Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

not supported in db code - use html: highlyhighly

Plus glass nodules and shocked quartz. It would have been in an ash cloud similar (but larger) than volcanic ash clouds (that cause temporary climate changes)What makes the clay and what is the difference from landing on land to landing in water?Enjoy

Well, these are not the visuals that Faith was discussing, but yes, they are pretty definitive features. The mother of all ash clouds. I would think that the clays are from the hydrous alteration of glass and from contamination by normal sedimentation. Some of it probably was primary, derived from ground zero.Just guess, but on land, it would just be a fine ash unless it was hot enough to become welded. I haven't heard of that. In the water, it would look like a silt deposit.

I'm looking for a paper (or papers) authored by Harold Gladwin from the mid/late 1970'sPossible Title(s)"Radiocarbon and bristlecones"
"Dendrochronology, radiocarbon and bristlecones"Supposedly published in the Anthropological Journal of Canada.Any suggestions as to who perhaps might have the back catalog of the AJC wold be appreciated.Thanks
JB

In my dealings so far with my YEC family I have been able to score valuable points in two ways:1: Show that the YEC sites and speakers regularly/usually/overwhelmingly quote mine in a blatantly dishonest manner.
2: Back up my own claims religiously with meticulous cites and references (in other words the opposite of #1).This stark contrast between the two methods is creating a fair bit of forward motion with two of my family in particular. Today they actually got vocally outraged when they discovered how badly one of the high profile SDA YEC evangelists was editing quotes to twist what was demonstrably true into something false.My frustration is this: Clearly there is value in demonstrating just how much blatant dishonesty is on display in the YEC world, but I'm finding it a gargantuan task to unwind lie after lie. YEC sites often quote papers from 30-75 years ago to criticize current science. They regularly misrepresent what is actually in the paper. They don't understand the terminology in science papers and so they simply look for a sentence that sounds like it can be used as a weapon against OE and lift it off the page and swing it around like it's a sharp sword. It's pathetic, but apparently quite effective when used on the uneducated or people of faith.I've got to figure out a balance between demonstrating how these lies and misrepresentations and sleight of hand quoting methods are both morally and technically wrong VS showing them good science. I've learned it's simply too big of a task to unravel ALL the YEC lies -- it's the Gish Gallop of nonsense.I'll figure out the right balance and where to spend my time. Just venting, that's all.Thanks to those who have been so generous with their scientific knowledge.JB

[CITATION] Dendrochronology, radiocarbon and bristlecones
HS Gladwin - Anthropological Journal of Canada, 1976 - ASSN CANADA 1575 FORLAN Harold S. Gladwin worked with wife Winifred on archeology in the SW USRadiocarbon Dating and  American Evangelical Christians

quote:

---

Radiocarbon Dating and
American Evangelical Christians

​

The next critique concerned the possibility of the contamination of C-14 samples. It was stated thoroughly by Robert E. Lee, an Assistant Editor of the Anthropological Journal of Canada, in a paper published in CRSQ. Lee pointed out the possibility of contamination in the whole dating process, from collecting samples in the field to the final measurements in the laboratories.(64) To him, foreign organic matter could possibly intrude into old material. Charcoal and peat, frequently favorable samples for C-14 dating, were noted for their ability to absorb foreign substances. In fact, Bolton Davidheiser, a zoology Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University and later a biology professor at Westmont College and Biola College, also pointed out that C-14 dating seemed to be much more reliable when the materials tested were from areas with dry climates, such as Palestine and Egypt.(65)

​

Third, with few exceptions,(82) "serious" criticism about the C-14 method appeared mainly in religious journals. Major religious journals criticizing the C-14 method include CRSQ (published since 1964), Origins (published since 1974 by the Seventh-day Adventists) and Impact Series (published since 1972 by the ICR). All of them are conservative or fundamental publications. Among them, CRSQ is the most prominent in criticizing the C-14 method, publishing more than 25 critical papers to date. In addition to journals, most of the religious books critical of C-14 dating were written by fundamentalist evangelicals(83) and published by religious publishers, and their distribution was limited to Christians.

​

---

​

64 Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error," CRSQ 19 (September 1982): 117-127.

​

82 For examples, Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error," Anthropological Journal of Canada 19(3) (1981): 9-29; Harold S. Gladwin, "Dendrochronology, Radiocarbon, and Bristlecones," Anthropological Journal of Canada 14(4) (1976): 2-7

---

Does that help narrow it down?

Well, the cite you quoted from your link ...

quote:

---

Harold S. Gladwin, "Dendrochronology, Radiocarbon, and Bristlecones," Anthropological Journal of Canada 14(4) (1976): 2-7

---

... is in fact the paper I'm looking for.Now if I can just find that issue of the AJC.Thanks
JB

You have a couple of resource in the Pratt Lists
- An Index to Creationist Claims
- Arguments to Avoid Topic | Answers in Genesis and in the Quote Mine Project
Quote Mine Project: ContentsThen there are the "projects" that I can only describe as intent to decieveAlso see Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes We're rootin for ya.

What is so sad is that YECs and Biblical Christians behave exactly the same when it comes to the Bible, dishonestly quote mine in a blatantly dishonest manner. See Are any of these prophecies fulfilled by Jesus?.

Oh, believe me I've been aware of that since as a young child I figured out the shell game.JB

other than Dendrochronology Fact and Creationist Fraud the one I like is

quote:

---

A freshly killed seal was carbon-14 dated at 1300 years old.

​

Hovind, Kent, n.d. Doesn't carbon dating or potassium argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old? http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationE...

​

... . A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years. ...

---

Why would anyone go the McMurdo Sound (Antarctica) and then radiocarbon date a living seal ... unless they knew what the result was likely to be ...Seals get their carbon from what they eat -- fish and shellfish, that get their carbon from algae growing in the water -- so taking a 14C sample from an animal living in old water would date as old as the water ...And as long as you neglect to mention that there is a reservoir effect involved you can get a result you KNOW is older than the real age.At McMurdo Sound there is an upwelling of really ancient water ...Corrections to radiocarbon dates.

quote:

---

... Reservoir corrections for the world oceans can be found at the Marine Reservoir Correction Database, a searchable database online at Queen's University, Belfast and the University of Washington. ...

---

That link is: http://radiocarbon.pa.qub.ac.uk/marine/Plopping down points along the west side of McMurdo Sound: So you know you will get ~1300 years old before you even take the sample, due to the reservoir effect. This information is published and easily accessible for anyone to plan a trip ... if your intent is to deceive.Now as far as I can see this is not a mistake, it is not a misunderstanding, but it is an intentional misuse of science and the data that science provides.Enjoy

Creationists have to misrepresent, distort, quote-mine, ignore contradictory evidence, develop elaborate fantasy explanations, and lie in many other ways because the real-world evidence simply doesn't support their beliefs.As the first part of defending their beliefs, they have to deceive themselves.

Yep -- same with the Hugh Miller dinosaur bone carbon dating fiasco. They were told by the lab that there was no collagen in the bones but there was plenty of carbon in the shellac surface treatment. Knowing the bone would be dated according to the surface contamination he still asked that the test be done - with predictable dating results.http://www.fleming-group.com/...20for%20Dinosaur%20Bones.pdfAnd these folk try to sell themselves as following the ultimate moral compass. Shameful.Fortunately for me, these countless examples are providing the basis for my demonstrations. These folk have always head how the scientists are lying to them about the evidence. In the information age, it's getting easier and easier to expose them.JB

I don't see why. The sediments were deposited in separate layers after all, implying successive depositions with time gaps between them, and they can be pretty precise too, with extremely sharp contact lines. For asteroid particles to be dispersed on top of one of the layers would be mostly a matter of timing.You also say in Message 363 you think it would behave like silt in water, and silt floats so I'd say we have some definite possibilities for explaining its dispersal during the Flood period.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Correct. Not compatible with the sedimentation rates one would need for a one year global flood. The iridium layer is just an example.Whenever there are high rates of deposition you cannot simply inject an anomalous material and expect it to not be contaminated. The higher the rate of sedimentation the more that the impact ejecta would be swamped by ambient sediment. And you have no such timing. It would be like pouring a cup of coffee into Niagara Falls. I'm not seeing this at all. What are you trying to say? Yes, it would basically look like silt, mixed in with whatever the ambient material is. Mixing is the key. The greater the sediment influx, the more diffuse your ejecta; the slower the influx, the more defined the ejecta layer would be.And no, silt does not 'float', it stays suspended in flowing water. Please read your own links more carefully. Edited by edge, : No reason given.