|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age of Grand Canyon and Cave Speleothems | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
Neither do I, so we will need someone with access (Coragyps?). That would be a fun map to make. There are couple of such in the paper and the supplementary information - and it's all free open access if you register: Science | AAAS Searching volume 319, page 1377 will bring it up. Most Science from 1880 to a year before this week's issue is free. Nature is not so generous, even to suscribers. PNAS is pretty good to the public, though. http://www.nature.com/nature/index.htmlPNAS Oh - and I am always happy to send Science or Nature pdfs to anyone here if you PM me an email address. Edited by Coragyps, : additional stuff
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Coragyps,
I figured you'd come through. Thanksby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Coragyps,
I signed in and went toJust a moment... and also downloaded the PDF. Thanks. Two different dating methods were used on each speleothem: (1)238U/206Pb and (2) 235U/207Pb. The dates derived, while slightly different, are within the margins of error for each one. I was also thinking that just the existence of these speleothems presents an additional problem for creationists: IF the canyon was carved by flood drainage, then the caves occurred after the flood. The speleothems have to be deposits after the caves were formed, so they too occurred after the flood. The youngest speleothem is 0.8 million years, and it is at the top end of the canyon. IF there has been no change in radioactive decay rates since the flood, then the canyon is OLD, way too old for the YEC model. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
(b) - Note that I have shown in previous threads why Hovind's explanation is bogus and doesn't work by his own argument that water does not flow uphill -- where the Grand Canyon crosses the ridge is not the lowest point of the ridge, but up on a slope between two lower points, so if he was correct then the canyon would be in a different location Hoping that this post is accepted as on topic, I add to your correct anshing of Creationists' interpretations of Genesis that the first six "days" could not be 24 hour durations since Genesis specificallytells us that the 24 hour Solar Day was created in the 3rd duration of the cosmic unfolding, when the Sun and Moon were made time keepers for the Earth Clock. It makes more sensible reading comprehension of Genesis to understand the first six durations were geological eras marking the History of the Earth by well placed catastrophic markers that separate the six layers.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Your graphic, both in your post and in the original, are too small to read.
Do you have a larger version you could point us to?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Found a version about halfway down this page:
Hmmm, maybe I can reproduce it here, giving it a try:
That should be good enough. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Minor cleanup. Edited by Percy, : Fix links.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It makes more sensible reading comprehension of Genesis to understand the first six durations were geological eras marking the History of the Earth by well placed catastrophic markers that separate the six layers. No, we refuted that a few weeks ago when you posted it here: Message 205. You should start a new topic in the coffee house, just copy and paste one of your posts there, and then we'll have a whole thread devoted to it and we can show where and how you're so wrong.
Kofh2u, please don't start a Coffee House thread for cosmology or geology topics. Creation/evolution topics should be proposed over at Proposed New Topics. Edited by Admin, : Admin comment.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Topic is Grand Canyon age data provided by speleothems.
The data refutes YEC models for:
I may figure out a few more wrinkles, but that should be enough for now. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
As I drove into work today, I heard a story on NPR discussing revisions to dating of the Grand Canyon. Apparently, some kind of helium dating technique when applied to soil samples from the canyon produces dates of about 70 million years, whereas the canyon has previously been thought to be only a few million years old.
I don't know anything at all about this topic, but I'd appreciate being filled in by people who do. Pointers to some reading material would also be helpful.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
As I drove into work today, I heard a story on NPR discussing revisions to dating of the Grand Canyon. Apparently, some kind of helium dating technique when applied to soil samples from the canyon produces dates of about 70 million years, whereas the canyon has previously been thought to be only a few million years old. My first reaction is that they are dating the age of the sediments that make up the walls of the canyon. I don't think there is a problem with the canyon walls being much older than the river system that cut through them.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ooh-child Member (Idle past 372 days) Posts: 242 Joined: |
This is the article I read yesterday:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html "The canyon isn’t 6 million years old, they say, but more like 70 million years old. If this order-of-magnitude challenge to the orthodoxy holds up, it would mean the Grand Canyon has been around since the days of T. rex. Our data detects a major canyon sitting there about 70 million years ago, said Rebecca Flowers, 36, a geologist at the University of Colorado and the lead author of a paper published online Thursday by the journal Science. We know it’s going to be controversial.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
From Science:
Flowers and Kenneth Farley, a geologist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, are employing yet another approach: using concentrations of the noble gas helium in calcium phosphate minerals called apatites found in the canyon's rocks. Helium in these minerals can fluctuate in several ways over time: For instance, concentrations increase due to the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium in the apatites. As long as the apatites remain deep within Earthat a temperature above 70Cthe helium can escape from the minerals through diffusion, Flowers explains. But as the minerals rise toward the Earth's surfaceor as erosion carves a canyon downwardthe rocks cool, trapping the helium within the apatites so that it begins to accumulate. So, helium concentrations in apatite can help scientists estimate when the rocks cooled. In the new study, published online today in Science, Flowers and Farley analyzed four rock samples from the western portions of the Grand Canyon and four from the eastern reaches of the gorge. The pattern of helium concentrations in the samples suggests that substantial parts of the western portion of the Grand Canyon were already carved to within a few hundred meters of their current depth by about 70 million years ago and that erosion hasn't increased dramatically in recent eras, the researchers report. That's a far cry from the 5-million-to 6-million-year-old age suggested by previous research, and is about quadruple the oldest previous estimate from other teams for the canyon's age. and
Nevertheless, not everyone is convinced by the team's evidence. Karl Karlstrom, a structural geologist at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, describes the findings as "out in left field." His team has also analyzed helium concentrations in apatites that were collected just a couple of kilometers downstream from where Flowers and Farley collected their samples in the western Grand Canyon. And their preliminary results, Karlstrom says, bolster the notion of a young gorge. Those soon-to-be-published results suggest that those rocks were still between 50 and 60Cimplying that they were well over 1 kilometer below the surface of Earth's crustbetween 15 million and 20 million years ago.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi NoNukes, Taq, ooh-child, and Coragyps,
NoNukes: As I drove into work today, I heard a story on NPR discussing revisions to dating of the Grand Canyon. Apparently, some kind of helium dating technique when applied to soil samples from the canyon produces dates of about 70 million years, whereas the canyon has previously been thought to be only a few million years old. ooh-child: This is the article I read yesterday: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html "The canyon isn’t 6 million years old, they say, but more like 70 million The speleothems date the most recent erosion being 0.8 million years and the oldest at 17 million years. These are uranium-lead dates (two methods) taken on speleothems formed underwater in caves along the canyon walls. These can be taken as minimum dates, because the caves need to form before the speleothems can form, however they do need to be underwater to form, which means water levels of the canyon need to be higher than the caves.
Taq: My first reaction is that they are dating the age of the sediments that make up the walls of the canyon. I don't think there is a problem with the canyon walls being much older than the river system that cut through them. That certainly would seem to be a possibility. Tectonic activity with the uplift could also cause fracturing that would allow easier escape paths for Helium. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : addedby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
1. Formative/Cosmologic Era-Hadean Era/ = First Day 2. Hadean Era-Archaean Era/ = Second Day 3. Archaean Era-Proterozoic Era/ = Third Day 4. Proterozoic Era-Paleozoic Era/ = Fourth Day 5. Paleozoic Era-Mesozoic Era/ = Fifth Day 6. Mesozoic Era-Cenozoic Era/ = Six Day 7. Cenozoic Era-Common Era/ = Seventh Day //////////
The "The SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS" is now its own topic, located here. If discussion of such appears anywhere else, prepare to suffer the wrath of Moose. - Adminnemooseus Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide, banner, and note.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
......
Edited by kofh2u, : I was trying to propose a new thread, so I am deleting this. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change topic subtitle to "Misplaced new topic attempt"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024