Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-29-2017 11:16 PM
386 online now:
Coyote, Davidjay, edge, marc9000, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (5 members, 381 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,758 Year: 10,364/21,208 Month: 3,451/2,674 Week: 867/961 Day: 70/109 Hour: 3/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The big "Lherzolithic Shergottite Lew88516" D'oh
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3488
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1 of 3 (167099)
12-11-2004 12:39 AM


At message 60 of the "Radiometric Dating and the Geologic Column: A Critique" topic, Anti-Climacus cited the study of "Lherzolithic Shergottite Lew88516". I gave this message and one of the replies a joint mention as "Posts of the Month".

There were numerous replies from the evolution side, including myself. While most of these replies were fairly to very good, most of us evos managed to miss the point that the "Lherzolithic Shergottite Lew88516" was a Martian origin meterorite.

I don't think this was mentioned in Anti-Climacus' message (fair enough) but it is mentioned in the first sentence of the cited .pdf article. Personally, I skimmed it all fairly fast, and jumped to the conclusion that it was about some rather exotic Earth rock (there is no shortage of obscure named such).

Well, I pretty well succeded in not putting "my foot in my mouth" in my reply, but only because I really didn't say all that much.

Anyhow, I thought I'd nominate at least some of the involved evos for the "D'oh of the Month" award. Not a really big d'oh, but a d'oh none the less.

Moose


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by roxrkool, posted 12-11-2004 1:49 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 282 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 2 of 3 (167184)
12-11-2004 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
12-11-2004 12:39 AM


I read the article and wrote a reply on my way out the door. That's my excuse.

However, I don't think it's a HUGE deal. Rocks from Mars are very similar to earth rocks - except for the origin of the shocked textures. But it is an important distinction we all should have made.

D'oh!!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-11-2004 12:39 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 12-11-2004 1:53 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8753
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 3 of 3 (167188)
12-11-2004 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by roxrkool
12-11-2004 1:49 PM


Missed point
I think that the point that should have been stressed a lot more is that this rocks history would mean that dating it would require care and very detailed analysis. Just as the paper shows was done.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by roxrkool, posted 12-11-2004 1:49 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017