|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
On the Calib. 7 site it says,
Any questions or comments regarding CALIB should be directed to Prof. Paula Reimer p.j.reimer@qub.ac.uk She is very nice and usually answers quickly.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2395 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Thanks Coyote, I've never looked into Calib 7, but if I do and have questions I'll certainly appreciate that contact.
ThanksJB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You need to see it graphically for clarity: Oh, I've got it charted 6 ways to Sunday already (that's why I downloaded it). I'll be posting some charts with related questions in a bit, but to know what to ask I have to figure out which column is which. Sorry I was referring to the graphical presentation of the data by Riemer et al (IntCal13): http://www.radiocarbon.org/IntCal13%20files/intcal13.pdf Note that the various sources of tree rings are very consistent through page 7 when they run out. Page 8 has a lot of scatter and a fair bit of it is likely due to the assumptions made on reservoir effect on the marine samples (see Corrections to radiocarbon dates.) btw CAL BP refers to calendar BP and not calibrated BP (even though this should be the same). I don't know how that table works - I've not looked at it. Maybe Coyote knows? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2395 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
RAZD writes: I was referring to the graphical presentation of the data by Riemer et al (IntCal13): Cool. Thanks for posting that. That appears to the be the different selected inputs to the IntCal13 calibration table that I downloaded.
btw CAL BP refers to calendar BP and not calibrated BP (even though this should be the same). I don't know how that table works - I've not looked at it. Maybe Coyote knows? Thanks -- we'll get it figured out. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Calib 7 is a web-based program to calibrate radiocarbon dates, using the Conventional Radiocarbon Age and producing either AD/BC dates or BP dates.
That program uses IntCal13, the latest calibration curve, and the email address I gave you should be good for answering any of the questions you have posed here about what those numbers represent.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
btw CAL BP refers to calendar BP and not calibrated BP (even though this should be the same). You are correct, those two are the same. When a radiocarbon sample comes back from the laboratory it is generally expressed as a Conventional Age, or Radiocarbon Age. This is the Measured Age corrected for C13, using a half life of 5568, and using AD 1950 as the base year with all results calculated back from that point. When the laboratory (or you) calibrates that Conventional Age they express the resulting calendar age as, for example, "Cal BC 6250 to 6040 (Cal BP 8200-7990)." Beta Analytic, the largest radiocarbon laboratory in the world, expresses their calibrated dates in just that manner. (This example is from one of my samples.) Hope this helps.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2395 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
I'm struggling with something basic and I'm hoping someone can set me straight.
Uniformitarianism is a word thrown about by both sides of the EvC debate and I'm trying to understand it. The Hovind/Ham crowd throws the word around in a pejorative sense as if every scientist simply assumes everything has remained the same for billions of years and of course that's just nonsense. I was surprised however to find this in the wikipedia entry:
quote: This of course would be the perfect quote for a YEC advocate to include in any of their assertions regarding scientific investigation into things past. Vast crowds of people would then nod and agree that the scientists just admitted that unless they assume things are EXACTLY the same in the past, they can't do any meaningful work. Then the YEC guy trots out changes that we know have happened and the crowd bows in reverence to the incontrovertible proof of YEC just presented. Now, I know enough to know that the science community doesn't assume things have always been the way they are, but I'm trying to figure out how to best respond to this little trick. Let's take gravity for instance. We don't just blindly assume that this constant has remained the same through all time do we? Haven't we come to this conclusion through evidence? It seems the only assumption made in this regard is that IF the gravitational constant has changed in the past we would find evidence of it. I mean if gravity doubled tomorrow, we can predict today the results of that change. If gravity were double 4000 years ago to what it is today, we would be able see EVIDENCE of that. I'm think I'm misunderstanding something about that wiki statement on uniformitarianism. Can anyone set me straight? I think this is an important thing for me to understand clearly or I'll be opening a can of worms with my audience. ThanksJB Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Wiki is a good introduction but is not a high grade resource.
We can have evidence that natural laws have remained constant over extremely long periods of time but Uniformitarianism goes beyond that. It assumes also that processes remained the same, that mountains do not get higher as they erode, that rain falls down and not up, that collisions raise mountains and do not create oceans, that water sorts by particle size and does not sort by species. It's always possible that at some time continents colliding did not cause mountains or that rain fell up not down or that as mountains eroded they got higher or that floods really did sort by species. But if that were true then we are faced with an end to learning, the answer to everything is simply "God did it". You need to remember that for many people that is not simply a possible answer but rather the desired answer. When faced with that situation I generally point out that if true then there is no reason to expect brakes to slow your car, antibiotics to cure infections, wings to lift a plane, the sun to rise tomorrow or for God not to simply wipe all Christians from the face of the earth.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2395 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
jar writes: It's always possible that at some time continents colliding did not cause mountains or that rain fell up not down or that as mountains eroded they got higher or that floods really did sort by species. I guess what I'm struggling with is calling the scientific position on this "assumptions" rather than conclusions based observed evidence. It seems to me that in the physical realm where we can explore, if floods really did sort by species at some point, then what we would find is fossils in flood sediment sorted by species, etc. We don't have to assume it wouldn't happen -- we can just look at the evidence. Again, I'm not trying to argue with an "I'm right" attitude, I'm just trying to figure out how to explain this to my audience. The way the wiki quote is portrayed, it's just as valid to assume "god did it" as to say that gravity is a historical constant - it's a 'he said, she said' situation (or that's how the YECs would see it). It just seems to me that the historical constant of gravity is backed up by evidence rather than assumption. (and yeah, i know that Wiki isn't always the best, but it is a reference I need to be prepared for). Thanks. Still pondering. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I guess what I'm struggling with is calling the scientific position on this "assumptions" rather than conclusions based observed evidence. It seems to me that in the physical realm where we can explore, if floods really did sort by species at some point, then what we would find is fossils in flood sediment sorted by species, etc. We don't have to assume it wouldn't happen -- we can just look at the evidence. But you can look at the evidence and find what you want. For example in the past floods sorted in a manner that excluded grass pollen. Other floods excluded all modern species. The Biblical flood sorted so that no humans got mixed in with dinosaurs.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Uniformitarianism is a word thrown about by both sides of the EvC debate and I'm trying to understand it.
If uniformitarianism fails, then you cannot rely on tracing things back through time. So the whole creationist story crumbles, because it depends on tracing back through time and genealogies. Creationism itself depends on uniformitarianism.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I guess what I'm struggling with is calling the scientific position on this "assumptions" rather than conclusions based observed evidence.
I'm not sure what would be intrinsically wrong with assumptions. Do you, or does anyone in your audience go though life without making assumptions? Clearly, some assumptions are valid and others not. What your skeptical 'audience' needs to do is show that the assumptions are not valid if they wish to proceed with the argument. The point here is that uniformitarianism, in its present form (which we term 'actualism') has not been shown to be invalid for the explanation of natural features. Now, if someone wants to be hyperskeptical, that's their problem. I recommend that they not board an airliner for travel purposes.
It seems to me that in the physical realm where we can explore, if floods really did sort by species at some point, then what we would find is fossils in flood sediment sorted by species, etc. We don't have to assume it wouldn't happen -- we can just look at the evidence.
There is a bit of a misunderstanding here. Floods do their sorting (if it really happens) of species in space. Evolution sorts species through time. This notion on your part suggests to me that you still retain the YEC understanding that there is one geological event in the history of the earth, and everything really happened at once. Frankly, it appears to me that you are not being completely honest here.
Again, I'm not trying to argue with an "I'm right" attitude, I'm just trying to figure out how to explain this to my audience. The way the wiki quote is portrayed, it's just as valid to assume "god did it" as to say that gravity is a historical constant - it's a 'he said, she said' situation (or that's how the YECs would see it). It just seems to me that the historical constant of gravity is backed up by evidence rather than assumption.
Uniformitarianism is more than just an assumption. It is a principle that is used to interpret natural phenomena. It has survived since the days of Hutton, though our understanding of what is normal has changed. In our modern usage, it does not exclude catastrophic events such as meteorite impacts, etc. YECs would have us believe that the biblical flood refutes uniformitarianism. However, there has never been any evidence to support such an event. Consequently, the only people who deny uniformiatrianism do so for biblical (i.e. religious) reasons, not scientific ones. Basically, this requires a belief in such ideas as C-decay or alternate states, or magic (that would be supernatural intervention). All of these, of course, leave no evidence behind. Really, if you want to refute a geological principle, you need to show that it is scientifically invalid.
Thanks. Still pondering.
Ponder harder. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I guess what I'm struggling with is calling the scientific position on this "assumptions" rather than conclusions based observed evidence. It seems to me that in the physical realm where we can explore, if floods really did sort by species at some point, then what we would find is fossils in flood sediment sorted by species, etc. We don't have to assume it wouldn't happen -- we can just look at the evidence. First off there are two versions of uniformitarianism: 1. The scientific position is that the laws of how things behaved have remained virtually the same, 2. The YEC (misrepresentation) is that it is in contrast to catastrophism, and thus assumes no catastrophes in the past. CD200: Uniformitarianism
quote: So confusing the issue with a different definition. Scientific law uniformitarianism can be tested:
There are many such examples.
I guess what I'm struggling with is calling the scientific position on this "assumptions" rather than conclusions based observed evidence. ... Well I would classify it more as a scientific "law" than an assumption (or a conclusion): somethings seen so pervasively (like gravity) that it hardly needs testing -- except to show YEC folks that it has been observed. As mentioned, wiki can be edited by anyone, and articles that some people find contentious (like evolution) periodically get "hit" with changes. IIRC Dr A discussed uniformitarianism in his book as it affect geology. There is also a discussion of how Lyell influenced Darwin at Page not found Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2395 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
edge writes: This notion on your part suggests to me that you still retain the YEC understanding that there is one geological event in the history of the earth, and everything really happened at once. Frankly, it appears to me that you are not being completely honest here. Thank you for a real world demonstration of how you personally integrate assumptions into your daily life. I'll keep that in mind as I consider the value of any of your comments going forwards. Thanks JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2395 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
RAZD writes: Scientific law uniformitarianism can be tested: sn1987a demonstrates uniformitarianism with decay rates the same 170,000 years ago, and that the speed of light has not changed,uranium halos demonstrate uniformitarianism with constant decay rates during their formation over hundreds of thousands of years, the oklo natural fission reactor demonstrates uniformitarianism with decay chains through isotopes the same as we see today, coral heads show that the length of the day was shorter and there were more days per year in the past (see Message 10 -- the corals have daily growth rings within the annual formations) just as predicted by astronomical observations and demonstrating that the orbital mechanics involving the earth moon system have not varied significantly for over 400,000,000 years. There are many such examples. Perfect -- THAT's what I'm talking about. If we unquestioningly assumed that the speed of light had always been the same, why do a TON of experiments to show that this is the case. It seems to me that we 'assume' uniformitarianism is a fact because over and over when tested it actually turns out to be true and we have ways to know if it weren't true. That to me separates it from the assumptions that YECs make that are based on pure faith. 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