I seem to be on the Twin Cities Creation Science Association mailing list

Aren't you the lucky one to be on such a mailing list? You really rate!

I think I might get a flight over the Atlantic just to go to some of those creationist meetings

They're just trying to wear you down, PZ. They know that the truth will set you free. (They don't realize it already did.) I'm sure they're praying for you.

It looks like the legions of the dimmed are flocking to your state.
You have my deepest sympathies.

Isn't it odd that 3 billion years of evolution would produce a creature that doesn't believe in evolution.

Wed 18th at lunchtime - do you have to bring your own bag so you can be sick into it?

I have no idea why someone would talk about 14C and the age of the earth.

As has been pointed out here before, biblical literalism requires pi = 3. If you solve Euler's identity for e, and plug in 3 for pi, you get a value for e that has a non-zero imaginary component. This has complex consequences for the properties of natural logarithms, and thereby, radioisotope dates, as the age equation is traditionally expressed in terms of natural logarithms. So it's no wonder biblical literalists find radioisotope dating confusing.

Wed 18th at lunchtime - do you have to bring your own bag so you can be sick into it?

no, but you do need to bring a mechanical laughbox so you don't have to strain yourself needlessly.

...on second thought, yeah, bring the bag too, just don't put the laughbox in it (could get messy, and it might short out, causing possible harm).

Heh, bonus points for the special background :)

What - no ReMine yammering on about his 'message theory'?

He's from the twin-city area...

I will schedule attendance at the discussion group; the name Darrell Ayers sounds familiar to me and I want to find out if this is the same guy that is on the St. Paul Human Rights board. I found his aol member page. He owns a company called, cleverly enough, "Non Politically Correct" http://members.aol.com/isaiah312/ayers/npc.html with some Talibanist viewpoints on marriage.

I have a feeling that the meetings at Augsburg and The U's chemistry department are just a matter of reserving space in the commons area, and are not sponsored by either University.

I have no idea why someone would talk about 14C and the age of the earth.

I can illuminate. Baugardner and Russ Humphreys have been trying to get purchase out of the fact that accelerator mass spectrometry results on very old carbon samples (say coal from the Carboniferous) often gives non-zero counts. From talking to people who do AMS for a living, and reading reviews on the subject (and being married to a vacuum scientist) this surprises nobody. You get odd events that defect other nuclei into the carbon 14 channel; you get leakage from plastic components of the apparatus; you even get carbon coming off the walls of the stainless steel measuring chamber. The values are zero to within the accuracy of the measurment, therefore, but not actually zero.

No experimental scientist would be in the least surprised to get a very small number for a measurement that should actually be zero; that's why we have error bars. If you translate these counts to years, they come out to 10 - 15 half lives, or 60 - 90 kYa; everyone knows C-14 dating is invalid beyond about 50,000 years.

Now Baumgardner, while he's a theoretician, surely knows this also, and therefore his attempt to pretend it's not artifactual amounts to fraud, in my opinion. I was thinking of pursuing this against him professionally, but I think he's now retired.

You know, PZ, I don't blame you. Who wants to spend hours dealing with the nutjobs when you could be around real scientists, dealing with real science, etc.?

But if someone like you doesn't get in there and offer a calm and friendly rebuttal, it goes unchallenged. I seem to recall that both of us have little patience for those moderate believers who enable the craziness, but where does that leave the members of the scientific community who hear about the craziness and fail to speak out?

That's not a criticism. Everyone has to make their own choices about how they could be most effective, and most of us are probably ill-suited for that sort of work. But, if I was in your neck of the woods, I would definitely make it my business to crash one of these parties and be the contrarian.

Hopefully, SOMEONE in your neck of the woods will read about these events on your blog, realize they have the knowledge and background to engage these folk, step up to the plate and do the thankless task of taking science to the pews.

Thanks for all you do...SH

I'm still getting those Bible verses at work, but not this.

Potluck, Science Sunday, and Fun
"Life in Outer Space: Just Add Water?"

E.T. as pop rocks. That's gonna be some potluck. I say, Go, and report back. ;-)

There's a whole slew of this sort of tripe appearing in our local rag's weekly "Faith Matters" events calendar. Apparently, there are at least three churches that have rotating creationist seminars... you can follow the trail of bilge from one house o' worship to another.

Does anyone who's been to these sort of things have any tips for attendance, other than "Don't bother?" I'd kind of like to go and take notes/ask a few questions, but I'm sort of afraid my head would explode.

More info. on the Baumgardner vist to chem.umn.edu here

http://tccsa.tc/calendar.html

I may just email someone on the faculty and ask WTF.

"How smart was Adam?" March 20
Wish I could go to that one.

For a few years starting around 1991, I used to sporadically attend events put on by our local Creationist bunch, a few of which led to posts on t.o (the aforementioned Bruce Malone was a recent local speaker). However, I eventually decided there were more enjoyable hobbies. I still get their newsletter, which is a regurgitation of smug ignorance gleaned from the ICR, Hovind, etc.

Yes, they should be opposed, though I'm not sure that a lone skeptic asking questions from the back is the most effective way to do it (especially if I'm the lone skeptic).

"Carbon 14 Dating & A Young Earth"

A common young earth creationist argument I've heard in the past (and a cursory search on talkorigins reminds me of it) is that the carbon 14 decay rate (and other radiometric constants) is not constant.

To their minds, given that the earth is only 6,000 years old by definition, in order to accomodate the measured decay rate of carbon 14, they propose that the decay rate was different in the past.

Then, by applying this untestable assumption of a changing decay rate to the data, they arrive at an age of the earth of 6,000 years old. Which is 'proof' of the age, even though the reasoning is entirely circular.

I haven't seen this argument in many years, but it's been around for awhile. It's one of the first creationist argument I read about when studying physics many years ago.

Yes. I have more than a tip. I have a strategy, as follows:

1) First, try to look relaxed and genial, even when they say things widely at odds with the facts.

2) Next, at the earliest opportunity provide a fact that is at odds with the statement that is most glaringly, obviously false. Smile when you say it; it unnerves them.

3) Having made the point that you feel that at least some of their science is not up to snuff, avoid further debate on this or that fact, because if you allow it to become factoid vs. factoid, you'll lose most of the people in attendance, many of whom are probably willing to consider an alternative view if it comes from a friendly face.

4) Instead, focus on the importance of everyone supporting science education. Appeal to their values: truthfulness, community interest, how science is a gift of reason that properly applied benefits all of us. If you can do that, you will have made a real positive impression while planting that critical seed of doubt, and that's the best you can do in a single encounter.

I hope that is helpful...SH

I was curious about Darrell Ayers' email address, which is either Isaiah 3-12 or Isaiah 31-2. Here's the first one:

3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

Here's the other possibility:

31:2 Yet he also is wise, and will bring evil, and will not call back his words: but will arise against the house of the evildoers, and against the help of them that work iniquity.

Which one do we think it is?

I am going with this one, considering the stuff that he is selling, especially the article on Evolution and Women in the White House.

"3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."

Another aspect of the C-14 thing is that some creationists use the 50,000 year limit as "proof" that radiometric dating of far older objects and geological strata is by necessity highly conjectural. How they can honestly overlook the existence of reliable long-term dating methods is beyond me.

Same old same old, I guess. Ignorance (willful or circumstantial), denial, delusion, or outright dishonesty are the only possible explanations.

Sad, yet irritating.

I guess I've made the Creationists' "Enemies List" as I also got the E-mail invite. This is what I sent back:

"Hi Darrell Ayers,

The only debate is whether you are able to understand evidence or whether you are willfully ignorant and your mental capacity is limited to parroting religious fairy tales. Guess which group Darrell belongs to?

Creationism = Willful Ignorance
http://www.durangobill.com/Creationism.html "