Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

Remember this wonderful diagram you posted here: Now consider that the upper-left to lower-right dimension may be (say) 1000 miles, while the vertical dimension might be (say) 1000 feet.You're getting substantial areas of sands, muds, and carbonates - But at any time, the depositional areas of each are considerably smaller. The sands at the lower-right were deposited much (maybe many millions of years) earlier than the sands of the uppper-left. Note the difference between the chronostratigraphic correlation and the lithostratigraphic correlation in the rock columns at the lower-left.Having a huge area of sandstone does not necessarily mean that you had a huge simultaneous area of sand deposition. On the other hand, you might have a huge area of sand that indeed was a huge simultaneous area of aeolian sand deposition, as discussed by roxrkool here.And remember, the above is a diagram that approximates reality. Beware of taking it too literally.Moose

Hi Moose,That's a good diagram to return to. What I was originally wondering when I replied to Edge was how a shale layer of great extent could result from transgressing/regressing seas. I was imagining that that would produce a shale layer pattern like this (showing just the shale layer): But Edge pointed out that shale deposits can occur hundreds of miles from shore so that not only do you get the pattern above, you also get a thick shale layer of great extent, as shown in this diagram with the tongues of shale and sandstone intertwined at the left margin of the Marcos Shale: Edited by Admin, : Make image larger.

Answering this "chicken or the egg" questions is virtually impossible to answer when it comes to creationist claims. So many of them spread like urban legends and get picked up by creationist writers and speakers, most of whom do not disclose their actual creationist sources but rather claim an original scientific source, one which they have themselves never even tried to find and read themselves (definitely what happened with the moon dust claim; see my MOON DUST page). The leap-second claim is the only exception I know of, since its origin was so recent and creationist sources were cited.For example, Batchelor is cited as claiming mis-dating of live seals and living molluscs. The very first creationist claim I ever heard was in 1970 and that was the mis-dating of living molluscs. It wasn't until the 1980's when I finally found a citation for the source, the reading of which refuted the claim. The second claim I ever heard was at the same time: a NASA computer found Joshua's "Lost Day" -- that one claimed to have been from around 1965, but it actually dates back to the 1880's. I was suspicious of the first claim and recognized the second one as completely bogus, so I rejected creationism on the spot, 45 years ago.

The interesting thing I'm encountering with my intended audience (family and friends at the moment), is that my credibility skyrockets with them every time I spend the time to research and debunk the lies. The more blatant the lie, the more they keep thinking "hmmm ... perhaps we've been bamboozled".Here was my latest, (though it's all stuff that you guys have seen forever so I'm not trying to claim originality)Hovind slide: (their guy Batchelor steals from Hovind a lot) I had to dig for the original article (and then reformat the totally screwed up txt formatting), but as I expected from the date of the article, there was not the word "radio" nor "carbon" in the entire article, let alone "radiocarbon". The article was published 3 months BEFORE Libby published his first results (curve of the knowns) and so of course it had to not be true.When I show them that Hovind and Batchelor just make shit up, it helps my case a LOT.JB

An issue you must address is that the audience has been trained to believe SOURCE over CONTENT. Things are true because ...God said
Paul said
Pastor said
father said
Brother saidChanging that process does not happen quickly or without pain.

YES!!Had this exact conversation with one of them just a few days ago. Scott (brother in law) is of course very worried at the impact I'm having on the family and he was saying "Well, the difference is that you believe 'your guy' and I believe mine". Of course I responded with "I don't believe ANY ONE GUY on matters of importance"It's hard for them to fathom that we don't make decisions the same way they do.Yes, slow and painfulJBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

So, in the continuing saga of tracking down my families favorite Evangelist's (Doug Batchelor) YEC sources, I've reached another dead end and hope you folk aren't tired of my requests for help. Batchelor quotes (or claims to quote) from the 1981 article "Radiocarbon: Ages in error" by Robert Lee in the Anthropological Journal of Canada.Here is the supposed quote (used by Hovind as well):

quote:

---

No matter how "useful" it is though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.

---

A few month ago (and for other but similar reasons), Coyote kindly sent me a copy of the Lee article so when I saw the quote I of course went straight to the source material. Turns out the quote exists in the article (sort of).Here is an image of the header from the article, placed directly over the quote in question followed by the relevant "References" section. So as you can see, there is an extra set of quotes in there that have been left out by Hovind and Batchelor. These quote denote the words of "Robert Stuckenrath" from 1977. His quote goes:

quote:

---

This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.

---

So of course I went looking for this quote from Stuckenrath. Low and behold (but as already know here likely), Stuckenrath was the Director of the radiocarbon lab for the Smithsonian and widely considered to be a proponent of high quality radiocarbon work. This makes me think that the context of that quote might somehow be much different than the context it is being used (surprise!).Once again here I am -- when I try to find the article (Radiocarbon: Some notes from Merlin's Diary), I'm at a dead end (or at paywall).Anyone have better searching skills than I do or have one laying around? So appreciated.JB

I found a paywalled copy, but you can read the first page hereHowever, even ignoring the suspicious lack of any substantive criticism in the quote, the fact that the article is nearly 40 years old makes it of very questionable relevance.Edited by PaulK, : fixed URL tag

I found a copy, but it's blurry as all get out: Radiocarbon: Some notes from Merlin's Diary. Here's my best take on it: After that I couldn't make anything out, but it doesn't look like your quote.--Percy

Yeah, I found that one as well but thanks for the efforts. That's a paywall that intentionally blurs everything but the first page. I'm some distance from a public library so I'll try that next and then I'll pay the money if I have to.Thanks again. JB

Ask and ye shall receive.It's obvious that the guy has a sense of humor, and it's also obvious that he's discussing the need for better 14C calibration, which was still in its infancy at that time, and he's not talking about the validity of the overall method.

quote:

---

A number of 14C laboratories have been working for nearly 20 years dating samples of known age in order to determine just how far 14C dates vary from the true calendar, due to those variations of the 14C inventory of the atmosphere. Several of these laboratories have published their work, and many users of radiocarbon have seized upon the data, the better to align their dates with TRUTH. Truth, indeed.

​

FIGURE 5 represents along the bottom line the ages of dendrochronologically dated samples. Along the left margin are indicated the number of years by which 14C dates on those samples deviate from the known age. The hash spread across the chart represents the spread of such deviations as measured by Arizona, LaJolla, and Pennsylvania, the three major laboratories in this game. The vertical scatter indicates the variations between laboratories , ... not too bad at the recent end, but unwieldy as we go back in time.

​

Remember, please, that this represents the measurements made by only these three laboratories. Not included here are those of Yale, the British Museum, Groningen, Copenhagen, Heidelberg, New Zealand, Uppsala, UCLA, the Smithsonian, and all the other laboratories who have had some experience with this problem. The trend is clearly visible, and on that all laboratories agree. But they have yet to reach agreement on the refinement of the discrepancies you see here. Until those laboratories that are actually performing the work can agree on discrete correction factors for discrete time periods, I suggest that it is presumptuous in the extreme for any radiocarbon user to select any single correction or user so omniscient as to determine which scheme, which laboratory, is correct.

​

Given time, these people will get the matter straightened out, and then it will be of some purpose to apply the agreed corrections. Until that time, however, your publication of your dates corrected by one scheme or another merely adds to the existent confusion. Eventually, those corrected dates will have to be uncorrected in order to be recorrected in order to be correct. We all know how impossible it is to remove from the literature anything that has once been published. You are likely to wind up with two sets of dates on the same samples, all different, appearing at different times in different journals, and all bearing your name. Rather you than me.

​

Our chairman, Meyer Rubin, has come up with a truly marvelous phrase in referring to this business as rubber band years. Agreed, the ruler is elastic in spots. But it is elastic to the same degree in the same spots no matter from where the sample comes, or from which laboratory. Your 5,000-year date is just as valid as anybody else’s, and just as invalid. They may all be off by 300 years, but there is absolutely nothing you can do about it now. As relative dates, they’re fine. So relax. After all, this whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.

---

If I had an email address for you I could send you the whole thing.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

The jagged edges of the shale environment in the schematic cross section can represent two things:-- transgression-regression
-- a transitional boundary too detailed to show on the diagramIn this case the major departures are certainly related to transgression and regression of the basin. In fact, you can see that one of the major transgressions resulted in the Fort Hayes Limestone out in the middle of the basin. But yes, the thicker shale systems are long-lived and more stable than, say, the cyclical transgressions that gave us the Carboniferous coal sequences on the east coast.

And that is both exactly what I was looking for AND the exact context I was expecting.Thanks a TON.PM sent with email address.JB

Hello again.I'm again up against paywalls for two old (1963-4) papers related to carbon dating mollusks.The two papers are both Keith and Anderson:"Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells"
and
"Radiocarbon Dating of Mollusk Shells: A Reply"If anyone has these and is willing to share it's appreciated. I'll try public library next otherwise.Thanks again
JB

Sorry, but I don't have easy access to these, either.If you want or need other references on mollusk shell dating, you might look at papers by Glenn Goodfriend. He's an interesting character who has specialized in the radiocarbon dating of terrestrial snail shells. Here's one of his papers: Radiocarbon