Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1188 of 1257 (791668)
09-19-2016 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1187 by Faith
09-19-2016 6:13 PM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
And geology has ended? Amazing. I believe what I said was that the GEOLOGICAL COLUMN was finished when the Flood ended.
But you have said that strata are no longer being deposited and that no fossils are being formed today.
Did I read that wrongly?
I know there are sedimentary deposits still going on in odd places but they aren't the Geologic Column. That I believe is all I ever said that you might have misconstrued.
So, the 'geological column' is over, kaput?
But this is way off topic.
Not according to the title, but I will gladly defer to Percy on that.
The Martian strata are not the result of a flood. How about responding to the conclusion I came to that they are the result of a volcanic eruption?
It looks wrong from my experience. Some of them look more eolian, but the nice evenly layered stuff looks more sedimentary.
And if there is one thing I DO know volcanic rocks. Nevertheless, I don't do geology from pictures taken in an alien environment millions of miles away.
By the way, how do you know that they are strata 'AFD' (According to Faith's Definition)?
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1187 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 6:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1189 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 7:24 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1190 of 1257 (791678)
09-19-2016 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1189 by Faith
09-19-2016 7:24 PM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
Yup. The Flood made it so when the Flood ended so did the Geo Column. It stands as a memorial to that event and a record of the living things that existed in the pre-Flood world.
Then I stand by my earlier comment that Faith has foretold the end of geology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1189 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 7:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1191 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 7:30 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 1192 of 1257 (791682)
09-19-2016 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1191 by Faith
09-19-2016 7:30 PM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
Can't be the end of geology.
The end of new geology.
You still have gold to find, (maybe even) oil to find though you haven't proved this yet.
But it's like going to the library with no new books.
Okay, so I'm dramatizing. But my point remains.
How about all the other precious stones and metals on the earth? Isn't that something you guys do?
But you say that they are no longer forming.
That's no fun.
How about studying volcanoes? I think there's lots for geology to dol,
Just hang-overs from the flood, no doubt. Aftershocks, if you will.
... and in fact I don't think you've ever needed OE dates or used them as you think. And as a matter of fact how about studying what the Flood did and how it did it.
Actually, I have used absolute dates in oil exploration. I mentioned this earlier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1191 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 7:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1193 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 7:54 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 1194 of 1257 (791701)
09-19-2016 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1193 by Faith
09-19-2016 7:54 PM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
And I've acknowledged that you probably do use those dates, but nevertheless you haven't said anything about how they are necessary, what they actually tell you that you can't find out from relative dating and seismic imaging.
Actually, I did. In so many words, anyway.
Radiometric dates help determine the thermal history of a basin and when/where oil might be generated. If a date is too old, the oil might have already formed and migrated, or the heat from an intrusive might be too old to have affected a source rock.
This kind of information is used as a filter to set priorities for maintaining a land position or when to drill a target.
However, what you say is that all intrusive rocks are of the same age. That really doesn't fly in any kind of exploration.
In some mineral exploration, age dates are critical in determining targets and prioritizing them. Too old or too young in the Rocky Mountains and no one wants to spend money on them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1193 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 7:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1219 by Faith, posted 09-21-2016 4:28 PM edge has not replied
 Message 1224 by Admin, posted 09-21-2016 9:23 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(4)
Message 1197 of 1257 (791710)
09-20-2016 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1195 by Tangle
09-20-2016 4:02 AM


Re: One date
Can someone remind me what the counter to the flood 'geology' dating problem is - if the geological column was created all at the same time any/all of our normal dating methods would produce the same result for each layer.
Not sure what your question is, but sure, just as there is a pattern of life forms in the geological record, there is a pattern of age determinations. And just as YEC cannot explain the fossils they cannot explain (actually, they ignore) the pattern of radiometric dates.
And if the YEC ideas were correct, they would all read <10,000.
That would be a logical conclusion from what little we know of 'flood geology'. And again, the fossils should show no preference for any age of rocks.
If you believe that the dating methods are broken - for whatever daft reason - they would each have to be broken in different ways for them to read different dates from the same age rocks.
YECs have a real problem with the concordance of independent dating methods. You are exactly correct. They would all have to be broken in diverse ways to all be corrected back to a 6ka planet.
Nevertheless, YECs present the argument that ages are based on 'assumptions', as though that is a bad thing in the real world. They ignore (once again) the fact that some assumptions are well-founded on experience, observations and testing. But, this notion still provides them with a flimsy grain of doubt that they can ride indefinitely through forums such as this. And the best part is that this argument appeals to those untrained in the sciences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1195 by Tangle, posted 09-20-2016 4:02 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1199 by Admin, posted 09-20-2016 10:19 AM edge has replied
 Message 1208 by Tangle, posted 09-21-2016 4:51 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1200 of 1257 (791719)
09-20-2016 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1199 by Admin
09-20-2016 10:19 AM


Re: One date
It would be helpful to clearly identify those assumptions.
True. YECS would like us to think that these assumptions are somehow hidden from the public. However, all of these assumptions ARE clearly stated in every textbook that I have ever seen, along with the reasons that they are accepted; even at the high school level.
There are two basic assumptions:
The isotopic ratios have not altered, and
The decay rates have not changed.
Other assumptions are minor, such as, 'we can get a meaningful sample', and that it can be collected, prepared and analyzed correctly.
Basically, radio decay is a clock and has to be treated properly. YECS have no.problem that I'm aware of with clocks, but those also require some assumptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1199 by Admin, posted 09-20-2016 10:19 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1201 by Admin, posted 09-20-2016 12:32 PM edge has replied
 Message 1209 by Pressie, posted 09-21-2016 5:26 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 1202 of 1257 (791727)
09-20-2016 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1201 by Admin
09-20-2016 12:32 PM


Re: One date
Playing devil's advocate, don't these assumptions completely undermine radiometric dating?
If they are not controlled.
If most of the daughter element dissipates, won't samples date much older than they should?
Possible. But if we see patterns developing, we start to find ways to avoid problems. For instance, we know that pyroxene retains argon from the magma, based on experience. So, what do we do? We avoid pyroxene in sampling of the material. Of course, YECs don't do this.
And isn't it impossible to determine that hasn't happened?
Do you mean, 'do we have absolute certainty?' Of course not.
But we do have very precise measurements repeated time after time which give us confidence that the numbers are pretty much correct.
We also have data on trapping temperatures for daughter isotopes in certain minerals and other support for a lack of daughter isotopes in some minerals at formation.
Basically, if there were significant discrepancies, there would be no patterns in the data. We would have just a random set of numbers.
The fact that we have corroborating data from different, independent methods is about the best confirmation available.
And even if that problem were solved, if decay rates were greater in the past, won't samples again date much older than they should? And isn't it impossible to know past decay rates?
No. If decay rates were different, we wouldn't have the ratios that exist in the Oklo natural reactor. This goes beyond my expertise, but someone here has explained it before.
Essentially, we know of no crustal conditions that would change the decay rate of a radionuclide. If there were such, we would see something amiss in the data. And does any YEC think about the consequences of rapid decay that would be millions of times faster than what we know in order to get billions or years down to thousands? A nuclear physicist could explain it, but I'd say that the earth would be little more than a slag heap drifting through space. I think there is ample evidence that this is not the case.
Given this, isn't it appropriate to ignore radiometric dates?
If one has no curiosity or desire to understand the patterns, sure.
The fact that old ages explain a lot of what we see in the geological record is a pretty good indicator that it is as accurate as we can expect from any analytical procedure.
Add all this up and it's pretty clear that radiometric dating is a valid method for determining the absolute timing of geological events.
If anyone has specific examples, we could discuss them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1201 by Admin, posted 09-20-2016 12:32 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1225 of 1257 (791822)
09-22-2016 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1224 by Admin
09-21-2016 9:23 PM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
Let's say a core is drilled down to a sedimentary layer that dates to 200 million years old, but that is not the age of the layer since dating a sedimentary layer gives you the age of the original igneous rocks that were eroded away to become sediments, or if the layer was heated sufficiently (became metamorphic) so that the radiometric clock was reset then it is the age since it cooled. The rock itself reveals whether it is metamorphic or not.
If the rock is not metamorphic then the age is of the original igneous rock and tells us nothing about the age of the sedimentary layer, but it also tells us that the layer has never reached a high enough temperature to become metamorphic. The formation of oil requires heat, but how much heat? If it requires more heat than that required to form metamorphic rock, then we know this layer cannot contain oil. But if the formation of oil requires less heat than that required to form metamorphic rock then the fact that the layer hasn't become metamorphic tells us nothing about whether it might contain oil.
If the rock is metamorphic then the age is when the layer cooled, but how would knowing that say whether it contains oil? Knowing the actual age of the sedimentary layer might provide clues, but how would that be determined, and what might those clues be?
I'm going to stop here because I'm concerned that I might be piling too many speculations upon one another, but I think everyone would benefit from understanding this better.
Yeah ...
This gets very complex, very fast and I hesitate to even try to explain. But first, I wouldn't worry at all about the metamorphic aspect of the system. Usually, oil is formed and migrates long before significant metamorphism occurs. Usually metamorphism drives fluids away and closes off porosity and that would be fatal to oil production.
What I'm talking about is the timing of heat during the formation and migration of oil. In most sedimentary basins, we are looking at normal geothermal gradients affecting the temperature of the source rocks and the generation of oil. However, this is sometimes interfered with by magmatism in tectonically active areas, so the timing of oil formation, migration, and trap formation can be affected. The point is that you need to have pathways and traps for the formation of economic oil deposits. If those do not exist or have been destroyed, it is less likely that you will have success. By dating igneous rocks in the sedimentary section, one can get an idea if oil formed (for instance) before or after the formation of a trap. It is also possible that a reservoir can be destroyed by excessive heat, so if you know the age of that heat source, you have a better chance of success.
Going any further on this would probably require a course in petroleum geology and my work was so long ago that I'm probably out of school on this.
So, in conclusion, sure ... you could drill blind and eventually find oil. The problem is that you won't. Nobody will pay for your well.
With Regard to This Discussion:
So, you do several things. First you get as much information as possible together to provide a convincing model including the age of your oil source, the timing of oil formation, the timing of migration and the age of the trap. The fact that this is a process makes timing very important.
The other thing that you have to do is accept that the sediments were deposited in a recognized system. YE-flood geology has no such framework. The oldest rock could be the same as the youngest rock and the oldest fossils could end up at the top of the section.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1224 by Admin, posted 09-21-2016 9:23 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1226 by Admin, posted 09-23-2016 9:25 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1227 of 1257 (791852)
09-23-2016 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1226 by Admin
09-23-2016 9:25 AM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
There are other people here with petroleum exploration experience - come on people, don't leave it all up to Edge.
That would help. This isn't really my field although I took a petroleum geology class decades ago and worked on some rigs recently. I can make a few comments after a some thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1226 by Admin, posted 09-23-2016 9:25 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1229 of 1257 (791909)
09-26-2016 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1226 by Admin
09-23-2016 9:25 AM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
How do you get the ages of all these things? By "age of your oil source" I assume you mean the age of the original material from which the oil was cooked - how do you get that age?
That would be from fossil data and correlations with regional geology.
How do you determine "the timing of oil formation," by which I assume you mean when the original material was cooked into oil?
If not interrupted, we would try to determine the geothermal gradient and using the depth of burial.
How do you determine "the timing of migration"?
Estimation. But it has to be after formation of the pathways. It's complex because oil doesn't just start moving as soon as it's formed. And once it starts moving, it doesn't really stop. Even when there is a trap, oil keeps trying to move.
And how do you determine "the age of the trap", and does that mean the age of the material forming the trap, or when the oil itself was trapped?
There are several types of traps, mainly classified as stratigraphic and structural. A stratigraphic trap is formed by primary sedimentary features such as decreasing porosity within a sedimentary unit, or formation and burial of an unconformity.
Structural traps are like folds or salt domes which occur after the sediments have been deposited.
Here is an schematic of a stratigraphic and two structural traps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1226 by Admin, posted 09-23-2016 9:25 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1230 of 1257 (791910)
09-26-2016 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1228 by Taq
09-26-2016 1:34 PM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
I am far from an expert, but from what I can tell you need to look for when marine deposits would form. For North America and regions like Texas, that would be the Cretaceous and also in the Paleogene. During these time periods there was an inland sea running north and south that split North America. This is when you would see deposition of photosynthesizers and other marine microorganisms that serve as a source for oil.
This is an interesting question. Here is an article that determines the Gulf of Mexico oil to be derived from specific Jurassic, Cretaceous and Eocene source beds.
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/...ts/hood/images/hood.pdf
The source rocks are mostly organic rich sediments, some very organic carbonates, and are associated with what they call 'second order transgressions' of the Mesozoic seas.
There are some interesting diagrams in this article.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1228 by Taq, posted 09-26-2016 1:34 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1232 by Taq, posted 09-26-2016 5:32 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 1231 of 1257 (791911)
09-26-2016 4:39 PM


Just in case anyone is interested, here is a spectacular photo of tar 'volcano' on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico:
Search-Icon
This is a case where hydrocarbons are flowing (migrating) without encountering a trap.
Where oil vents to the bottom of the sea, we can actually find natural oil slicks floating on the surface of the water.

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1234 of 1257 (791915)
09-26-2016 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1232 by Taq
09-26-2016 5:32 PM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
Looking back at the picture of the Cretaceous inland sea, it also maps to the other oil rich regions in North America. The sea covered the Alberta oil sands, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Where are they finding oil? Exactly in those places.
Actually, there are two major hydrocarbon eras. Most of the western coal regions are in the late Cretaceous to Eocene. Evidently some of the oil actually sourced in older rocks (Jurassic and even Triassic) as the previous posts showed.
The Appalachian basins formed during the earlier era. The coal occurs mostly in the Carboniferous. However, it appears that oil might source from earlier rocks in the Devonian (such as the Marcellus Shale).
It is interesting that with modern drilling and fracking methods we are actually starting to produce oil from what look to be source rocks. The point is that while they are the source of oil, the oil cannot freely migrate because the permeability of shale formations (such as the Marcellus) is simply too low to allow all of the hydrocarbons to migrate; that is, until we came along.
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Here is some information on the Appalachian oil fields currently occurring in the Marcellus (and other) shales.
eLibrary Redirect - DEP eLibrary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1232 by Taq, posted 09-26-2016 5:32 PM Taq has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 1246 of 1257 (792123)
10-04-2016 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1245 by dwise1
10-04-2016 9:49 AM


Science isn't in the business of winning hearts and minds. It is in the business of discovering and understanding how the universe works.
Unfortunately, we have left that part up to politicians and we can see where that has gotten us.
Part of that business is communicating with other scientists using clear and concise language, which outsiders call "jargon". Using "non-jargon" in those communications would result in confusion -- witness Faith's wasting and causing the waste of several thousands of messages resulting in ever increasing levels of confusion.
Exactly.
In general, scientists don't care about communicating with the general public.
This is unfortunate, IMHO. I always take my time to try and explain things to the public. The problem is that most discussion is now polarized.
Most scientists couldn't be bothered about "creation science". The closest they come to having to care is when they write their proposals for grants in order to do their research.
Again, truth.
Rather, it is the educators and science popularizers who do care and have to care about communicating with the general public, about winning hearts and minds. But there again, in their efforts to make science more accessible, they have to loosen the language and use "non-jargon" and analogies to explain those concepts. And again, that generates some confusion and misconceptions. Unfortunate, but an occupational hazard that cannot be fully eliminated. They have to offer the public a "royal road" to understanding science where no actual "royal road" exists (borrowed from the famous statement about teaching mathematics to royalty).
Not sure what the solution is, but it may start with education (if we haven't screwed that up too much already). Even at university, this is the case. As an undergrad, I never had a clue as to my professors' politics, but by the time I went grad school, it was all about politics in the classroom. It think this is/was a bad trend.
When I talk to people on both sides about climate change or fracking, etc., they say that they've never heard a reasoned, rational discussion before. It's usually all about scare tactics and political agendas.
Welcome to the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1245 by dwise1, posted 10-04-2016 9:49 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1247 by Pressie, posted 10-05-2016 5:26 AM edge has not replied
 Message 1249 by dwise1, posted 10-05-2016 10:30 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1256 of 1257 (793008)
10-18-2016 1:04 PM


There was a lot of information exchanged which should be the point I would hope. And yes, it can get a lot more complex, which makes it difficult to distill down to a discussion format for the general population.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024