Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,255 Year: 5,512/9,624 Month: 537/323 Week: 34/143 Day: 7/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists
Pressie
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 211 of 1053 (751413)
03-02-2015 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Dr Adequate
03-02-2015 3:32 PM


DrAdequate writes:
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.
I disagree on this one. The creationists who keep spreading this on the CMI website are Margaret Helder, PhD in Botany (PhD very important!) and Dr Carl Wieland (Medical Doctor).
My take is that Dr. Margaret Helder and Dr.Carl Wieland purposefully did not want to tell the truth. They wanted to deceive. That was their main objective.
If you read the original article in the Journal of Paleontology, it states:
The bones are stained a large red brown, but otherwise display little permineralisation, crushing or distortion.
It also talks of the fossil bones and even shows photographs of the fossil bones. Fossilized.
Margaret Helder and Carl Wieland are dishonest. Dishonesty is the only thing the professional creationists can offer.

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

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 212 of 1053 (751415)
03-03-2015 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by ThinAirDesigns
03-02-2015 4:52 PM


Re: Curriculum focus
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 might help to show them some examples of where radiocarbon has been helpful in biblical studies. For example, the radiocarbon dating of the Dead Sea scrolls (by Woelfli et al?) The scrolls had already been dated through paleography; radiocarbon didn't substantially change the paleographic dates, but it provided an independent confirmation of them.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

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 216 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-03-2015 9:59 AM kbertsche has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1823 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 213 of 1053 (751416)
03-03-2015 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by RAZD
03-02-2015 10:14 PM


Re: volcanoes on land and in water
Don't you also get ash on land and clay in water from the cloud particulate material?
Yes. Ash can fall in air as a cold or hot deposit. If hot enough, it can make a very competent rock. If cold, it will be a fine dust, just as the ash from Mt. St. Helens was deposited over most of the northwest US. That material will essentially disappear and eventually be preserved in places like the Columbia River alluvial fan.
Are not Tuffs formed from ash material compacted and solidified (the footprints in laetoli)?
Volcanic ash - Wikipedia
Again, yes. Tuff is a rock type composed of consolidated volcanic ash. And again, the hotter, the more compacted it can become forming a 'welded tuff'.
The exact mode of composition, transport and deposition will result in numerous variations of tuffs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2015 10:14 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2015 7:16 AM edge has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 214 of 1053 (751420)
03-03-2015 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by edge
03-03-2015 12:10 AM


Re: volcanoes on land and in water
Again, yes. Tuff is a rock type composed of consolidated volcanic ash. And again, the hotter, the more compacted it can become forming a 'welded tuff'.
The exact mode of composition, transport and deposition will result in numerous variations of tuffs.
So ash falling on Lake Suigetsu leaves a tuff layer that can date the volcanic eruptions, and ash falling on Greenland ice can date the volcanic eruptions.
There are also correlations with major volcanic ash clouds causing climate change - the year without a summer (1816) - that also show up as frost rings in trees. The larger the ash cloud the more widespread the effect.
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 213 by edge, posted 03-03-2015 12:10 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by edge, posted 03-03-2015 1:04 PM RAZD has replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2490 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 215 of 1053 (751431)
03-03-2015 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by RAZD
03-02-2015 10:27 PM


Re: radiocarbon love\hate
RAZD writes:
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.
I certainly agree that this could be a component. They can blow off radiometric dating and it's millions of years as pure fantasy, but Rcarbon deals in years that include things they claim to be true. Not speaking about my family directly, but It's always amazed me how YECs can crow about Rcarbon dating when it agrees with what they like and then say it's fundamentally flawed when it disagrees with them.
This is one of the reasons that I start out with just the measured amounts of 14C rather than an age calculation ...
Yes, I think that's how I'll start - sticking with just the 'clock' aspects of Rcarbon and leaving dates out of it.
Thanks
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2015 10:27 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2015 4:04 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2490 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 216 of 1053 (751436)
03-03-2015 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by kbertsche
03-03-2015 12:10 AM


Re: Curriculum focus
kbertsche writes:
It might help to show them some examples of where radiocarbon has been helpful in biblical studies.
Yes, I do believe that would help.
In putting together my 'clock' presentation, I like to come up with say a half a dozen solid instances (agreed upon without Rcarbon) that Rcarbon has then confirmed or sharpened. Not sure how well this can be done considering my reading of the Thera dating controversy. Perhaps there are other less contentious examples. I understand that the Thera dating issues are arguments over deltas that have no impact on YEC arguments, but I'd still like to find some less fuzzy examples to give them if possible.
Similarly I'd like to come up with a few instances where weather patterns have locked three ring data into the calendar (as in the 1816 summer).
I would use those instances as my examples of a clock based on historical records/events, and then tie them in with the other clocks.
Thanks
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by kbertsche, posted 03-03-2015 12:10 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by kbertsche, posted 03-04-2015 1:51 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1823 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 217 of 1053 (751484)
03-03-2015 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by RAZD
03-03-2015 7:16 AM


Re: volcanoes on land and in water
There are also correlations with major volcanic ash clouds causing climate change - the year without a summer (1816) - that also show up as frost rings in trees. The larger the ash cloud the more widespread the effect.
Tambora (Sumbawa Island, Indonesia), April 1815, largest historic volcanic eruption. Up to 100,000 deaths attributed to the climate and tsunami effects of the one, single eruption. Tambora is still considered active.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2015 7:16 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2015 4:24 PM edge has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 218 of 1053 (751536)
03-03-2015 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by ThinAirDesigns
03-03-2015 9:44 AM


Re: radiocarbon love\hate
Yes, I think that's how I'll start - sticking with just the 'clock' aspects of Rcarbon and leaving dates out of it.
There are two aspects to this:
One is that the level of 14C/12C can be measured very precisely (<0.25% error), so it is objective empirical evidence, and different labs obtain the same measurements that confirm it.
The other is that 14C does decay, resulting in less available to measure as artifacts get older, but that we do not need to know what the decay rate is nor whether it is steady, variable, increasing or decreasing.
btw Christian Geologists on Noah's Flood: Biblical and Scientific Shortcomings of Flood Geology, part 4 also has this graph:
quote:

Now I don't quite know how he gets the "measured 14C" values ...
We can convert graphs that report "14C age" to ln(14C ratios) by reversing the formula used to calculate the age:(1)
Radiocarbon Date calculation
quote:
t = -8033 ln(Asn/Aon)
so ln(Asn/Aon) = -t/8033
Enjoy
_______________
(1) - As this is derived from Asn = Aon(1/2)^(t/5568) -- using the Libby half-life of 5568 years
and ln(Asn/Aso) = ln(1/2)*(t/5568)
so t = (5568/-0.693147)*ln(Asn/Aso) = -8032.9*ln(Asn/Aso)

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 215 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-03-2015 9:44 AM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 219 of 1053 (751539)
03-03-2015 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by edge
03-03-2015 1:04 PM


Re: volcanoes on land and in water
Tambora (Sumbawa Island, Indonesia), April 1815, largest historic volcanic eruption. Up to 100,000 deaths attributed to the climate and tsunami effects of the one, single eruption. Tambora is still considered active.
Indeed. And the ash cloud affected climate globally with frost rings in the Bristlecone pines as well as the european oaks.
Frost Rings in Trees as Records of Major Volcanic Eruptions (abstract).
I have a copy of the article in pdf if interested.
M.G.L.Baillie also discussed comparing ice core layers with volcanic dust correlated to tree frost rings (I have a copy of that too, somewhere ...)
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 217 by edge, posted 03-03-2015 1:04 PM edge has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 220 of 1053 (751634)
03-04-2015 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by ThinAirDesigns
03-03-2015 9:59 AM


Re: Curriculum focus
In putting together my 'clock' presentation, I like to come up with say a half a dozen solid instances (agreed upon without Rcarbon) that Rcarbon has then confirmed or sharpened. Not sure how well this can be done considering my reading of the Thera dating controversy. Perhaps there are other less contentious examples. I understand that the Thera dating issues are arguments over deltas that have no impact on YEC arguments, but I'd still like to find some less fuzzy examples to give them if possible.
Yes, Thera/Santorini and Exodus/Jericho have caused lots of dating problems. One of my mentors was caught up in the Thera/Santorini controversy, which was caused in part by dating of seeds which had been contaminated with modern carbon. I tried to date some wood from the burn layer of Jericho, but it was too contaminated to give a solid date. This article on the topic is interesting:
Bruins, H.J. and J. van der Plicht. 1996. The Exodus enigma. Nature 382: 213-214
Here are some references to the radiocarbon dating of the Dead Sea scrolls:
RADIOCARBON DATING AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS: A COMMENT ON REDATING
G. Bonani, S. Ivy, W. Wlfli, M. Broshi, I. Carmi, and J. Strugnell, Radiocarbon dating of fourteen Dead Sea Scrolls, Radiocarbon 34 (1992) 843—49
A.J.T. Jull, D.J. Donahue, M. Broshi, and E. Tov, Radiocarbon dating of scrolls and linen fragments from the Judean desert, Radiocarbon 37 (1995) 11—19
Rich Deem has collected a number of radiocarbon confirmations of biblical dates and events. Below are links to his commentary, followed by the scientific papers which he references:
Old Testament Dates of Edomite Kingdom Confirmed by Archeological Find
Thomas E. Levy, T.E., R. B. Adams, M. Najjar, A. Hauptmann, J.D. Anderson, B. Brandl, M.A. Robinson and T. Higham. 2004. Research Reassessing the chronology of Biblical Edom: new excavations and 14C dates from Khirbat en-Nahas (Jordan) Antiquity 78: 863-876.
Old Testament Dates of Solomon and Egyptian King Shishak Confirmed by 14C Dates from Tel Rehov
Hendrik J. Bruins, Johannes van der Plicht, and Amihai Mazar. 2003. 14C Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings. Science 300: 315-318.
Carbon-14 Dating of Copper Smelting in Edom (Jordan) Confirm Biblical Date of King Solomon's Kingdom
Levy, T. E., T. Higham, C. B. Ramsey, N. G. Smith, E. Ben-Yosef, M. Robinson, S. Mnger, K. Knabb, J. P. Schulze, M. Najjar, and L. Tauxe. 2008. High-precision radiocarbon dating and historical biblical archaeology in southern Jordan. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105:1646016465.
Hezekiah's Siloam Tunnel Confirmed Through C-14 Dating:
Frumkin, A., A. Shimron, and J. Rosenbaum. 2003. Radiometric dating of the Siloam Tunnel, Jerusalem. Nature 425: 169-171.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-03-2015 9:59 AM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-04-2015 2:12 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2490 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 221 of 1053 (751636)
03-04-2015 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by kbertsche
03-04-2015 1:51 PM


Re: Curriculum focus
Awesome - thanks SO much. I will get to those links hopefully later today.
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by kbertsche, posted 03-04-2015 1:51 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2490 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 222 of 1053 (751639)
03-04-2015 2:42 PM


C02 production
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

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 223 of 1053 (751655)
03-04-2015 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Dr Adequate
03-02-2015 3:32 PM


Permineralization
According to my reading of Wikipedia, mineralization is when an organism lays down minerals in its living body, e.g. building a shell. Permineralization is the replacement of tissues with minerals during fossilization.
The interesting thing with those dino fossils is that they showed little permineralization, but were still fossils.
The YEC seized on this, transmogrified it to them being unfossilised, and said ergo the world is young.
But it takes more than one finding like this to overturn the wealth of evidence for great age!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2015 3:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-04-2015 4:53 PM Pollux has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 401 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 224 of 1053 (751657)
03-04-2015 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Pollux
03-04-2015 4:44 PM


Re: Permineralization
According to my reading of Wikipedia, mineralization is when an organism lays down minerals in its living body, e.g. building a shell. Permineralization is the replacement of tissues with minerals during fossilization.
No, not quite. Permineralization is when minerals fill in the gaps, the spaces, the voids within remains. (As WP says: "Permineralization is a process of fossilization in which mineral deposits form internal casts of organisms".) Since this includes the inside of cells, that's quite a good way of preserving the form of an organism.
Replacement is when the minerals replace the remains themselves.
If both of these processes happen the resulting fossil is said to have been petrified.
So if someone says a fossil hasn't been permineralized, that doesn't mean that all the remains we have left of it haven't been turned into rock. A fossil can show no permineralization but a lot of replacement, or vice versa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Pollux, posted 03-04-2015 4:44 PM Pollux has seen this message but not replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


(1)
Message 225 of 1053 (751660)
03-04-2015 5:16 PM


I am following this thread with interest, having been on a journey with some similarity to ThinAirDesign's. I started out looking for why the scientists got it wrong, and couldn't find it, with this site being a big help to find reality.
Like he and others here have found, I find for most YEC the Bible trumps everything, blow the evidence.

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-04-2015 8:27 PM Pollux has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024