Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

Thanks. Another great suggestion.As a general comment to all the wonderful contributors to this thread, know that I am very busy studying the links and topics that you have suggested. I spending often 6-8 hours a day on the topic. And I'm enjoying the hell out of it. A lot to learn.Thanks to allJB

Good suggestions and I agree.It seems that primers on logic, skepticism and the scientific method would sort of be the prerequisites for delving into the actual earth sciences.JB

Oh yes, and I know exactly which ones. Very well put. From my experience, you can have the perfect answer to every question and evidence up and down and there is still a process of usually many years to get the mind to internalize and accept. I watched this process with one of my sisters who is now agnostic/atheist. The brain simply won't allow the deprogramming to occur overnight with most folk.Good advice. Thanks
JB

I've been working my way through this amazing resource. I'm not going to pretend that I follow it all to a T first pass, but I'm working on it. So freaking cool to have found y'all here to help educate me on this stuff.THANKSJB

Ok, I'm normally pretty capable when it comes to research, but I simply can't seem to find out what calendar year the "0" year in the INTCAL13 calibration data ties to. 2013 seems doubtful for several reasons.I'm sure someone here knows for sure.Thanks in advanceJB

And while I'm on the topic of C14 dating ...(First, let me be clear that when I refer to "sources I've read, I don't get my info from ICR, etc)In my learning about C14 dating, I've read literally dozens of papers and many web sites (including suggestions from this group.)One thing I'm a bit confused about is the sources seem almost evenly split between describing the ratio between C14 and C12 as part of the measurement process and saying nothing about ratio and merely talking about measuring the C14.I'm trying to figure out if
A: the ratio is relevant
B: if relevant, how is the ratio used.Following is an example that is confusing me. It's from a link suggested to me by RAZD.How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks

quote:

---

Dating a Fossil

​

As soon as a living organism dies, it stops taking in new carbon. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 at the moment of death is the same as every other living thing, but the carbon-14 decays and is not replaced. The carbon-14 decays with its half-life of 5,700 years, while the amount of carbon-12 remains constant in the sample. By looking at the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the sample and comparing it to the ratio in a living organism, it is possible to determine the age of a formerly living thing fairly precisely.

​

A formula to calculate how old a sample is by carbon-14 dating is:

​

t = [ ln (Nf/No) / (-0.693) ] x t1/2
t = [ ln (Nf/No) / (-0.693) ] x t1/2

​

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 you had a fossil that had 10 percent carbon-14 compared to a living sample, then that fossil would be:

​

t = [ ln (0.10) / (-0.693) ] x 5,700 years
t = [ (-2.303) / (-0.693) ] x 5,700 years
t = [ 3.323 ] x 5,700 years
t = 18,940 years old

---

So in the above example (green background portion) it clearly talks about comparing the *ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12* in the sample to the *ratio* in the living organism and using that to date. But yet when I look at the formula provided, I don't see any utilized ratio, only the %C14 is input to the formula. What am I missing?One thing to please remember. The list of things that I am NOT is long (mathematician, chemist, physicist, etc) so while I'm not particularly slow on the uptake, there's a TON of things I've never learned about science and math. Just think of me as the kid of intentionally isolated fundamentalists who ran away and pulled himself up by his bootstraps by educating himself best he could by reading and you'll pretty much have me nailed.Thanks to EVERYONE who is helping me along with my education. I'm so appreciative of your knowledge and patience.JB

The data I downloaded was a comma delimited file with 5 fields (and no header).The first field is a steady countdown of numbers (starting at 50000) by set increments, the second fields is also a countdown of numbers with some scatter but always hovers near the value of the first field. The other fields appear to be things like error ranges and standard deviation stuff.Because of its steady incremental nature, I assumed that the first field is calender years (counting backwards from some fixed date) and the second fields was C14 dates but I concede that's a guess.Just trying to figure out for sure and anchor that 0(zero) row to some calendar date.Thanks
JB

Awesome -- that's what I needed to know.Do you know if the field that is incremented steadily is the calendar dates and the one with scatter is the C14, or is the lookup table the other way around where you look up your C14 date on the steadily incremented column and then it gives you the actual date in the column with the scatter?Thanks
JB

Yes, but it appears to me that the 'comparison' they are making is not between C14 and C12, but between the C14 in the aged sample with the C14 in a theoretical un-aged sample. That's how I'm reading the sentence anyway (and I could be reading it wrong).

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).

---

JB

I'd like to make a generic statement to everyone on this thread. Y'all are being SO freaking generous with your time and efforts and I really appreciate that. Having said that, I've never learned a damn thing in my life by nodding and pretending to understand an answer if the answer doesn't yet make sense to me.Please don't take what might appear as push-back against an answer as hubris or a lack of appreciation. I don't know shit about this stuff, but I won't learn about it if I pretend I understand an answer when I don't. Push-back is not me saying "I'm right and you're wrong.", it's me saying "My understanding says "A" and you're telling me "B". I assume "B" is correct because you have experience in the field and I do not, but I need to figure out how to get my own knowledge from my current understanding ("A") to the correct one ("B").I also know that it's not your job to make me understand. As I've said before in selective cases where I was the one attempting to help someone out to no avail -- "I can only explain it to you, I can't make you understand it.".Thanks again.JB

So I found a link that gives me a virtual header for the data I downloaded.http://www.radiocarbon.org/IntCal13.htmColumn values are as follows.

quote:

---

Format: cal BP, 14C BP, Error, Δ14C (), σ14C

---

So my assumption related to the first column being calendar was correct and RAZD helpfully educated my on the correct value of the zero year.Thanks
JB

Nope, I didn't asked generically about "a ratio", but specifically about the ratio between C14 and C12 (See green in below quote).

quote:

---

One thing I'm a bit confused about is the sources seem almost evenly split between describing the ratio between C14 and C12 as part of the measurement process and saying nothing about ratio and merely talking about measuring the C14.

​

I'm trying to figure out if
A: the ratio is relevant
B: if relevant, how is the ratio used.

---

What's giving me difficulty is there being a common statement that a ratio between two different isotopes (C12 to C14) is part of the dating process and then a formula is posted where the ratio actually being measured (as I understand it) is between ONE isotope (original C14 to current C14).Just to refresh, here is the section of the link that is confusing me:

quote:

---

Dating a Fossil

​

As soon as a living organism dies, it stops taking in new carbon. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 at the moment of death is the same as every other living thing, but the carbon-14 decays and is not replaced. The carbon-14 decays with its half-life of 5,700 years, while the amount of carbon-12 remains constant in the sample. By looking at the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the sample and comparing it to the ratio in a living organism, it is possible to determine the age of a formerly living thing fairly precisely.

​

A formula to calculate how old a sample is by carbon-14 dating is:

​

t = [ ln (Nf/No) / (-0.693) ] x t1/2
t = [ ln (Nf/No) / (-0.693) ] x t1/2

​

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 you had a fossil that had 10 percent carbon-14 compared to a living sample, then that fossil would be:

​

t = [ ln (0.10) / (-0.693) ] x 5,700 years
t = [ (-2.303) / (-0.693) ] x 5,700 years
t = [ 3.323 ] x 5,700 years
t = 18,940 years old

---

Perhaps that formula is wrong. Perhaps the ratio between C14 and C12 isn't used. Perhaps I'm blind. I'm not sure what I'm missing, but I can't find anyplace in that formula where C12 is represented in any form. If both C12 and C14 are compared as is clearly stated, wouldn't both C14 and C12 have to be represented in the formula?JB

NoNukes, I'm reading furiously every link I can find trying to make sense of my question and your answer. I'm not yet ready to say I'm there, but your answers have allowed me to do better searches and I feel I'm starting to understand your answer better.Currently it appears that when they say 'percent C14' in the sample, it's implied that the percent is measured against the C12 so that's how C12 is represented in the formula. I think I'm right on that and I'm pretty sure that is what you were trying to get across to me. Still working on it.More later, but thanks
JB

Thanks RAZD,Yeah, I can see from your formula what is happening there with the C14/C12. The link I was reading merely used a simplified version of the formula and NoNukes was trying to get that through my thick skull. And yeah I've read about the updated half life numbers. I assume that IntCal takes the updated half life into account? In other words, using IntCal13 you can take a C14 date, cross reference it and no other calibrations are required?Thanks
JB

Ok, so in addition to IntCal13, there is an ~1.03 (5730/5568) correction that still must be made.And yes, that helped.Appreciate you, NoNukes, Coyote and Dr Adequate helping me get it straight. JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.