Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

Yeah, I get it. The truth of all this is that for YEC purposes, one doesn't have to do any calibration corrections at all.That's the thing I want to make clear to the kids. All this talk on the YEC sites about equilibrium assumptions killing RC dating are BS in at least 2 ways:1: scientists DON'T assume equilibrium in atmospheric C14.
2: even if they did it wouldn't freaking matter to the YEC argument.But I do like to understand how it all fits together so when they ask questions I can answer intelligently and knowledgeably.Thanks again. Y'all.JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

So I'm confused again - sorry, it happens a lot with me. LOLHere is a link that provides a download of the IntCal13 data.http://www.radiocarbon.org/IntCal13.htmHere is the format they give for the data: I've 'red boxed' to two relevant portions of the image.Top box = the format given in the description of the download link
Lower box = format from the actual header from the data file and a small portion of the data. In both of those formats, they assign the evenly incrementing column to CalBp and the scattered one to 14C. What am I missing since you appear to be telling me the opposite is true? 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. Thanks
JB

Thanks Coyote, I've never looked into Calib 7, but if I do and have questions I'll certainly appreciate that contact.Thanks
JB

Cool. Thanks for posting that. That appears to the be the different selected inputs to the IntCal13 calibration table that I downloaded. Thanks -- we'll get it figured out.JB

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:

---

The axiom of uniformity of law is necessary in order for scientists to extrapolate (by inductive inference) into the unobservable past. The constancy of natural laws must be assumed in the study of the past; else we cannot meaningfully study it.

---

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.Thanks
JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

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

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.ThanksJB

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.JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Really? I can find dinosaur fossils and human fossils in the same layer?Isn't that the difference between fantasy and reality -- in reality you CAN'T find whatever you want in the evidence?JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

If that's the case, I certainly don't understand what uniformitarianism actually is (an option that is entirely possible).The creation/flood stories I was raised with absolutely *require* that natural laws be altered. I mean, look at the RATE project where in an attempt claim victory over modern dating methods they say that decay rates have changed by like a billionx and then "hope" they can someday solve the obvious issues of heat and radiation in their "theory".When you have an all powerful god, why would you need to depend on the consistency of natural law and process?JB

LOL -- Ok, I get what you were saying.JB

And that's where I need to be able to clearly articulate to my audience the difference between an assumption based on evidence (I assume the road will be slick this morning because it's coated with a layer of ice and the Cf of ice is less than that of dry pavement) and an assumption based on pure faith (I assume that the decay rates of isotope must dance about in all directions and always in my favor because ... because ... because that would prove my pet polonium halo YEC theory correct.)Thanks
JB

I find your point perfectly correct, and add that when I look at scientific method, is *doesn't* assume uniformity (in the sense that YEC projects the word). Science (as I understand it) merely has confidence that IF the earth's magnetic field has changed, we will find evidence of that and that IF the speed of light has changed, we will find evidence of that and that until that evidence is found, we will continue to explore based on the best evidence we have.I think this really comes down to the many different meanings of the word "assume" and how it's applied in this case.Thanks
JB

YES.I'm coming to see that the YEC crowd is good not only at 'quote mining', but what I'll call 'word mining'. They've been told for a hundred years (and any dictionary will confirm) that the word "theory" in the scientific sense is not a synonym for 'guess'. It's been demonstrated to them that one can use the word "faith" without meaning "acceptance without evidence" and that when humans "assume" something, action based on that assumption can be taken blindly but can also be taken with excellent supporting evidence.It reminds me of what a member of my family said the other day. "You have faith just like I do. You drive down the road and cross bridges that you have never been over before, don't know who built and simply have faith with zero evidence that it won't collapse."After a brief explanation of the quality controlled process of building bridges, from ASTM steel certifications and welding certifications and engineering certifications and permit processes and state inspections and ... and ... and ..., I said "but let's leave that alone for a moment and get back to the basic difference between the faith I have in that bridge building process and the faith you have in your god.""If a quarter of a mile before we drive over the bridge you look to the right and you see a sign that says "God did not create the world 6000 years ago. Call 800-555-1234 for more information." Will it shake your "faith" a whit?" Of course not, they agreed. They wouldn't give it a second thought.I continued:"Well, if a quarter of a mile before the bridge crossing I see a sign that says "Bridge severely damaged by storm. Use at your own risk. Call 800-555-1234 for more information." Do you think the "faith" I have in that bridge is going to cause me to shrug it off without a thought? Hell no, I'm most likely going to come to stop, get out of the car and take a look to see just how damaged it is before I decide my next action.""Your faith and my faith are NOTHING alike." Well written and helpful. ThanksJB

So, in reading article after article on carbon dating, I came up with this tidbit from a 1982 NCSE article and it seemed to contradict my understanding. I'd like some help if possible figuring out where my understanding has fallen down (or if the article is just incorrect).The quote in question is from this link:Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | National Center for Science EducationAnd here's the quote. I have green highlighted the part I am questioning.

quote:

---

Question: Creationists such as Cook (1966) claim that cosmic radiation is now forming C-14 in the atmosphere about one and one-third times faster than it is decaying. If we extrapolate backwards in time with the proper equations, we find that the earlier the historical period, the less C-14 the atmosphere had. If we extrapolate as far back as ten thousand years ago, we find the atmosphere would not have had any C-14 in it at all. If they are right, this means all C-14 ages greater than two or three thousand years need to be lowered drastically and that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years. How do you reply?

​

Answer: Yes, Cook is right that C-14 is forming today faster than it's decaying. However, the amount of C-14 has not been rising steadily as Cook maintains; instead, it has fluctuated up and down over the past ten thousand years. How do we know this? From radiocarbon dates taken from bristlecone pines.

---

The reason this caught my eye is my familiarity with the following 'bomb carbon' chart. If as the chart shows (and I've seen many charts confirming this) C14 levels were still falling dramatically in 1982 after artificially high levels from open air bomb tests, how could C14 be forming faster than it was decaying. I haven't been able to find a graph that continues this reporting to the current day (2005 is the latest I've found and it was still falling at that time) to know what it's doing today.What's up? I would normally consider NCSE a reliable science source.JB