TN Governor Evolution Bill

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by Tenacious D, Apr 3, 2012.

  1. MaconVol

    MaconVol Chieftain

    No, the big number is not what throws me off, its the idea that everything Scientists do is right. We figure out the age of these fossils using the radiometric dating, Carbon 14 dating or whatever you call it. It is very possible that these methods are wrong. That is where my problem with science lies. Its not that they get a wild hair and want to prove something every know and then, its that, in some of their minds (not saying this directly at you droski, or IP), that they are the end authority on the subject once they get lucky enough for their experiment to come up with a number.
     
  2. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    1. I was being facetious with the comment, not actually making a serious ranking. I used Arizona because I was reading about their removal of Ethnic Studies program.

    2. Not really. It was a promotion of federalism, but that was just a throw in line, anyway. I could make a further, more detailed argument, but it would go away from the tenor of this thread too much.

    The rest of the post still stands, of course.
     
  3. volfanjo

    volfanjo Chieftain

    I think we are similar in this respect though I can't quite articulate the hows or whys of it all.
     
  4. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    i think most scientists agree that we can't say to the year when humans appeared. quite the opposite. you see a wide range listed. millions of years of state possibled error doesn't seem to be arguing that they know anything for sure. the only way these methods are wrong is if elements on earth decayed at a different rate in the past. which is suppose is possible, but i wouldn't argue probable. we have other observations that certainly argue that the universe is very very old too. you wont hear me argue that scientists are always right. but when one is arguing between 10,000 years and 60 mil (or whatever) i think we can safetly assume the scientists are in the more accurate ballpark.
     
  5. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    You don't use Carbon 14/radiocarbon dating on things if they're younger than perhaps 300 years old and older than 60,000 years old, because by about 10 half-lives the radioactive curve is too flat to distinguish how much older it is than 60,000 years. So most fossils use other forms of radiometric dating, of which there are like a dozen. Each one uses different parent-daughter isotopes and are appropriate for different time scales/material.

    There are several cool methods for dating things that are less than 100 years old, some that work due to nuclear weapons testing in the 1950's.
     
  6. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    have you taken an ethnic studies program? i cant' imagine how anyone who has taken one would object to it's removal. it's not minority history, it's explaining why all whites are racists. i'm not learning about rosa parks or tony morison there.
     
  7. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    It depends on the exact dating method as to whether there is variability in ratios of parent daughter isotopes, but one can be very, very certain that the actual rates of decay are constant. Contamination may be a source of error, and with carbon 14 specifically there is some variation in the amount present in the atmosphere over time due to variation in solar output. However, these errors are known and is why there is an error bar on dates that say "Plus or minus x years." There is also "wiggle dating," where one gets dates from many, many samples both above at and below the object of interest, and fit those dates to a curve. That is very expensive and frequently irrelevant, but it can be done. What does it matter if a mastodon died 21,040 years ago or 21,800 years ago? A big difference in time, but relative to the subject insignificant.
     
  8. justingroves

    justingroves supermod

    How often does that occur? I'm not baiting with this question, just asking. Carbon dating isn't really an expertise of mine.
     
  9. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    Random question this thread brought to mind -

    What is the biology professor's name at UT who always wore the bow-tie and went to Cool Beans for about 3 hours every day?
     
  10. cotton

    cotton Stand-up Philosopher

    I would think that Arizona being able to determine which programs to offer rather than having the central government dictate that for them would be consistent with federalist themes.
     
  11. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    I teach an ethnic studies program and it's not a hate-whitey class, that's the bullshit argument used against it. You are mistaking the actual history of negative actions by white groups for propaganda. And, really, you're not learning about Rosa Parks in an African-American Studies class? C'mon.
     
  12. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    Actually, the two were separate points and the Arizona bit was about how they are a shitty government for passing a biased, racist law and then only enforcing it on Hispanic Studies. But, it also demonstrates how states can pander to baser elements when not restricted by the federal government from doing so. The line is difficult to ascertain for when the government should step in for garbage state laws, but, as I said, the line was sort of a sidebar to my main points in the post.
     
  13. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    it's absolutely not a bullshit argument. i was told by the professor that i was racist and didn't know it because all white people benefit from racism and therefore are racists. that prop 39 was a pure racist bill and anyone who supported it was a racist. that anyone who didn't suppport affirmitive action was a racist/ the core of the program is explaining why minorities should be upset with white people and explaining why white people owe minorities. i'd love to see your curriciulum. LOVE
     
  14. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    now do you tell your students that it is a "biased, racist law?" I bet you do.
     
  15. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Depends on what you are dating. If you date the inside marrow material of a bone, basically never. If you can't do that for whatever reason, then you have to keep in mind what you are actually dating is an average of both the subject material, and any debris (dust, soil, dirt, sediment, plant matter, etc) that was in contact with it. That is still going to get you close because the majority of the material is what you are dating, but it will bias the result towards being younger usually.

    When I date my sediment cores, I am looking for things like plant debris- a piece of wood, leaves, etc. I have to be careful about shells because the environments I work in could have live clams or snails that actually burrowed to their position and would date much younger than what the surrounding sediment is. Worst comes to worst, I can date a sample of bulk sediment at a level, and will get an average age of the material in that sediment. For me, some error is a constant concern and issue. Luckily, when you are working on long time scales error becomes more and more irrelevant. The difference between 8,000 years BP and 8,350 years BP doesn't mean a lot.

    Fossils and such are actually easier to more accurately date. When something is contaminated, it usually gives a younger date.

    An interesting one that is done by anthropologists is Electron Spin Resonance (ESR). A clock is basically started when something was exposed to flame fire. Like a tool or a pipe or something. So one can time the last time something was exposed to fire. If that tool or object was exposed to sunlight or was within a soil that had more radiometric components (uranium or something), it can generate errors in that date. Usually one has to calibrate dating as close to a specific site and condition as possible, which apparently can be a pain.

    ESR sounds a lot like magic until you really delve into the chemistry and physics behind it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2012
  16. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    I suck.
     
  17. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    So, you have one shitty professor and you want to scrap the program? If that's how it works, I think we should get rid of Pre-Calculus.

    You want to see the content standards? Here you go. http://state.tn.us/education/ci/ss/doc/SS_3442.pdf

    Let me know if you want a syllabus, too. So, spare me the white victimization rant when you want to deny kids access to their own history because the truth may not reflect so well on people of your own community in a number of respects.
     
  18. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    Oh well. Once there's a technical question about the website, the hierarchy will reorganize.

    It was totally out for me for a bit about an hour ago, by the way.
     
  19. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    one bad prof my ass. i see your topics where you "examine" things. ever examined it and decided white people aren't at fault? i'd like an example. do you discuss the concept of institutional racism? who is denying kids access to their history? i was FORCED to take a class to tell me how much of a racist asshole i am. How is that not discriminatory? i have no great objection to these classes existing. my problem is forcing the student body to take them.
     
  20. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    What? You said above it should be removed and now you don't object? Should black students be able to opt out of any class that teaches about George Washington because he was the leading slave holder in the early Republic?

    And, what am I supposed to examine in my classes that doesn't fit your idea of "blaming white people"? I guess we should just skip over slavery, segregation, lynching, Black Codes, Reconstruction, sharecropping and the Civil Rights Movement because I might cause white students some discomfort? That's ridiculous. Should I just skip to the welfare state and tell them black people should get off their ass, stop complaining and work? I could have Newt Gingrich give some paternalistic advice as a guest speaker.

    I'm sorry if you believe in a, literal and figurative, whitewashing of history, but I'm not.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2012

Share This Page