|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
RAZD writes: possible experiment: take marbles to a pool and time how long it takes for them to reach the bottom. The whole 'what settles at what rate' is to me, the cleanest and clearest of the geological evidence against a world-wide flood (as insisted by the fundamentalists). It's so easy to understand and demonstrate it just baffles my mind how someone can claim it's fuzzy in the least. ThanksJB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
See, the problem is that when you get me to move off the thread you then continue the same discussion without allowing me to answer you. Is that fair? But I did answer you, and RAZD, at the new thread, HERE. And you have no call to consider your thoughts on the subject scientific and mine merely "speculative." You're guessing about the Flood yourself, because of course there is no way to ever prove any of it. I consider your guesses to be inept as antiFloodists' speculations always are because you won't take the time to think out how the Flood could reasonably explain something, it's always a kneejerk attempt to discredit the Flood -- bias, not thought.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Faith, I did not response to you or refer to you in that post. RAZD suggested a well thought out science experiment and I responded as to it's value. Full stop.
Please be respectful of the thread topic and discuss verifiable science. ThanksJB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
RAZD was responding to ME, TAD, not to you, and you CANNOT claim that your wild speculations about the Flood are any more "verifiable science" than mine. Just get off the discussion and go back to bashing creationists that I've never heard of. If a post impinges on my views, I'm answering, you have no right to decide who can comment on what.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Faith writes: RAZD was responding to ME, TAD, not to you, Faith, notice that the RAZD post that I quoted from includes a note to me (#450):
quote: See how that portion was direct SPECIFICALLY at me and not at you. I only responded to what RAZD directed at me. I had no comment whatsoever on this conversation with you. Before you insist that I was continuing a discussion you are involved in, please read what is written. I will not be having ANY exchanges with you other than to ask you to respect the thread topic. Nothing more. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
petrophysics1 Inactive Member
|
TAD,
Get yourself some steel ball bearings in the same size as the marbles, also if you know someone who black powder shoots they may have lead balls in .5" (about 54 cal, 50 cal is .45" as a patch is put on the ball). You can see the difference in the drop rate by S.G. in an aquarium, you don't even have to time it. Now you've shown that things are sorted by size and specific gravity in water. The number of places in the world where you can see that in a strat column or measured section that the rocks violate this basic sorting are probably countless. In fact I can't think of a sedimentary basin where I haven't seen this. Therefore they could not have been deposited by a flood. Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
petrophysics1 writes: Now you've shown that things are sorted by size and specific gravity in water. Excellent idea. Different sizes of same materials as well as and same sizes of different materials. I wonder if anyone has ever worked out any formula for this and was able to predicted the results? ThanksJB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
petrophysics1 Inactive Member |
Tad,
I saw this clearly shown in a video I have about placer gold mining. The difference between quartz sg about 2.65 and gold about 19 was amazing . The gold looked like it was dropping in air, while the quartz looked like it was floating down. F=ma, but that force is a vector sum. If we ignore friction that leaves two forces. Gravity and the force of buoyancy in opposite directions. The force of buoyancy depends on area and specific gravity. You know wood floats, so why aren't all the coal deposits right near the surface. That's what a flood would do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Excellent idea. Different sizes of same materials as well as and same sizes of different materials.
You'll want a formula for the terminal velocity of a particle in a fluid. The equations for fluid dynamics are nonlinear; normal practice is to use a linear approximation based on the "Reynolds number" appropriate to the problem. There are some good explanations of this on Wikipedia (Terminal velocity - Wikipedia, Stokes' law - Wikipedia), but it would probably be easier to work from a chart or plot of terminal velocity vs particle size and density. I wonder if anyone has ever worked out any formula for this and was able to predicted the results? ThanksJB "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
ThinAirDesigns writes: I wonder if anyone has ever worked out any formula for this and was able to predicted the results? I should have been more clear than just the big grin that I had moved to humor. I have a long background in engineering with a fair bit of aero thrown in so I'm reasonably familiar with the formula, Reynolds numbers, etc. Sorry to throw everyone off track, but it's just another demonstration of how folk on this thread are super willing to help and educate. Appreciated.JB |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Just before the thread post rate went through the roof, I asked a question in Message 222 that may have simply been lost in the crowd. It also may be just that biology isn't well represent among the participants, but I'll ask it one more time. If there's not local answer, I'll find a forum where I can get it answered and report back.
ThanksJB quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
I'm familiar enough with plants to know that they uptake C02. I also know that decaying plant material produces C02. I'm trying to roughly figure something out in my mind and I'm hoping there is a reasonably simple answer - I just can't find the right Google search term that will pull up an answer.
I would view plants as a reservoir. Their growth pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere. Their decay puts most of it back into the atmosphere, but also sequesters a small amount in the soil.(Note: though the core purpose for my question circles around C14 dating, when I refer to C02 in this question, I'm not referring specifically to C14) Core question: In a general world wide sense, are plants A: a net user of C02? B: a net producer of C02? C: just a reservoir? I hear in the climate discussion that the deforestation of the world is at least partially to blame for rising C02 levels in the atmosphere. This would make sense to me knowing what I do know about biology, however as someone who has only observed the arguments on the climate side from afar I can see that there is a lot of weird religion going on over there as well so I'm hesitant to just trust what I hear. For solid information on the carbon cycle, I'd suggest publications of the carbon cycle lab at UCI. I'm reading all this crap from Morris, etc. regarding how the vegetative state of the world pre-flood (and just after that it) would have been so different that the C02 ratios would have been all screwed up. Now, frankly they can't seem to make up their minds what exactly the starting point is, for instance: Do they think the flood cause great burial of vegetation causing sequestering of C02 that would have normally been produced by decay (C02 goes down?), or do they think that the flood deposited much decaying vegetation on the surface (C02 goes up?). Either way, they always seem to imply that the results always go in their YEC favor carbon dating wise. All I actually see is the FUD principle in play frankly. Now know that I recognize the validity of the calibration charts which answer these charges definitively, but in my current crowd I need to be able to understand and explain the implications of these charges without just pointing to the calibration charts.
As you say, various conflicting YEC claims have been made regarding what a global flood would do to radiocarbon levels. You may just have to find out which particular story your audience accepts and address those specific claims. We know from the calibration curves that there were no abrupt changes in the atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations in the past 45,000 years. At any rate, I'm not looking for any answer to the above paragraph (I don't think there is one), I'm just looking for a biologically sound answer to my core question -- with that answer I can prepare myself to address the YEC claims as they arise. Perhaps there is not simple answer - I'm aware that's one possibility. I think Gerald Aardsma may have written something on the supposed effect of a global flood on radiocarbon. So far as I know, he is the only YEC who was ever trained at a leading radiocarbon lab and who really understands radiocarbon. Because of this, he trusts radiocarbon, and this has led him to some idiosyncratic YEC positions. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
TAD writes: Core question: In a general world wide sense, are plantsA: a net user of C02? B: a net producer of C02? C: just a reservoir? It's a complex question, generally plants and trees (and blue-gree algae) have been regarded as a net consumer of CO2. But as the climate warms, that reverses. Apparently 2003 was the first year when they produced more than they absorbed. BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | No plant CO2 relief in warm world But it's also a question of timescales. Plants are Carbon batteries, they fix CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis converting it to sugars used to build cells. The Carbon is released one way or another on their death - often anorobicly producing methane, through rotting or animal digestion.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
kbertsche writes: I would view plants as a reservoir. Their growth pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere. Their decay puts most of it back into the atmosphere, but also sequesters a small amount in the soil. Thanks. That makes a ton of sense. The reason I wanted that understanding is so I can create a hypothetical calibration curve, one that would show what the curve *would* look like if what Morris was saying was true. There would be serious departures in the steady line shown in the actual curve if it were true. It's interesting to read where may YEC sites now say radiocarbon dating is no good past about 4000BC. This allows them to fit it in to the biblical artifacts where they want to use it, but claim it's unreliable otherwise. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Tangle writes: It's a complex question, generally plants and trees (and blue-gree algae) have been regarded as a net consumer of CO2. But as the climate warms, that reverses. Apparently 2003 was the first year when they produced more than they absorbed. That's very interesting how that would change. The 'battery' part is rather easy to understand though. ThanksJB
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024