|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined: |
Hi ThinAirDesigns
I have found something which should be good for your and my purposes. It is an article in GRI's Origins http://www.grisda/origins/04076.htm In it the writer looks at sea and land cores and how O isotopes, foraminifera species, CaCO3, and sizes of micro-organisms vary in step in the different cores in a way reflecting temperature changes. He brings in how RMD appears consistent with long ages and how it is all a challenge for YEC, requiring work to explain. He brings in how some tektites have short age in Australia and ones that seem to be from the same event have long age in the sea, and hopes to find a way to collapse all the long ages, but seems to realise it is a tall order. (It is now taken that the Australian tektites were reworked into younger sediments)It was written in 1977 so does not go into ice cores, but I think that time is before Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, accelerated nuclear decay, and one recent ice age were invented. With it being a church sponsored publication, people may be more ready to hear what it is saying than they would be with some other literature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Do you mean this one Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...?
THE IMPACT OF TEKTITES UPON AN ESTIMATED 700,000 YEAR HISTORY OF DEEP-SEA DEPOSITS There is also a previous article by same authorGeoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that... ANOMALOUS AGES FOR METEORITE IMPACTS AND TEKTITES 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2394 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
Thanks pollux, I hadn't found that paper. I'll be sure and read it.
Here is one from Robert Brown (he was the Director of GRI) laying waste to Robert Gentry's halo claims. This one has been very valuable since it's written by the top SDA creation science dog. Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that... After they tell me how mainstream old earth science is biased and Gentry was silenced and never got a fair shake, I read them the key points of that article without telling them who wrote it. They then generally respond with "Yeah, sure, but that's just what traditional science is going to do -- reject it because they don't want the truth out." I just turn the laptop around and show that it was researched and written by their very own church's organization, tasked for near 70 years with proving what Gentry is trying to prove. It catches them off guard and makes a dent. I try to use Gentry next to Einstein (crazy huh?) to make a point with them -- science welcomes dissent and new ideas and will make you a hero if you go against common wisdom, but you MUST BE RIGHT! If you are wrong and insist you are right, you're just another schmuck among millions who didn't do their homework. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined:
|
Thanks RAZD. I am dis-ORG-anised!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2394 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Perhaps I'm using the term "unconformities" incorrectly in the following question, but as I have just learned the term, please bear with me.
One of the things that is very strong evidence for evolution (or at least evidence *against* the 6 day, ex nihilo creation story) is the remarkable consistency of the fossil record. Bottom to top, less advanced to more advanced. I do know however that there are areas where the layers are considered not to be in their original order. From threads here I have picked up (hopefully correctly) that the word to describe this is 'unconformity'. I do understand that there are reasonable explanations for these unconformities (plates colliding etc.), but I have a question about them: Just how common are these areas? Are we talking 3% of the earth's surface, or 30% of the earth's surface? I'm not expecting a hard number answer, just an informed approximation. ThanksJB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 878 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
Perhaps I'm using the term "unconformities" incorrectly in the following question, but as I have just learned the term, please bear with me. Yea, you're using it wrong An Unconformity is an erosional surface (it could also simply be a non-depositional period) between two units of significantly different ages. It can be thought of as "missing time." I think what you are referring to is a Thrust Fault where older rocks are fractured and pushed onto younger rocks. This is often misrepresented by only mentioning the two strata in contact and making the claim that the supposed older rock is above the younger rock. What they fail to mention is that the layers in each block are in the proper order, it is just that older set is on top of the younger. The Lewis Overthrust is one of the more famous of these.
As to how much of the earth's surface is affected by these types of fault's... I could't venture a guess. They are not uncommon in mountain ranges because of the incredible forces involved in plate collisions. However, I don't think there are many places where the order of the strata is really out of place. But, I don't have a good number for you though. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2394 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
herebedragons writes: Yea, you're using it wrong Thought there was a good chance of that. Thanks
I think what you are referring to is a Thrust Fault where older rocks are fractured and pushed onto younger rocks. This is often misrepresented by only mentioning the two strata in contact and making the claim that the supposed older rock is above the younger rock. What they fail to mention is that the layers in each block are in the proper order, it is just that older set is on top of the younger. The Lewis Overthrust is one of the more famous of these. Yes, the question is as you expected and the Lewis Overthrust is an example of my question. I'm trying to figure out the sort of oddity this is so I don't get myself into trouble talking about how consistent the layers actually are. ThanksJB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 878 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
I'm trying to figure out the sort of oddity this is so I don't get myself into trouble talking about how consistent the layers actually are. I would say the layers are very consistently ordered. The few examples of strange anomalies such as the Lewis Overthrust are just simply misrepresented by creationists. For example here is a creationist depiction of the Lewis Overthrust:
Notice how they leave out all the layers above and below the thrust fault? I don't know of any good examples of true out-of-order stratographic layers. One way you could approach this is by talking about index fossils. A common Creationist misconception is that the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks which is circular reasoning. But again, they fail to understand the significance of index fossils and the problem it presents for a global flood and a recent creation. Index fossils provide a relative date not an absolute date. So a particular fossil species can be related to a particular time period. Some are so constrained in time (appearing for only brief geological times) they can be assigned to very specific time periods. So whether the whole fossil series represents billions of years or 6,000 years, the relative ages would be consistent. Here is a chart of some common index fossils from the USGS
Pecten gibbus will always be found higher in the column than Scaphites hippocrepis and so on. Faunal succession is so consistent, so reliable. How could a flood sort like that?
Here is a game to see how to use indx fossils. It's kinda simple but it gives a good idea of the process. Notice that nothing is said about absolute ages, only the relative ages of the different deposits. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2394 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Thanks for that HBD.
I have to be able to work good science into the program without getting that knee jerk anti-OE reaction and I think what might help that is to stick with relative ages for a time. If I can get them to understand the consistency of the fossil record, that's as good start. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2394 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
I apologize in advance if someone has already linked me to something relevant, but I've search the thread/forum and come up empty so I return to the well of knowledge.
I'm spending a lot of time currently learning about fossil sorting and while I find many good descriptions of the fauna side of things, I haven't found a good source on the flora side. It seems to me that if plant fossils are as well sorted as the animals are (and I'm highly confident I'll learn that to be true), that this evidence would be an even simpler nail in the WW Naohic flood than the animal side. After all:1: plants can't run. 2: in a WW flood plants would either: __a: be buried in situ in one vast original layer (in the unlikely even they could remain rooted) __or __b: float on the surface in mats, becoming entangled until water logged (or not) #1 blows any 'mobility/differential excape' argument. 2b would result in massive fossil record in one (original) layer while #2a creates an extremely chaotic 'hydrodynamic sorting' situation blowing that argument. All that would remain would be the 'ecological zoning' argument and I suspect that has been readily dealt with. Please remember that what I write above it based on very little knowledge so I'm not proposing, just thinking out loud. Can anyone recommend any good links related to the plant side of fossil sorting? Thanks so much.JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Try this one to start. Plant Fossils.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Yes, the question is as you expected and the Lewis Overthrust is an example of my question. Well, the Lewis Overthrust is a classic example of something you can see is an overthrust just by looking at it. There's an interesting story about this in Ronald Number's book The Creationists. A young-Earther was going to publish an article about how there was no sign of overthrust at the interface. A couple of old-Earthers (still creationists) realized that he was looking a few hundred yards too low, and actually took him up the mountain and showed him the rocks. But the article had been typeset, and YECs are not notoriously scrupulous .... It's a sad story, I guess, because the moral is that if you take a YEC up a mountain and show him the rocks, he'll still lie about what they look like. Reality is wasted on some people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2394 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: A young-Earther was going to publish an article about how there was no sign of overthrust at the interface. A couple of old-Earthers (still creationists) realized that he was looking a few hundred yards too low, and actually took him up the mountain and showed him the rocks. But the article had been typeset, and YECs are not notoriously scrupulous .... Yes, that was Lammerts who was a near neighbor of mine for many years in California. Through his founding, funding and management of CRS and editorial power over the CRSQ, he was responsible for more bad science in his life than most will ever know. In just one facet of this bad science mess, Lammerts was the primary enabler of Clifford Burdick in spite of his regular knowledge of Burdick's 'loose with the truth' escapades. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2394 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
jar writes: Try this one to start. Thanks for that excellent link. One question: I can't tell from that site if those fossils are unique to the era they ascribe them to - in other words, are each of those plant species ONLY found in that particular era? If so, your link was the exact information I needed. You may not have that answer and I understand that. For me to explicitly state that there is no jumbling of these fossils, I need to make sure I've picked the right set to use. ThanksJB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
TTBOMK, yes, those plants are examples of ones found during a particular period. That does not mean that there are not similar plants found earlier or later, as always the devil is in the details. Like animals, plants evolved over time.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024