Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

Thanks RAZD. Your second response makes more sense to me than your first (and I now understand the brevity of your first).Yes, I understand the difference between the fact and theory of evolution and as you expected, I was referring to the theory.JB

That seemed to me to be the case. I likely worded my original question poorly because I'm not so much "struggling" with the labels ast I'm struggling how to explain their usage to my 'wavering fundamentalist' audience.It would be nice if science were a nice neat package -- but it's not (that's an acceptance of reality, not a criticism)Thanks

That's a very useful paragraph. ThanksJB

It depends on what exactly you mean by "Big Bang", but I would say that the Big Bang is an extremely solid scientific theory. The expansion of the universe is pretty much a scientific fact. The idea of a singularity about 13.6 billion years ago follows from extrapolating this expansion backward in time. Expansion from a singularity this long ago implies a remnant cosmic microwave background of a few degrees Kelvin, which is what we observe. The Big Bang explains what we see and it predicted a crucial detail before it was observed. This prediciction is quantitative, which in my mind makes the theory stronger than accepted theories in some other branches of science.A number of Nobel prizes have been awarded relating to the Big Bang and the cosmic microwave background. Nobel prizes are not rewarded for mere hypotheses. Many of the details of the Big Bang are still pretty speculative (e.g. inflation, dark energy), but the basic Big Bang theory is pretty solid, IMO.

Thanks Kbertsche.Fundamentalists want to believe everything is clean (and will create clean out of fuzzy at will to suit their needs). Things are either proven or they are not proven, etc. I'm trying to introduce them to the nuance that is reality. Some theories are better supported than others, but that doesn't mean that those less supported are just wild guesses.JB

To fundamentalists, "assumption" means somewhere between "wild-ass-guess" to "absolutely wrong." Unless those assumptions are theirs, of course, in which case they are absolutely "proven."And also, to fundamentalists, a theory is a wild-ass-guess at best. Remember the "its only a theory" nonsense they tried to peddle a few years back? By that they meant a theory was totally worthless as an explanation, just a guess, and not absolutely reliable as were their faith-based explanations.And there is the one huge problem with fundamentalists and creationists--they are not doing science. In fact, they are doing the exact opposite of science.Why anyone would ever take their pronouncements on science and science methodology seriously is a mystery, as is demonstrated here on a daily basis.

And that's true for the uninformed criticism of the creation brigade as well as the cheerleading of the New Atheists. Whatever knowledge that we have of the universe derives from the data produced by scientific inquiry; but it's not some sort of unmediated contact with reality. We organize and interpret this data according to cultural and personal constructs that condition how we define facts and evidence.It's handy to keep in mind that science is a human endeavor, and that whatever truth we derive from the exercise has to be assessed in a human context and not as "objective" truth.Edited by MrHambre, : Clarification and stuff.

I'm interested in how well we understand the process of lithification.For a moment let's leave aside how long it takes for fine sediments to fall out of suspension -- this will drive the time to deposit enough weight to get the desired results. So leaving deposition out of it, if I take a big glob of sediment in the lab, put it in a press and force the water out pronto, can I make sedimentary rock that quick?Thanks.JB

Well, sensu stricto, a man-made rock is not a rock. But disregarding that for the time being, I see no reason why one could not form a 'rock' in short order by compression and dewatering.The problem is that there are many sub-processes going into the single process of lithification. It is an ongoing process that starts with deposition and may continue for a billion years.One question is, when do you have a rock? Are layers of cohesive clays on a lake bottom a rock? Are lightly cemented sands near a hot spring a rock? Is the slightly welded ash of a volcanic eruption a rock? Are tufa mounds in a saline lake composed of rock?We know that older rocks tend to be harder. So, is that process of hardening part of lithification?So, it's all subjective, IMHO. What is the problem with rapid lithification? What is the problem with slow, progressive lithification?

Your answer is about what I imagined -- lithification being driven by the weight from above no matter the cause. Of course in most cases we know the cause was progressive deposition rather than catastrophic because it's not hard to tell the difference.Many of the questions I ask here are just that -- stupid YEC questions, but they are questions that I get asked by my YEC family and I like to have a cohesive answer ready.Appreciated.JB

Would someone be so kind as to remind this YEC of what exactly makes it eas6y to tell the strata were progressively deposited over long long periods of time? Is it the knife-edge straight tight contacts we see in so many places perhaps?And I suppose the weight of a few miles of sediment isn't really necessary for lithification; a few feet will do it over a million or so years or something like that?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

1: Jar.
2: Dirt.
3: Water.
4: Shake.
5: Wait.
6: Observe.
7: Repeat.You're welcome.JB

A video demonstration would be most helpful. Or just a series of pictures perhaps?

Well, knowing how old each stratum is is a big help. That wouldn't bring about compaction but I suppose recrystalization and/or cementation could happen in that time. It's a bit of a moot point, 'cos where's sediment going to sit for a few million years without either erosion to remove it or deposition to bury it deeper?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.