|
Author
|
Topic: Could bio-design and rapid geo-column be introduced in science courses?
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]...but I would support limited content on evidence for biological design and the rapid fromation of the geological column. [/QUOTE] Hmm, this is already done, as far as I know. Catastrophic events are common in the geological record. They collectively act over long periods of time to give us the evidence that we see today in the geological column.
quote:
... The geological column on land is charactersied by alterations between vast marine and smaller non-marine beds. Much of the earth was innundated by the oceans on multiple occasions generating 'epeiric sea' deposits on land that represent the majority of the geological column. The smaller portion of the column in between consists of fresh water deposits, some of which are nevertheless correlated half way across continents.
Well, sort of okay if we take out the stilted version of geologese.
quote:
A very small minority of scientists believe that the geological column is evidence of a global flood that occurred in alternating marine and non-marine surges generating much of the sedimnetary rocks on earth. Most scientists disagree, citing evidence of habitated surfaces at many levels in the local geolgocal columns and radiodating. The global flood geolgoists counter that these habitats may not have been long term habitats and that radiodating methods may not be true indicators of time for various reasons. They point to evidence that the majority of the sedimentary beds were laid down as high energy events rather than gentler local environments such as lakes.
Oops! Wrong here. How do you explain the most common epeiric sea deposits such as the Mancos Shale. I have asked you about this before.
quote:
Needless to say, the vast majority of geologists has adopted the long-age view of the geolgoical column and it is that that we investigate for the remainder of this course.
Seems like most geology classes are taught this way. Some professors don't even ask the students to agree with them. Just say "Dr. So-and so says..." Even my son's high school teacher said this is what some people believe but the subject is the present status of mainstream science.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
... The students rarely will then be given the process by which samples are dated, and even more rare is explanations on how samples acquire dates.
Nonsense. Even in HS, they are taught what assumptions are made an why. The sources of error are usually discussed along with applicability of the method. Otherwise, why teach the course! This isn't addition and subtraction we are talking about here.
quote:
The geochemical processes in the crust and mantle, the well known anomalies of excess isotopes in various whole rock/mineral isochrons.
If you are teaching isochron methods in high school, I think you are way off track.
quote:
And there most certainly is no mention of meaningless errorchrons, inheritance, Isotopic mixing, Open and closed system behaviors, weathering, metamorphism, mobility, and other areas of discordance and limitations. Without even given hints of the geochemical processes by which isochronic ratio's are produced, they haven't much room for intelligible question or argument. Basically, we need to either stop giving the students straw-men, ...
Seems to me that is what your post is all about.
quote:
...or quit misleading them all together. The teaching of the ToE and its merit is highly sensitive and the format by which it is taught, the information that is given, and how it is given should be taken into careful consideration. It is tiring to hear youthful people see the the theory of the Evolution of life as an alternative to God.
Hate to rain on your parade, but many christians have reconciled religion and evolution. I don't think that many make this association.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 06-30-2002 11:16 PM | | TrueCreation has replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, you show me a high school geology text or syllabus which has anything like this in it.
Well, I've only read the books.
quote:
The point is not a catastrophism issue per se but that a global flood could have generated most of the column in one hit.
But this is not true. Why would we teach it. You have not begun to answer so many questions we have asked you. Why not?
quote:
You want to bring up Mancos Shale in a high school 2 paragraph intro to flood geology?
Actually, I was asking YOU to explain it.
quote:
We can go back and forth all day rebutting each other. That is not the point of a 2-paragraph intro. The point is that multiple PhDed geologists believe that a global flood is called for by the data.
The percentage is exceedingly low. Especially when their fields are considered.
quote:
It is an alternative way to interpret the data. I find it hard to believe that you can't accept that in any sense but I have to live with that.
It intereprets only some of the data. You have to ignore acres of geological information to come to these conclusions.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge Even my tiny summary addresses most of your concerns. It does not prove anything but it raises the possibility that this is how it happened.
Does this mean that you are not going to answer my question about the main deposit type related to epeiric seas? If you can't answer such question, you cannot justify having your introductory statements included in a syllabus.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The actual truth of the matter is that the sorts of questions flood geologists ask about the data are not routinely asked by mainstream scientists. You don't expect non-marine beds to be correlated across a continent so you don't look for it. You don't expect layering to be primarily flood depoists so even though it looks like flood deposits you interperet it otherwise. You wont agree but that is our thesis.
I am pleased that you are so knowledgable about geologists, TB. You seem to know what questions we ask, what our biases are, and how basically incompetent the giants of the science must have been.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
What's your point about the main epeiric deposit type?
The Mancos Shale question. If your flood deposits generate such high velocity, highly polarized currents, then where are they in the shales that are so characteristic of epeiric seas? You have said that the flood generated these currents and that the seas were related to non-marine sedimentation. I'd just like to see this cleared up. And just where did the terrigenous sediment come from in the middle of a global flood?
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base: The paleocurrents presumably are mesured from non-shales. The shales formed during intermediate calms. The sediment origin was from highlands or terrain in the path of very fast surges.[/B][/QUOTE] But you don't have time! There is no time for 'intermediate calms'. You have to surge water over hundreds of miles inland over millions of square miles of dry land, deposit all that coal, and then flush it back out 30 times in one year! This is silly. I can't believe I'm having this conversation. And remember, you don't have highland terrain, this flood covered the earth... all of it. You have a choice. Either there is a global flood or there is not! If you call upon the no-mountains scenario to come up with enough water, there are no highlands. If you have enough water to cover the mountains, where does it go during all of these ebb periods?
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
You simply can't image a catastrophic flood. The global flood occurred in stages. It was global by the end of it. We use the same data you use to show that there were surges!
Oh I don't know. I can imagine an awful lot. I just don't get carried away with it. However, I am surely impressed that you can tell what my capabilities are. As to the surges. Why are you having surges in the Pennsylvanian only and only in eastern North America? Exactly when did the flood reach its peak? How were there any more forests to be found to form the Cretaceous coal beds if they were all denuded in the Pennsylvanian? Why do we find dinosaur footprints in the coal beds if they consisted of floating debris brought in by the surge and then buried by sand? Please start answering these questions with some kind of data or I cannot possibly take you seriously.
quote:
The sea-level curves are due primarily to tectonics (not that anyone has a deterministic model as far as I have found). The data actually looks like it was due to plate slipping events.
More vague generalizations! Please give us some data.
quote:
Either way you and I explain the water coming and going the same way - it's just that in our scheme we have much more heat and lower viscosities to drive rapid tectonics.
Where is the evidence for these high heat flows and lower viscosities? Have you seen Joe's website that deals with these issues? We have been over this several times, TB. Why do you simply ignore the data and repeat your assertions as though they are accepted by actual scientists.
|
™ Version 4.2