Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8748 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-23-2017 4:46 PM
399 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Post Volume:
Total: 808,910 Year: 13,516/21,208 Month: 2,998/3,605 Week: 340/933 Day: 82/154 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Stalagmites
vimesey
Member
Posts: 848
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 1 of 6 (785017)
05-26-2016 10:02 AM


This could prove interesting.

Researchers are investigating a cave in France, where neanderthals appear to have been breaking off stalagmites and using them for some purpose around 175,000 years ago:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36381786

I am interested to see what the dating techniques are that they use, but listening to one chap on the radio this morning, they are expecting to uncover evidence of neanderthal habitation in lower parts of the cave which have been covered by subsequent stalagmites, with their ongoing excavation work.

The fun job for the YEC'S on this one will be to attack stalagmite formation as a dating method. It is a fairly easily understood process, with a straightforward method of calculation. The calcite is deposited at a rate which is demonstrable through easy experimentation - and best of all, if you speed up water flow, to increase the volume of calcite available (in order to account for a much shorter timescale), you end up with a rate of water flow which washes away the calcite, before it has a chance to fall out of solution and contribute to stalagmite formation.

Fun and games ahead here.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by JonF, posted 05-27-2016 11:02 AM vimesey has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2016 11:47 AM vimesey has not yet responded
 Message 5 by kbertsche, posted 05-27-2016 12:45 PM vimesey has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12503
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 2 of 6 (785019)
05-27-2016 10:16 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Stalagmites thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3535
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 3 of 6 (785022)
05-27-2016 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by vimesey
05-26-2016 10:02 AM


There's also U-Th disequilibrium dating, which works up to about 500,000 years. Thorium is insoluble in water, whereas uranium is. When uranium in the water decays to thorium the thorium precipitates out. As the thorium decays it and its daughter products approach "secular equilibrium" wherein the rates of production and destruction are equal. You can measure how far the sample is from secular equilibrium and get the date the thorium was deposited.

This was used on King Hezekiah's Tunnel in Jerusalem. Carbon dating a leaf embedded in the plaster gave a maximum age, U-Th dating of a speleothem gave the minimum age.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by vimesey, posted 05-26-2016 10:02 AM vimesey has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15927
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 4 of 6 (785026)
05-27-2016 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by vimesey
05-26-2016 10:02 AM


The fun job for the YEC'S on this one will be to attack stalagmite formation as a dating method. It is a fairly easily understood process, with a straightforward method of calculation. The calcite is deposited at a rate which is demonstrable through easy experimentation - and best of all, if you speed up water flow, to increase the volume of calcite available (in order to account for a much shorter timescale), you end up with a rate of water flow which washes away the calcite, before it has a chance to fall out of solution and contribute to stalagmite formation.

Flooddidit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by vimesey, posted 05-26-2016 10:02 AM vimesey has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1359
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 5 of 6 (785041)
05-27-2016 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by vimesey
05-26-2016 10:02 AM


Here's the Nature article: http://www.nature.com/...vaop/ncurrent/full/nature18291.html

The abstract says that they used uranium-series dating.


"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by vimesey, posted 05-26-2016 10:02 AM vimesey has not yet responded

    
ThinAirDesigns
Member
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 6 of 6 (785047)
05-27-2016 12:55 PM


Error rates
Saw that a few days ago and had this thought:

The error rates seem REALLY tight. I was a bit surprised. If you look at the speleothems that are used in IntCal they are nothing like that tight and they are only in the 25 -50k range.

Would love to hear thoughts on this from those more knowledgeable.

JB


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017