Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9101 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Upcoming Birthdays: AlexCaledin
Post Volume: Total: 904,087 Year: 968/14,231 Month: 968/1,514 Week: 1/234 Day: 1/36 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 486 of 1053 (752403)
03-11-2015 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 481 by ThinAirDesigns
03-10-2015 9:03 PM


Re: Science history book recommendations
Asimov covered that issue very well in The Relativity of Wrong (I think that's not it's original publication).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-10-2015 9:03 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 487 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-11-2015 10:00 AM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 632 of 1053 (758364)
05-24-2015 2:03 PM


I'm on a tablet so urns urls are tricky so Google:
Asa kbertsce coal

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 655 of 1053 (758545)
05-28-2015 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 653 by ThinAirDesigns
05-27-2015 10:40 PM


Re: Fossil Dating
To expand a tad on Coyote's answer:
An index fossil is easily recognized and occurs over a relatively small time period. They are used to correlate, not actually date, different places. If sedimentary layers A and B, widely separated, both contain index fossil X they are close to the same age. If igneous layer C above layer A is 5 Mya and igneous layer D below layer B is 5.2 Mya, that gives a range of dates in which A and B must lie.
This is the source of the common YEC canard "The rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks; that's circular reasoning."
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 653 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 05-27-2015 10:40 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 656 by edge, posted 05-28-2015 11:31 AM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 657 of 1053 (758578)
05-28-2015 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 654 by Coyote
05-27-2015 10:49 PM


Re: Fossil Dating
That area of Africa had a lot of volcanic activity, so there are ash and other volcanic layers all over the place.
That reminds me of the KBS Tuff, beloved of creationists because originally two very different dates were obtained, therefore radiometric dating doesn't work. Of course it's really a triumph of the scientific method; the differences were argued out in Nature (arguably he most prestigious scientific journal) rather than being buried (as YECs claim discordant dates are treated). Only when the reason for the discordant dates was well understood,and multiple labs had replicated the final analysis using both Ar-AR and fission tracks, was the question settled.
Anyhoo, all the original samples were used up in the first measurements and the first attempt at replication in a different lab, so we'll never know exactly what went wrong initially. The original investigators' theory, published in the late 80's, is that the field workers, not trained geologists who collected the samples somewhat removed from the place where it overlays hominid fossils, got the wrong tuff because there are so many around there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 654 by Coyote, posted 05-27-2015 10:49 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 658 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-28-2015 9:04 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 665 of 1053 (758656)
05-30-2015 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 660 by ThinAirDesigns
05-29-2015 6:16 PM


Re: Looking for Libby paper

This message is a reply to:
 Message 660 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 05-29-2015 6:16 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 666 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 05-30-2015 8:54 AM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 673 of 1053 (758745)
06-01-2015 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 670 by kbertsche
05-31-2015 9:19 PM


Re: Looking for Libby paper
I think Aarsdma isn't a less-than-10,000 years YEC, but he is an honest and knowledgeable source.
Many of his ICR articles went against the party line. I don't know anything about his separation from ICR but I wonder...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 670 by kbertsche, posted 05-31-2015 9:19 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 694 of 1053 (758809)
06-03-2015 7:28 AM


FWIW the MIT libraries will send you a PDF of any paper they have (not OCR'd, just pictures of the paper) for $20.
Document Services

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 723 of 1053 (760650)
06-24-2015 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 721 by edge
06-20-2015 6:35 PM


Re: progressive deposition?
Is it the knife-edge straight tight contacts we see in so many places perhaps?
No, that just indicate a sudden change of depositional environments.
Sudden relative to the time scale of the depositional process. Often not sudden on human time scales.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 721 by edge, posted 06-20-2015 6:35 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 725 by Faith, posted 06-24-2015 12:02 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 727 of 1053 (760662)
06-24-2015 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 724 by Faith
06-24-2015 11:52 AM


Re: Maps
ONLY AFTER THE WHOLE STACK WAS IN PLACE, from Precambrian to quaternary, do we then see EROSION of the stack
Except for the many places we see erosion inside the stack, despite your many unevidenced assertions to the contrary..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 724 by Faith, posted 06-24-2015 11:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 728 by Faith, posted 06-24-2015 2:47 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 744 of 1053 (760694)
06-24-2015 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 730 by Faith
06-24-2015 3:04 PM


Re: Maps
Funny, I just demonstrated that you are wrong.
Here's another demonstration in case you missed it:
Neither is a demonstration. You still haven't figured out that your unsupported opinions are not evidence.
How 'bout you explain exactly what known facts or referenced material makes that map a demonstration of your claim?
Never happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 730 by Faith, posted 06-24-2015 3:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 750 by Faith, posted 06-24-2015 9:23 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(4)
Message 745 of 1053 (760697)
06-24-2015 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 743 by 46&2
06-24-2015 4:06 PM


Re: Maps
Layers can't be deposited by water, even receding water, AND be sub-aerial at the same time
Faith's water is magic water. It did whatever she wants it to do at the moment. Even if it contradicts something she said in the preceding message.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 743 by 46&2, posted 06-24-2015 4:06 PM 46&2 has not replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 853 of 1053 (761058)
06-27-2015 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 849 by Faith
06-27-2015 2:31 PM


Re: Ah yes, Rationalization is a Wonderful Scientific Tool
They were looking in the wrong place.
Yeah, they looked at reality instead of their own fantasy worlds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 849 by Faith, posted 06-27-2015 2:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 860 of 1053 (761069)
06-27-2015 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 854 by Faith
06-27-2015 2:38 PM


Re: Ah yes, Rationalization is a Wonderful Scientific Tool
They were looking for the evidence in particular layers, not in the entire geological column. Some people still have that wrong idea.
They were looking at everything they could find, which was a lot. You don't need to see much of the geologic record to see there was no global flood and the Earth and life are old.
Of course we've seen much more now, and all that we have found reinforces their conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 854 by Faith, posted 06-27-2015 2:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 881 of 1053 (761194)
06-29-2015 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 877 by ThinAirDesigns
06-29-2015 12:23 PM


Re: Looking for Stukenrath Paper
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 877 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 06-29-2015 12:23 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 883 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 06-29-2015 1:57 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(4)
Message 908 of 1053 (768452)
09-11-2015 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 907 by ThinAirDesigns
09-11-2015 9:03 PM


Re: Igneous rock over sedimentary layers
KBS Tuff is a good example. Human ancestry is involved. Creationists say bad stuff about it (Bones of Contention). In reality it's a triumph of modern science. Two methods, one well established (pig fossils) and the other fairly new at the time (the Ar-Ar radiometric method) disagreed by a *lot*, and Richard Leakey liked the older radiometric date. Because a hominid skull was found beneath it.
It was all hashed out extremely publicly in Nature, arguably the most prestigious journal, for some time. Turned out the pigs were right. But first the scientists had to understand what caused the conflict. They only accepted the revised radiometric date after they figured out what caused the error (washed-in and older sediment), established a procedure for separating the constituents, and dated the tuffacious component agreeing with the pigs by multiple methods (Ar-Ar, then better developed, and fission tracks) inin multiple labs.
Conflicting results were published in Nature, not hidden as YECs would have us believe. Radiometric dates were seriously questioned. Dogma didn't win; evidence, careful testing in any way anyone could think of, and replication won.
I'm on a tablet so links aren't handy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 907 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 09-11-2015 9:03 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023