Science, AntiScience and Geology View RSS

Rick Scott's Bizarre View of Higher Education 28 Apr 2012 3:25 PM (12 years ago)

Earth Magazine Article July 2011 8 Jun 2011 3:31 PM (13 years ago)

Steve Newton of the National Center for Science Education has a very nice piece coming out in next month's issue of Earth. The article is entitled "Creationism Creeps into Conferences: Are creationists taking geologists for a ride?". The article discusses events that took place during the 2010 meeting of the Geological Society of America national meeting in Denver. The article focuses on a field trip led by young earth creationist 'scholars' to Garden of the Gods. It is even handed and compliments the leaders on a nice field trip (even if their thinly disguised motives are clear). It also mentions at the end, and exchange between myself and creationist Marcus Ross.

I don't know if Geological conferences are the only place these things happen, but creationists have been welcome at both AGU and GSA (our biggest conferences) for years and as far as I know there is no movement to limit their participation. I think that's a good thing since they could claim censorship (ala the now bankrupt "expelled"). I do think that when they choose to participate, they should also realize that they will be challenged if they speak from two sides of the coin. Marcus Ross can't make a living out of claiming that he has scientific evidence for a 6000 year old earth and then claim he also has good evidence for a millions of years old ammonite!

Anyway, it's a good read and the magazine does a nice job.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Senator Wise Evolution Bill 11 Mar 2011 6:37 AM (14 years ago)

Senator Wise singles out evolution for critical analysis, but the real question is what is he really aiming for? The Sunshine State Standards ALREADY MANDATE that all science is critically evaluated and that includes evolution. Consider the standards as written:

Standard 1: The Practice of Science ...C: Scientific argumentation is a necessary part of scientific inquiry and plays an important role in the generation and validation of scientific knowledge.
Benchmark: SC.912.N.1.3 Recognize that the strength or usefulness of a scientific claim is evaluated through scientific argumentation, which depends on critical and logical thinking, and the active consideration of alternative scientific explanations to explain the data presented.

Standard 15: Diversity and Evolution of Living Organisms A. The scientific theory of evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology. B. The scientific theory of evolution is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence.
Benchmark: SC.912.L.15.1Explain how the scientific theory of evolution is supported by the fossil record, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, biogeography, molecular biology, and observed evolutionary change.

In Florida... Teachers get ready to take one up the butt 10 Mar 2011 2:50 PM (14 years ago)

So not only is the conservative house and senate now intent on all kinds of silly changes to the teaching standards, they also are now going to assure that potential teachers steer well clear of the state. The legislature is fast-tracking a bill that will (a) tie teacher's salaries to standardized tests and (b) eliminate tenure in favor of yearly contracts. The arguments made by the republicans are that by rewarding good teachers, more of the good teachers will want to come to Florida and teach. Sounds good in a perfect world, but Florida is not a perfect world and teaching is not a perfect profession. So let's look how this might actually affect teachers in the state. Consider:

(1) Teachers in Florida:Average salary is about $43,000 . The national average is somewhat higher, but as usual it's tough to compare state to state as cost of living factors in. The site linked above puts Florida about mid-way in terms of comfort level with that average salary. Someone has to be in the middle, so why not Florida, right?

(2) So given that Florida is right in the middle in terms of salary and comfort level, what's going to attract better teachers? The legislature seems to think that teachers are going to flock to Florida for a guaranteed one year (ok 9 month) salary with the hope that they can teach to the test enough that they will get a second one year contract and a raise. Pay for performance, sounds normal? I think that there are only a handful of teachers who feel that performance should not be tied to salary, but there is a strange dynamic in public schools. Performance on standardized tests are tied not only to how well the teacher can prep the students on the tricks of ST, but also depends on the family environment and the resources available to the teacher. So let's say a really strong teacher comes into a low performing district and raises the average performance of his/her group by 50%; however that 50% increase only brings the class average to the 10th percentile in comparison to the rest of the state? Is the teacher non-renewed because of failure to meet test standards? In Florida, that's what would happen.

(3) It can easily be argued that most jobs involve a trial period and job security is tied directly to the individual's performance. Perfectly understandable. Suppose you are hired to a new management position and your job and raise depends on your ability to raise production by 50%. As manager you can fire the underperforming worker. You can request additional resources that may be required to raise productivity. Management is unlikely to tell you that you must raise productivity without also giving you the free rein to alter how things are done. A teacher cannot expel students for not being up to par on the test. They cannot expect to receive additional resources to raise performance levels. They must deal with what they have and do the best they can.

(4) In short people in the private sector do have some form of job security. It's not perfect and it is possible that a top-performing worker could lose their job for economic reasons. Believe it or not, that is also true for the tenured teacher. A tenured teacher can also be dismissed for other reasons. Post-tenure reviews are a good idea and most support this notion, but it's unlikely that a state can expect people to flock to their teaching ranks for 9 months of security with their hands tied.

I am also of the opinion that standardized testing measures nothing more than the ability of a student to learn the tricks of the standardized test. In college, students cringe at tests that require more thought than multiple choice. Teaching to the test doesn't create an environment conducive to producing the best and the brightest. So I don't have all the answers and certainly the Florida legislature thinks this is something that's needed in our state. Time will tell, but I'm betting that this results in more problems than it allegedly plans to solve.

Joe Meert

Senator Stephen Wise (Florida) Bigoted Bill 8 Mar 2011 4:34 AM (14 years ago)

Senator Stephen Wise (Florida State Senator) has introduced a bigoted and prejudicial bill into consideration. Specifically SB1854 makes a mockery of this country's rich and diverse history. Consider that the bill requires the following:

(1)The history of African Americans, including the history of African peoples before the political conflicts that led to the development of slavery, the passage to America, the enslavement experience, abolition, and the contributions of African Americans to society.

(2)The study of women’s contributions to the United States.

(3)The study of Hispanic contributions to the United States.

All of these are admirable goals and extremely worthy of inclusion, but one wonders exactly what sort of prejudice Senator Wise holds against the Native American population and their contributions to the United States. This, in a state that contains a rich history of Native American culture and life. One wonders why Wise does not care to mandate a discussion of the contributions of Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans and Asian-Americans? This bill fails to acknowledge the contributions of different religious groups to the US from the Quakers, the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims! Senator Wise needs to stand up and admit that he is bigoted and narrow-minded in mandating that ONLY the contributions of African-Americans, women and hispanics should be taught in our schools. The very fact that he disregards the contributions of so many others that make this country great makes this proposal laughable in its extreme. Consider that SB1854 also mandates:

Kindness to animals

Wise apparently thinks that being kind to animals is far more important than acknowledging the contributions of those stated above. Senator Wise, why do you ignore the contributions of so many Americans? You claim to follow Christ, but I ask you WWJD? Yes, he would be kind to animals, but not at the expense of disregarding the contribution of ALL Americans to our great society. He would not ignore the Native Americans in such a callous manner. But Wise's bigotry and hatred doesn't end there. Wise also singles out evolutionary biology for criticism under point #1 of this rambling legislation:

(1) A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution.

Why can't teachers present critical analyses of other sciences? Why has Wise chosen evolutionary biology for thorough analysis? Why not the scientific theory of gravity? Under this legislation, will I have the duty to present a critical analysis of quantum gravity? String theory? Or am I stuck teaching Newtonian gravity? Why does the bill not mandate that our students learn a thorough understanding of plate tectonic theory? In an era where petroleum is once again over $100 a barrel, it seems imperative that our students understand basic geology. Why doesn't Wise mandate that students learn to critically analyze "Plates versus Plumes"? This bill is bigoted towards science as well mandating that only one scientific theory be analyzed critically. Should we teach the controversy about 'historical Jesus' as well? If we are going to mandate the criticisms of one theory, shouldn't we mandate the criticism of all ideas (historical, scientific and philosophical)?

C'mon Senator Wise, step up to the plate and teach all the controversies or teach none of them. Stop the bigotry towards scientific education.

Senator Wise I notice that the bill mandates:

The true effects of all alcoholic and intoxicating liquors and beverages and narcotics upon the human body and mind.

That would include the health benefits of red wine, the uses of medical marijuana for pain as well as the many other benefits of alcohol on the human body. Surely that was your intent?

Senator Wise also mandates a thorough teaching of the holocaust which again is an admirable goal, but shouldn't we also teach of the great human carnage brought about by Pol-pot? The massacres during the Crusades? Genocide in Africa (Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda, Somalia) and all the other horrible genocide in human history? Should we not also teach the role of religious bigotry in those events? C'mon Senator Wise don't ignore all the other horrific tragedies.

Senator Wise, show you are not a bigoted anti-Christian man. Step up to the plate and either withdraw this bigoted piece of legislation or make it so that all contributions by all people that make up our great country are acknowledged. Don't single out one scientific theory and ignore the controversial aspects of all the others. Don't ignore all the other genocidal events in Human history. Make this a fair piece of legislation or remove it from consideration.

Cheers

Joe Meert

As Predicted Academic Freedom Bill comes to Florida 7 Mar 2011 2:31 PM (14 years ago)

Shortly after the elections last fall, I looked over the different Florida house and senate races and saw the 'perfect storm' for the so-called Academic Freedom bill to be reintroduced. Sure enough SB1854 was introduced by Stephen Wise (also in the prediction). Stay tuned to see how this plays out. It doesn't look good for the pro-science education groups in Florida as the conservatives control both the house and senate by a wide margin and Rick Scott is sympathetic to creationism.

What's particularly interesting is that the anti-evolution legislation is tucked into a bill that is basically a rant of conservative 'principles'. This reminds me of the scene in American graffiti where the underage Toad goes into the store to buy liquor. He asks for everything under the sun and then slips in 'a bottle of old harper' with the hope that the guy will just fill the list because it all sounded so harmless.

Cheers

Joe Meert

National Geographic Channel 4 Mar 2011 4:51 PM (14 years ago)

Is showing the premiere of its new CGI animated Story of the Earth program. I had the good fortune of being one of the scientific consultants for this film and am anxiously awaiting the premiere.

Terry Jones can't get enough 8 Jan 2011 3:05 PM (14 years ago)

Decay Rates are not Constant? 29 Dec 2010 6:12 AM (14 years ago)

Ok, now that I have the attention of the young earth creationists, I can report on a just published study in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters (Nebel et al., 2011 "Evaluation of the ⁸⁷Rb decay constant by age comparison against the U–Pb system, v301, p.1-8).
The paper is significant because it proposes the first revision since 1977 for the decay constant of ⁸⁷Rb. Steiger and Jager (1977) calculated a decay constant of 1.42 x 10^-11 yr^-1. Nebel and colleagues used analyses on the same rock samples to recalibrate the ⁸⁷Rb decay constant by comparison with the U-Pb system. The 'new' decay constant is 1.393 x 10^-11 yr^-1. That may not seem like a significant revision, but it means that age determinations using the 'old' constant are off by about 2%. Sorry creationists, but the new constant makes things about 2% OLDER so definitely not a find in your favor. Perhaps more interestingly, it appears to be moving back toward the 'old' standard of 1.39 x 10^-11 yr^-1. We'll have to wait and see if the new 'constant' holds up to further analysis, but certainly in the examples given by the authors it brings the U-Pb and Rb-Sr ages into better agreement.

Oh and just in case you take refinement of this numerical value to signify that decay rates are not constant, that is not what the paper is about. It's about refining the exact value of the decay constant which is subject to both analytical and experimental error. Nevertheless, this isn't going to result in the Earth becoming 6000 years old.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Ediacara 23 Dec 2010 3:43 AM (14 years ago)

Discovery by UF geologist rekindles debate on origins of multi-cellular life

Florida Academic "Freedom" Coming Soon? 14 Nov 2010 11:38 AM (14 years ago)

So today I was preparing for my talk tomorrow to the Gainesville Humanist Society.  I am reviewing creationist legislation in Florida and how the Florida Citizens for Science has been fighting against creationism.  In 2008 (and several other sessions in the 21st century), "Academic Freedom" Legislation has been introduced in the Florida House, Senate (or both).  The most recent attempt was co-sponsored by Senator Ronda Storms and Representative Alan Hays.  The bill passed both the house and senate, but there was significant difference in the language of the bill.  Eventually, time ran out and the two houses could not agree on a common language and the bill died.  Now, Hays and Storms will both be in the Senate (Hays was elected this fall) and they will have Stephen Wise who will strongly endorse a new bill.  They will have at least one ally in the house Rep. Dennis Baxley who introduced a similar bill in 2005.  Considering that the governor elect, Rick Scott is also friendly to the intelligent design crowd, it may be the perfect storm for passing this sort of legislation in the state of Florida.

Humanist Society of Gainesville 12 Nov 2010 5:15 PM (14 years ago)

I'll be giving a talk Monday night at the Alachua County Library (downtown branch) to the Humanist Society of Gainesville.  The tenative title of my talk is "The Florida Citizens for Science and the Struggle against Creationism!".   I will give a historical perspective on the battle between science and YEC'ism with particular attention to the state of Florida.   Given the results of the recent elections (conservative house, senate and governership), it is highly likely that anti-evolution bills will be proposed in the Florida legislature.  The talk is at 6:30 pm on the 4th floor of the library.


Cheers


Joe Meert

Southern Baptist Pastor turns atheist. 9 Nov 2010 6:20 AM (14 years ago)

From ABCNews about a pastor who has lost his faith.  It's interesting that someone so entrenched in faith can eventually read widely enough to challenge their long-held beliefs.  I link to this article because it speaks of Noah's flood and given the Southern Baptist background he more than likely was an anti-evolutionist. 

Cheers

Joe Meert

Marcus Ross Two Faced Again 4 Nov 2010 10:29 AM (14 years ago)

Creationist Marcus Ross was at it again during the 2010 Geological Society of America Meeting. He, along with creationists Steve Austin, William Hoesch, John Whitmore and Timothy Clarey led a field trip called "Garden of the Gods at Colorado Springs: Paleozoic and Mesozoic Sedimentation and Tectonics". One of the students from the University of Florida attended the field trip and I am hoping to entice him into a guest blog entry. My blog is going to focus on Marcus Ross' contribution to a session on Cretaceous ammonites.

The abstract listings can be found by following this link. Ross' abstract is the last one on the list. The abstract itself is rather innocuous and does not refer to a young earth or a global flood. Nevertheless, I wanted to see exactly what Ross was going to say. To be honest, Ross gave a very nice talk, sprinkled with humor and good slides. He was prepared and the presentation was of a professional quality. So what happened?

Basically Ross was using ammonites as a correlation tool to put his mosasaur fossils in a stronger temporal framework. The abstract itself contains little details of the methodology, but suffice it to say that Ross used the geological time scale (millions of years), showed images of dentition changes in mosasaur fossils (but did not mention evolution), hiatuses in the stratigraphic record and then used these all to demonstrate that ammonites could be a useful proxy for placing mosasaur fossils in a proper stratigraphic framework.

I was sitting in the audience thinking, "OK, this is pretty decent work but it sure as hell doesn't harmonize with his stated position on the age of the earth and the occurrence of a global flood!". First of all, a global flood would have rendered such a statistical method useless as there is no reason that ammonites should be zoned in a global flood and furthermore there would be no correlation between ammonite zones and the changes in mosasaur populations through millions of years of geologic time. Furthermore, there would be no way to make this work in a column of rocks that include erosional hiatuses that took place over millions of years.

After his talk, I asked the following question; "How do you harmonize this work with your belief in a 6000 year old earth on which a year long global flood took place?". He was immediately flustered and then a bit tersely replied "My talk had nothing to do with a global flood or a 6000 year old earth so your question is irrelevant". I then pointed out the fact that indeed his talk was completely counter to his public statements/creationist position because he showed correlation between strata/fossils, millions of year ages, evolution of mosasaurs and hiatuses in the rock record. He then replied (and I am paraphrasing to the best of my recollection) "Ok, for everyone in the audience who doesn't know it, yes I am a young earth creationist who believes the Earth is 6000 years old and a global flood took place. However, I am not speaking as a young earth creationist here. When I speak at young earth creationist meetings I use a different framework than when I speak at the Geological Society of America meeting." Several jaws dropped at that point, but someone in the audience felt sorry for Marcus and invited him to look at his collection etc. It would be nice if Marcus could eventually see that what he just described in his talk actually argued against a young earth, but it won't happen.

Students came up to me afterward and one wondered why I was so harsh with Ross. It's a good question and I have an answer. Creationists like Marcus Ross, Steve Austin etc don't necessarily care about how they are viewed at these conferences, but they attend and present so that they can go out to their creationist brethren and flash credentials. It's not so much what they say or do, but that their followers think that they are actually making an impact in the world of science. If you don't believe me, take a look at this post from the ICR describing last years meeting. The article claims that they were 'influential' at the meeting and thus makes it appear that they are making inroads in moving geology back to the 18th century. In fact, all Ross did was to show that he is schizophrenic when it comes to science. I don't yet comprehend how he compartmentalizes these two opposing viewpoints and claims to be 'honest' about his approach to both. The simple fact is that one cannot hold that the earth is both 4.5 billion years old AND only 6000 years old. It's akin to saying that 3=69. One is reminded of the biblical quote

""No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth. "

There is another point to be made. Marcus Ross, Steve Austin and many others are also trying to overthrow science education in this country in favor of a new system under perhaps a conservative Christian theocracy. This is the reason I am so harsh when I see such blatant hypocrisy. For Austin, Ross and others of their ilk, the Ph.D. and the presentations at meetings like GSA are all about trying to enhance their image amongst their followers. If they can appear to be real scientists, then those who don't know any better might believe that young earth creationism is also good science. They might then be persuaded to act at the local, state and national level to have creationism instituted in the public schools.

Marcus Ross is just one of many two-faced creationists and I'm going to call them out on this hypocrisy any chance I get.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Ernie Harwell Dies 5 May 2010 4:31 PM (14 years ago)

"The Sun is shinin, the stands are fillin and it's a fine afternoon for baseball....."

Longtime Detroit Tigers baseball announcer Ernie Harwell died yesterday at the age of 92. I grew up in Michigan listening to Ernie and the Tigers. Ernie had an inimitable style of describing the action and was loved by all Tiger fans. Ernie, along with UM football announcer Bob Ufer always bring back fond memories of my childhood. You will be missed Ernie.

Some Nice News 4 May 2010 4:25 PM (14 years ago)

Today I received word that I had been elected as a Fellow of the Geological Society of America. It's not a huge deal, but it's nice to be recognized as a contributor to my field of science.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Health Care debate and Creationism: Short rant 20 Mar 2010 4:44 PM (15 years ago)

One of the more interesting aspects regarding the health care debate is how arguments (on either side) are being framed. By and large every senator or congressman comes up with an anecdotal story about how the bill will positively/negatively affect a particular individual. It reminds me of creationists arguments which largely build upon a perceived strength/weakness of the science involved. While individual stories are compelling, they don't speak to the true strength or weakness of the bill itself. It's frustrating.

Cheers

Joe Meert

John Upchurch Answers in Genesis 17 Mar 2010 5:10 PM (15 years ago)

An interesting, and oft repeated viewpoint on atheists was posted on the Answers in Genesis website by John Upchurch.

His thesis is summarized below with my comments:

I stand by my claim that atheists are inconsistent when it comes to compassion.

>Naturalism strips life and death of moral value. Humans may ascribe moral value to other humans (or animals or inanimate objects), but according to the evolution story, we are here because of time and death.

When looking back to the supposed history of the universe, atheists have no problem claiming that asteroids and famines and earthquakes killed off individuals and entire species so that other species could emerge and dominate the earth (including us), but many also act as if current extinctions and deaths are more important, more valuable.

Fossil Neanderthals (i.e., bones of the dead) are often “evolutionary dead-ends,” but modern graveyards are sad reminders of loss.

This double speak exposes an underlying flaw in the philosophy.

Whether there’s an evolutionary “reason” for compassion, the core problem remains unchanged.

If atheism is correct, then death is meaningless

: humans have simply evolved a coping mechanism to deal with or temporarily prevent loss.

But that mechanism goes against the flow of a purposeless history

Death, according to evolution, frees other members of the species (or another species) to flourish.

In that worldview, humans have no more worth than dodos or dinosaurs or any other extinct species. We survive for now—they don’t. Whether we live or die out from here is immaterial.

On Climate and Dinosaurs 5 Mar 2010 3:20 AM (15 years ago)

Two interesting stories came out yesterday and today. The first was a major paper that reiterated that it was the impact of an asteroid near the Yucatan peninsula that killed the dinosaurs. The headlines made it seem that no one challenges this view anymore, but that's a bit deceptive. This was a collective summary conclusion by those who favor the impact hypothesis. There are those who still question the timing of the impact and its overall role in the demise of the dinosaurs. There are those who still think that the Deccan traps volcanism was responsible and those who think that the dinosaurs were in decline and that both the impact and the eruptions at Deccan were just nails in an already open coffin. Stay tuned, it's unlikely that this is settled.

On a second note, the story linked here speaks of climate scientists fighting back against all the criticism they've received of late. Good for them, but I hope they can stick to the science while playing politics. This is something that needs to happen, but it's also a dangerous road. If nothing else maybe they can explain the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'. If I hear one more radio talk show host talk confuse the two, I think I'll puke.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Hmm, Florida Science Education takes a step backward 2 Mar 2010 3:46 PM (15 years ago)

From Bridge for Tomorrow:

Florida House GOP Proposal Would Leave High School Science Behind

Florida House Republican and Speaker hopeful Eric Fresen has filed a bill for next spring’s legislative session that is being touted as a way to raise standards for high school graduation. But in science, Fresen’s bill would leave Florida behind Georgia, Alabama and even Mississippi.

House Bill 61 would require three science courses for graduation, as the law presently does. In one respect, the bill’s provisions on science are an improvement over a bill on graduation standards that Representative Fresen filed last year. Last year’s bill would have allowed a student to graduate from high school without having taken any courses in the physical or Earth sciences, leaving them without any background with which to understand the pressing issues of energy and global climate change. This year’s bill would require students entering high school in 2013 or later to take at least one biology class and at least one class in chemistry or physics. Unfortunately, Earth science is not mentioned in Representative Fresen’s bill.

While HB 61 would set the bar for high school graduation in science at three courses, our neighboring states – Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi – are already requiring four courses in science for graduation. In a recent commentary published in the St. Petersburg Times education blog Gradebook, Republican Representative John Legg, Chairman of the K-12 Education Policy Committee in the Florida House, said that “Our long term economic recovery is dependent on our students’ educational success.” This assertion, which is beyond debate, certainly requires us to be able to compete with our neighbors in the area of science education.

Florida’s standing in science relative to its neighboring states was demonstrated in the recently released results for 2009 high school graduates from the ACT exam, which includes a separate science section (as recently highlighted by Leslie Postal in the Orlando Sentinel’s School Zone blog). While not all of Florida’s high school graduates took the exam, 62% of them did, earning an average score on the science section of the exam of 19.0 (of a possible 36). In Alabama, a larger fraction of the high school graduates took the exam (76%), but as a group they outperformed Florida with an average score of 20.1. In Mississippi, nearly all the high school graduates took the exam (93% vs. Florida’s 62%); nevertheless, that state’s students nearly kept up with Florida with an average score of 18.7. At 20.3, Georgia’s average was the highest in the region, but only 40% of their graduates took the exam. In short, Florida’s high school graduates are not competing well with graduates from our neighboring states in science.

This summer, a group of 90 science faculty from Florida’s colleges and universities drafted a white paper on high school graduation requirements in science. While the professors did not go so far as to propose that four science courses be required for graduation, the group did argue that four science courses should be required for a student to be eligible for a Bright Futures scholarship. Furthermore, the white paper specified that in order to graduate, every student should take at least one biology course, one physical science course (chemistry or physics) and one course in the Earth and space sciences.

Florida competes with Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi for high tech industries, and the scientific skill of our workforce as developed in the K-12 schools is a critical factor in these competitions. We cannot afford to fall further behind.

Scientists Predict Chilean earthquake 2 Mar 2010 9:51 AM (15 years ago)

Well actually in a broad sense this was predicted in a paper by Ruegg et al. (2009) in Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors (v175, p 78-85).

The Concepción–Constitución area [35–37◦S] in South Central Chile is very likely a mature seismic gap,
since no large subduction earthquake has occurred there since 1835.

Finally a convergence motion of about 68mm/year represents more than 10mof displacement accumulated since the last big interplate subduction event in this area over 170 years ago (1835 earthquake described by Darwin).
Therefore, in a worst case scenario, the area already has a potential for an earthquake of magnitude as large as 8–8.5, should it happen in the near future

Biology Professor arrested? 12 Feb 2010 3:33 PM (15 years ago)

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/02/biology_professor_accused_in_u.html

And how long before evolution is to blame? I bet within 24 hours


POST-BLOG


far too easy for me.

Jesus the Pooh 9 Feb 2010 2:23 PM (15 years ago)

So I was reading this book called "The Holy Bible" the other day and was fascinated to read the story of Jesus of Pooh. In reading the gospel according to Matt, I learned that Jesus' mother "Maury" was impregnated by a martian who came down in a spaceship and told her that she would be the mother of God. Fascinating. It turns out that Maury and her husband "Joe" were on their way to a Nazareth concert one December long ago and could find no room in any of the hotels. It's unclear why the hotels were all booked, but Matt speculates it was due to either it being so close to Christmas or simply a lot of Nazareth fans. Anyway, that part was not real clear to me.

Joe, the father of Jesus did not seem all too ticked off that a martian was the father of his child. Joe, was a talented garbage man at the time and assumed that whatever god wanted was good enough for him. So jesus was born in a converted garage of some friends they had and a whole bunch of people found out and brought gifts including goalposts, Frankenstein dolls and myrrh (whatever that is). Jesus grew up and apparently was very confrontational. At 13 he argued with a bunch of old men with beards and told them they were going to hell. The old men said "Christ you're not bringing that crap up again" and that is how jesus earned the nickname "christ". Apparently people began to hate Jesus because he kept taking all the good fishermen away and making them work for him (for free). At one point they were about to lynch Jesus but the guys learned to bake bread and caught a whole crapload of fish so that kept everyone happy for a while.

In the end though people didn't like Jesus the Pooh and he was stabbed outside a deli. He didn't die (even though everyone thought he did) and was having lots of fun spooking people by suddenly appearing at dinner parties and saying "Boo!". Then one day he just up and disappeared and no one has seen him since. He has attracted a large following of 'Christ'ians to this very day.

-----------
Cheers

Joe Meert

PS: I wrote the above for one reason only. Often I am approached by young earth creationists and asked to 'well explain this problem with science I've found?'. When I read the 'problem' it becomes apparent that they've completely mangled the real science such that they are asking me to defend/refute a straw man. My answer is to ask them to defend why they believe in the story of Jesus the Pooh as told in the bible (above). If truth be told, my parody of the story of Jesus is at times far more true to the bible then some of their depictions of science.

Continuing on the Austin Chalk 9 Feb 2010 4:28 AM (15 years ago)

So, the challenge for me by my creationist friend was to explain the Austin chalk because he apparently believes its existence is supportive of a global flood. I don't know where he got the idea that massive Cretaceous chalk deposits were evidence for a global flood because they are typically held forth as evidence AGAINST the global flood. Nevertheless.....

As I noted yesterday, creationist Steve Austin places the Cretaceous chalk deposits in the latter part of the year-long flood. Austin creates a scenario through which the photic zone in the turbulent, volcanic-laden, rain-soaked oceans manages to be 5 times thicker than in normal oceanic water and argues that such turbulent conditions favor blooms.

As fantastic as that sounds, I was more intrigued to learn that Austin actually placed these deposits within the 'latter stages of the flood'. This is important because I've long taken creationists to task for not being able to specify what rocks are pre, syn and post flood. So, at least we know that the Cretaceous chalk deposits are late 'syn-flood'. While that does not tell us specifically where all the rest of the geologic column was formed during the flood, it does allow us to make a few conjectures. So here goes:

(1) In creationist geology, the flood must be THE defining event in the rock record. There is no other mechanism by which to form the vast thicknesses of sedimentary rock on the globe absent the flood.

Based on (1) and the conclusions of Austin, I think it is safe to say that what geologists call 'Jurassic' and "Triassic" strata must also be syn-flood sedimentary deposits. That means that during the deposition of these strata, the world was covered with water and that water was turbulent and that massive rain was falling on the ocean and that massive volcanic eruptions were occurring as the fountains of the deep ruptured (based on creationist Austin's description).

I have some questions :). How were termites able to build giant nests during this global tempest? Below is a photo of a Jurassic termite mound discovered by Dr. Steve Hasiotis



Furthermore, how is it that we had forest fires during this global flood. Below is a photo of petrified wood (burnt) from the Chinle Formation (Triassic) in New Mexico:

(Photo by J. Meert).

Then there is the little issue of the vast number of paleosols found throughout Triassic and Jurassic strata. How exactly did those form during the global flood? These complete with infilled burrows (photo by Steve Hasiotis)!!



So, you see I never would have chosen the Austin chalk as an example of the global flood. Too many problems that are not easy to hide---unless you can rationalize those problems away with unrealistic invented scenarios---

I'll repeat my challenge to ye-creation geologists and their supporters:

a. Where can a geologist find, on a global basis, the pre-flood/flood boundary? You will not find a continent-by-continent listing of formational names and type sections for this boundary in the creationist literature.

b. Where can a geologist find, on a global basis, strata laid down during the peak of the global flood (i.e. globally correlatable strata all deposited under water)? You will not find a continent-by-continent listing of formational names and type sections for these rocks in the creationist literature.

c. Where can a geologist find, on a global basis, the flood/post-flood boundary? You will not find a continent-by-continent listing of formational names and type sections for this boundary in the creationist literature. To be fair, creationists have a little more leeway in defining this boundary since the flood waters receded over a slightly longer time interval, but it still should be possible to provide considerable detail.

Cheers

Joe Meert

On the global flood 8 Feb 2010 9:22 AM (15 years ago)

So a creationist on facebook has challenged me for an explanation of the "Austin chalk line". I take it for some reason that the existence of the Austin Chalk is evidence for a global flood. I must admit that were I ever to return to young earth creationism, I would not use the Austin chalk as evidence for the great flood, let alone a young earth. In fact, I would be very careful not to mention chalk deposits like this one (or the white cliffs of dover) in the hope that the old earther I was debating would forget to bring it up. Why is this such a poor example for flood geology?

There are several arguments relevant to chalk deposits that are often used to counter the flood model. The first has to do with the incredible density of microscopic organisms required to make up the deposits if they were deposited in a single year. A second problem has to do with the time it takes for chalk deposits to form. These are microorganisms that rain down on the seafloor. In surface water, the dead tests of these organisms can be carried by currents and remain suspended for some time though eventually they will fall to the seafloor and accumulate. Even if the massive blooms required for the chalk deposits were formed in a flood, the tests would not settle down in such pure layers during the flood. Most, if not all, would remain suspended in the water column. The third problem with chalk layers is where they reside in the rock record. For the most part the large deposits of chalk are Cretaceous in age and that forces flood geologists to pin down at least part of the flood during this interval in the rock record. So let's look at the creationist explanation.

Creationist like Steve Austin (aka evolutionist Stuart Nevins) claims that chalk deposits are not problematic for the flood. While I encourage you to read the entire article, I want to highlight several 'explanations' given by Austin:

(1) Creationist geologists may have different views as to where the pre-Flood/Flood boundary is in the geological record, but the majority would regard these Upper Cretaceous chalks as having been deposited very late in the Flood.

(2)Quite clearly, under cataclysmic Flood conditions, including torrential rain, sea turbulence, decaying fish and other organic matter, and the violent volcanic eruptions associated with the ‘fountains of the deep’, explosive blooms on a large and repetitive scale in the oceans are realistically conceivable, so that the production of the necessary quantities of calcareous ooze to produce the chalk beds in the geological record in a short space of time at the close of the Flood is also realistically conceivable.