's maximum elevation at 155 m (509 ft) above sea level.[2](Surtsey - Wikipedia bold added)
Note that the island has lost half its area between 1967 and 2002. Not sure what's happened since then, but at an elevation of 155m, it may have built something of a skeleton and a mass to help resist future wave erosion.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-02-2015 5:04 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2479 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 206 of 1053 (751392)
03-02-2015 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by edge
03-02-2015 12:59 PM


Re: Layers visible in salt mines
So interesting you posted that pic of the Slumgullion earthflow. Last summer I backpacked over a thousand miles in Colorado and went right through there -- resupplied in Lake City, went up that road along the lake and up and over Cinnamon Pass.
Had no idea I was so near such a point of geological interest, but then until now I haven't attempted to learn a damn thing about geology so it wouldn't have caught my eye to any degree.
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by edge, posted 03-02-2015 12:59 PM edge has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2479 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(1)
Message 207 of 1053 (751395)
03-02-2015 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Dr Adequate
03-02-2015 2:22 PM


Re: Curriculum focus
Dr. Adequate writes:
But of course if they're arguing at all, rather than saying, "well that's all very well but THE BIBLE, hah!" then they think they're going by the evidence.
And that is a VERY important distinction you bring up.
I had this conversation with one of the more important family members just a couple days ago - important to me because she is a school teacher (Principle), teaching kids ID in a private bible school. She actually seems to me to be intellectually honest but just plain ignorant (word not used pejoratively).
I asked her if her beliefs on the YEC topic were faith based or evidence based. I asked her if she believed that the evidence actually pointed to YEC. She said yes. I asked her of the overwhelming science evidence contradicting YEC was just a misunderstanding (or lies) and she roughly answered two part: A: there really is very little actual evidence for old earth. B: what is presented as evidence is being lied about and misunderstood. I also asked her if evidence mattered to her - in other words, did she believe *because* of the evidence, or because of faith. She said "evidence". She also made it clear through answering my questions that she does not believe in a god that will make things look different than they are just to test us.
All of the above leaves me extremely cautiously hopeful.
Interestingly enough, she volunteered her school's science textbook for me to look over - chock full of ID and PRATT. I managed to control myself and only gently reference one point and ask about another. I could have gone on for hours but want to allow her to breath. LOL
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2015 2:22 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2479 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(1)
Message 208 of 1053 (751397)
03-02-2015 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Dr Adequate
03-02-2015 3:32 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
Well, I've gone on a bit. But I hope you see my point.
I do and it's a VERY good one that I need to keep in mind. I tend to think "lies" when I see them using all this PRATT, but as you point out you might have to go back 'generations' to find the lies. Also, it may be misunderstanding rather than lies.
Having read the Ronald Numbers book though I just have a hard time believing that guys like Price and Morris and Gish and Lammerts and Baugh and Burdick and Hovind and Juby and Hamm didn't/don't know on some level their crap is well, crap.
I mean when you hear this indoctrination chant: "Billions of dead things buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth.", over and OVER as support for the world wide flood, you have to wonder if they don't know that they needed a catchy sound bite to teach kids rather than reality.
Just today I used a variation of that on a friend to support the obvious existence of one (and only one) world wide tree: "Billions of dead leaves laying on the ground, laid down by gravity all over the earth." If you keep your eyes focused directly at the ground and never, every look around, the 'leaf evidence' fits the one tree theory perfectly.
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2015 3:32 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1510 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 209 of 1053 (751409)
03-02-2015 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by edge
03-02-2015 12:59 PM


volcanoes on land and in water
To amplify on my previous post, the subaqueous lavas encounter water and cool so rapidly that they fragment into tiny grains that are mostly glass and therefor are readily altered in the presence of water. So, they are not only broken up, but they are converted quickly to clay minerals. This means that they are exceedingly weak.
Don't you also get ash on land and clay in water from the cloud particulate material?
Are not Tuffs formed from ash material compacted and solidified (the footprints in laetoli)?
Volcanic ash - Wikipedia
Thanks

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by edge, posted 03-02-2015 12:59 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by edge, posted 03-03-2015 12:10 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1510 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 210 of 1053 (751410)
03-02-2015 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by ThinAirDesigns
03-02-2015 4:52 PM


radiocarbon love\hate
If there is one bias they have (and of course they have a lot more than one), anti-radiocarbon is it. It's almost a demon to them.
1: They don't understand how it works and lack the basic science education to currently trust how it does works (I'm working on that with them as well.).
2: They have been lied and lied and lied to about it and their ignorance (see #1) has left them vulnerable to those lies.
It may have something to do with being the only radiometric system that dates things young enough to be in history and recent prehistory, such as biblical artifacts.
Dating biblical artifacts gives warm fuzzy feelings ... and then it is ruined by dating other things to be too old, dad burn it!
This creates cognitive dissonance, and anger is part of the reaction.
To educate them about it, I'm imagining I may have to start them out in the hypothetical to avoid this bias. I'm trying to figure out a way to start them thinking of trees as clocks (but not calendars). In other words, I'll explain that I'm not attempting to prove any particular begin date but rather let's think about how we can just check to see how accurate our 'tree clock' actually is. We'll worry about figuring out dates if and only if we can determine of our clock is accurate.
This is one of the reasons that I start out with just the measured amounts of 14C rather than an age calculation, and as the correlation between 14C levels and age from annual layering systems builds up (tree rings and lake varves) you don't actually need to calculate an age at all -- you can just correlate the 14C level to the calibration curve to derive the age. This avoids the whole decay rate variation issue.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-02-2015 4:52 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-03-2015 9:44 AM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024