Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

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

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

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

Thanks for that link Kbertsche.I'm going to still hunt down those other papers, not because I'll learn much (those papers are as old as I am and I'm sure state of the art has moved on), but because I'm just wanting a total library of all these papers that Batchelor refers to (but doesn't show).JB

In case you want to see where all your shared knowledge has gone, my friends kept encouraging me to put my anti-Batchelor rants in a blog format so they could share them.Thanks all for the assistance.JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

A new installment in my "curriculum" is up on the blog.As this material is almost all the direct result of my participation on this forum and the continued generosity of it's participants, I am hoping to share the results of everyone's effort here in this manner. If this is some violation of protocol, please tell me now and I will happily figure out how to share my work here in a manner that is within the rules.ThanksABE: I have zero financial incentive in said effort or blog. No advertising etc.JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

I'm working on an installment explaining the geologic column.Now I understand that it would actually be physically impossible for the entire geologic column to exist everywhere under our feet - materials are being moved around in front of our eyes daily. But just so I can say for sure whether it does or does not exist *anywhere* (typical creationist claim that is does not), I have been investigating. Not sure why this claim matters so much to them, but whatever.Can anyone vouch for the information in this TalkOrigins page, or suggest another source.Thanks.JB

Ok, that' how I understand it as well. Thanks.As I show below with three pictures, I think of the geologic column as a human construct just as a color chart is a human construct.You will find places on earth where there are fewer colors represented in real life (like the desert) and areas where there are more colors of the chart represented (the tropics). How many we find in different areas or whether we can get all of them represented in one camera shot or not does nothing to diminish the organisational value of the chart. Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Thanks for that link. I will use it.JB

Excellent imagery Edge. I'll use that if you don't mind.JB

Does anyone have link to good articles or input on the 1992 dating of the St. Helens lava dome?Talk Origins has sent me to this link: Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient MineralsI'm trying to learn as much as I can on this specific topic as it is being rolled out as proof of radiometric dating unreliability.Thanks
JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Another question for the geology inclined:Considering that sedimentary layers are usually dated by igneous rocks bracketing them, are there areas where it's easy to show igneous rocks overlaying sedimentary layers? Does someone have an easy example of an area for this?Thanks
JBEDIT: Found the San Francisco lava field in Arizona as a great example that can even be seen from space. Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Thanks for those replies JonFI'll do some research on those example.As I added via edit to my original question, I found the San Francisco lava fields in Arizona as an example as well. Visible from space even. Thanks again
JB

So cool the stuff I learn here just watching the back and forth.Thanks
JB