|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Big Bang -- some good evidence for it, but evidence is hard to come by that far back. Not sure if theory or hypothesis by science standards.
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."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
No, what Faith says is that there is no" erosion" within the geologic column that deserves to be compared with the massive erosion of the surface we now live on, ...
Faith, what evidence do you have for this? How would you know, by looking only at the surface, whether or not there is similar erosion in earlier strata which have been covered up? We can look at the earlier strata through 3-D seismic imaging. If we do this, we find similar evidence of erosion to what we see at the surface. For example, we can see buried river channels which were cut into these layers when they were exposed. How do you explain such buried river channels from a YEC perspective?"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
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 againJB 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"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
"Tree-ring dating and multiple ring growth per year' Aardsma. CRSQ 29, Spring. pages 184189.
Have you tried interlibrary loan for the actual journal? Lots of libraries should have it:Tried my local library online journal access. No luck. Any assistance appreciated.
Creation Research Society quarterly. (Journal, magazine, 1900s) [WorldCat.org] "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
JB writes:
According to Worldcat, Covenant College should have this journal. You could probably go in yourself and copy the article.
My small town library in Georgia only had access to this database and it didn't contain any of the CRS quarterlies:GALILEO Search I will next go up the Tennessee direction to a larger library and try your WorldCat suggestion. ThanksJB "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
Amazing. This guy references NIST for length standards, and claims that there are no such standards for radiocarbon. But the OX-1 standard is available directly from NIST!
NIST - SRM Order Request System
SRM
4990C - Oxalic Acid
(TAD, I would be tempted to make this error much more obvious in your rebuttal.) For anomalous dates from shells, I would be tempted to reference Aardsma's explanation of this while he was still at ICR. An explanation from another YEC might have more impact with your audience: Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating | The Institute for Creation Research Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : I'm adding comments as I read the series."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Coyote writes:
His refutation of recent radiocarbon dates for coal is also fairly decent, I'd say. That explanation for freshwater shells was about the only decent thing in the whole article.
Aardsma is about the closest thing that the YECs have to a radiocarbon expert. He got his PhD under Ted Litherland at U Toronto's IsoTrace lab. While his own thesis work was not on C-14 (I think it was on Al-26?), he was at a world-class AMS lab and gained a good understanding of C-14. Unfortunately, he and ICR parted ways, and he was not even consulted for their RATE project. He might have been able to temper their nonsensical claims had he been involved."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024