Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

Desperate times, desperate measures. I'm trying to set an example that says basically: If you're going to quote/paraphrase/reference an article, actually know what the article says. And as we know, the best ammunition against YEC claims is often the paper they claim the claim came from.I especially love the reliance on quotes from papers written in the 50's regarding the limitations and accuracy of Rcarbon dating. Get out much?JB

Thanks a TON.Message sent.
JB

So many cool things to learn about -- so little time. In my continued study of geology, I came across something really freaking cool (maybe). It was the discovery by Luis and Walter Alverez of the iridium rich clay layer at the Cretaceous—Paleogene boundary. I have a question that I'm trying to answer regarding the acceptance or debate about this 'iridium anomaly".I see much active/historical debate about the proposed causes of this anomaly. I'm not so interested (for current purposes) in the cause so much as whether it's accepted and demonstrable that it exists as a world wide layer. If you understand the theology that I'm up against (all life killed all at once), having such an identifiable marker laid down world wide, smack in the middle of all this death is a nice arrow in the evidence quiver.I'm wondering how broad the confirmation is of this layer. Is it a solid accepted fact of geology? I reading the Wiki page for Luis Alverez, I saw this statement: Luis Walter Alvarez - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Publication of the 1980 paper brought criticism from the geological community, and an often acrimonious scientific debate ensued.

---

Was/is that debate centered around cause of the layer or the existence of the layer? I don't want to put this arrow in my quiver without confirming it's validity and understanding any controversy. It would seem to me that with as many holes as we drill in the earths crust, confirmation of this layer could be pretty broad if it exists.I have been unable to find any reference to this yet in the excellent Wiki-book on geology provided by Dr Adequate, but I'm not even close to being all the way through that reference and I can't seem to find a way to search the contents of that book electronically (without searching the entire site).Any suggestions appreciated.Thanks
JB

I did read the only link that worked in your post. Thanks.This is the problem I have with such general theories faith -- Noahic flood proponents seem to want to have it both ways with their flood. Let me explain:For one theory to work (mountains formed lets say) the flood must necessarily have been extremely violent so they say the flood was exceedingly violent. In one 'inspired' account, is was so violent that even Satan himself feared for his own existence (that's from EG White, SDA prophetess.) This ( it's claimed) accounts for all the powerful movements of the continents, etc.For their next theory to work, (say the iridium layer, or their version of hydraulic sorting), it couldn't be chaotic, it must be calm - miraculously calm in fact. So calm that the iridium laden dust/ash/whatever can settle to the bottom of the flood waters in an extremely distinct world-wide layer and then be covered by another extremely distinct layer without getting all mixed up again. It can't go back and forth (as you 'wave' propose in the post you linked) between calm and violent and fit the evidence for two reasons (far more than two actually, but here's two):A: not enough time in the given ~year to settle out the layersB: even if you DO have time to settle out a layer, any significant motion will displace and suspend the fresh layer once again. Just wade into any farm pond that has been sitting calm all year and you immediately stir up the soft silt layer and displace/suspend the particles in the water. Even a hard rain or strong wind rippling the surface heavily is enough to cause the water to become silty again. Watch what happens when they release extra water from a dam -- the muddy water is not from rain washing particles in (there's no rain after all), but from silt being stirred up by the current.There are FAR more problems with the Noahic flood theory than just what I mentioned there, but that's just the one that pops into my head when I think of this layer.Evidence doesn't allow folk to have their own fantasy way (only faith does that). Theories have to interlace with the evidence across the board and while I see plenty of ad hoc explanations about individual issues relating to YEC, I have yet to see an explanation that isn't loudly contradicted by the evidence elsewhere.Since this thread is about science curriculum, I'll ask a direct question: Can you propose a science experiment that demonstrates your theory that layers can be formed that way? I certainly can propose a simple experiment (a version of the 'mason jar') which shows how your theory is flawed.Since I'm all for hands on science, let's put together two simple test for the kids and let them watch what happens to both. Shall we?JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Well, not exactly -- I'm looking for valid science that can be explained to folk who have been sequestered from science. I expect them to use that knowledge to make up their own minds. They've had enough of other people making up their minds for them. I'm actually VERY happy to have a YEC proponent educate me as to the sorts of *scientifically valid* experiments that can be done demonstrating YEC.My 'curriculum' is going to be based on things that can be demonstrated. My family has had plenty of indoctrination in faith -- I'm separating myself from that through evidence and the impact due to that difference has been noticeable, even just so far.Currently I find the YEC evidence to be sorely lacking. Frankly I don't expect you to change that, but I'd sure like someone to step up and at least attempt to produce some observable evidence that they say stands up. To be blunt, every YEC argument I've found so far makes the common science look pretty damn good by comparison. All I see when I read the YEC internet sites is charlatans preying on the weak (or alternately, extremely ignorant folk pretending they know more than they do).You're welcome to step up, but I won't be involved in discussions that involve "it could happen" miracles -- only demonstrable science.JB

Yeah, that's the exact problem -- their arguments have no cohesion whatsoever.JB

All fine and dandy, but not a single thing you said there addresses my concern about your 'wave' theory (and least not in any way discernible by me). Hand waving is not something accepted in my science curriculum. Fair enough. And I am only interested in ideas that can be backed up by observation. Full stop.JB

OK, I see you edited your post to be a bit more clear as to your presented arguments (thanks) so I'll briefly address the edits. A: Is it a global flood, or the river Noah we're talking about here?B: And I suspect with no formal geology training that it's damn straight easy to tell sediments laid down by currents vs those settled out of standing water. I could even predict numerous ways it would be done, but whose counting? Of course is does -- that's been the foundation of panning, sluicing and dredge mining for centuries. To apply that to the flood though you can't just say it and expect it to mean anything -- you must propose a mechanism by which water being sloshed about in a giant tub can produce what we see. I'm listening.JB

Then there's no reason whatsoever to expect that the flood could have placed the bazillion cubic miles of earth in the many layers above the iridium anomaly and then carved features in them (to say nothing of the fossils in those layers).You see, this is a perfect display of the thought (not) put into transparent YEC crap: "Oh, I'll solve the problem of the water dispersing the newly placed iridium bearing layer by having everything go calm." Yeah, AND THEN WHAT??? How does the rest of the work that the flood supposedly accomplished get done?This is why the YEC crowd is losing ground and will continue to lose ground. Y'all are satisfied with attempting to sell a selection of individual, contradictory, ad hoc explanations that anyone willing to give them a 30 second sniff test chokes on the stench.JB

There is nothing speculative about my interest in the iridium layer. As I mentioned in my initial post on the question, I'm not that interested (for my current purpose) in how it actually formed, I want to know if it EXISTS ... TODAY. That's hardly a speculative matter.Why am I interested in it's existence? Because as you've perfectly highlighted with your blather, it demonstrates *again* the lack of scientific rigor displayed by the supporters of the Noahic flood. Yeah, this is a play on the old "I have a theory, you have a theory. We're tied" YEC argument. Well, in scientific terms you don't even yet have a hypothesis so turn the pompous knob down until you have something approaching the cohesive nature of the knowledge demonstrated by geologists. Let me know when your speculation can withstand 10 seconds of scrutiny because so far it's coming up about 9 seconds short.Suggest an experiment - a specific one. Use the oft published scientific method as your guide to setting it up please.JB

No, that's not all you were saying. You're saying that the waters of the flood *specifically* are responsible for the layers and I'm responding "provide an experiment that supports your assertion and we'll test it side by side with others and let the kids decide." Nonsense -- it's an extremely good model considering the flood waters would have to have been miles freaking deep to be biblically correct. By YEC description, it's one giant worldwide mass of churning water able to do massive damage to the face of the earth. I'm uninterested in your own pet speculations. Those are a dime a dozen. Yeah, because that's what large bodies of water exposed to wind and weather do on their own ... become relatively placid. And the bigger and more exposed they are the more relatively placid they get. OMG you're a hoot.Here's the deal Faith -- unless you are going to suggest direct science experiments, observations and knowledge (not speculation) that can be repeated in my curriculum, there's no point in your participation here. I'm not on this thread to change participants minds. I'm here to collect verifiable ideas and experiments and knowledge that can be incorporated in a way that will allow people who aren't here to decide for themselves from the evidence, not speculation.JB

Intellectual dishonesty. You better hope your defense attorney isn't of that mind if you are ever falsely accused of a witnessless crime. The ability to show through evidence that you could not possibly be the killer (in the past) will be your salvation.Geology is both observable and replicated daily in labs. We can watch how sediments are sorted in lakes, rivers, oceans and catastrophic events. We can subject materials to great heat and pressure and replicate the natural process of nature (kick ass man made diamonds anyone?). We can measure mountains getting higher and continents drifting apart. We can witness faults displace. We can and do learn from all of this. To say we can't understand one time events in the past is to say we can't determine if a large boulder at the base of a cliff was from the cliff above or hauled in by earth movers. No one saw it happen and the past can't be replicated so we'll just call everything speculation. Hogwash is what that is. So I give the kids that line and one smartly asks: "If as Faith asserts, the iridium layer was placed during the relatively calm receding of the waters and this iridium layer is many layers down and the flood placed all the layers and all the fossils and carved all the features ABOVE that layer, how could relatively calm receding waters have done all that, one layer at a time?" what should my answer be.Never mind. Really, never mind - I would never subject kids to that sort of silliness (other than to demonstrate, well ... silliness) so your answer would be pointless.JB

And if only you had been able to explain it in relation to the flood it would have been an interesting contribution. Sadly you could only present poorly thought out speculation that doesn't remotely fit the evidence. Now we know.Back on track with verifiable knowledge. Much appreciation to those who are generously contributing to that.JB

Yeah, one of my favorite stories relating to Price (the ultimate armchair scientist) was when one of his prized pupils (Harold Clark) actually went to the field and reported back:

quote:

---

The rocks do lie in a much more definite sequence than we have ever allowed. The statements made in your book, The New Geology, do not harmonize with the conditions in the field. All over the Midwest the rocks lie in great sheets extending over hundreds of miles, in regular order. Thousands of well cores prove this. In East Texas alone are 25,000 deep wells. Probably well over 100,000 wells in the Midwest give data that has been studied and correlated. The science has become a very exact one. Millions of dollars are spent in drilling, with the paleontological findings of the company geologists taken as the basis for the work. The sequence of the microscopic fossils in the strata is remarkably uniform. The same sequence is found in America, Europe, and anywhere that detailed studies have been made. This oil geology has opened up the depths of the earth in a way that we never dreamed of twenty years ago.

---

It was reported that "Price could hardly contain is fury."(The Creationists: Ronald Numbers page 125, 126)It's often hilarious and instructive the reactions when people find out what they know to be true isn't actually true.JBEDIT: Just realized that I posted that story earlier in the thread. Well, I did say it was a favorite of mine. Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Oh, I promise you that I'm done with Faith on this thread since she clearly has no intention of anything other than wild speculation. I've much experience with public forums so I know I don't get to pick what's posted, but I'm certainly hoping that the stated topic is narrow enough to get us back on track reasonably soon.Thanks
JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.