Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 901 of 1053 (763476)
07-25-2015 10:38 AM


Moderator Request
Repeating what I said last month, please, let's stop the off-topic jabber and nitpicking. This thread is for defining an educational curriculum, not for discussing the particulars in detail. Just post information, suggestions, corrections, additions, etc. To discuss anything in detail, please propose new threads over at Proposed New Topics.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 902 of 1053 (763489)
07-25-2015 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 899 by Faith
07-25-2015 10:09 AM


Re: Geologic column
That's an impressive description of how a geologist thinks. It's really amazing how the human mind has such organizing power that even a random ink blot, or the random depositions of sediments and dead things by a worldwide Flood, can be perceived as a coherent meaningful story.
As usual, it's a little more complicated than that.
Both the distribution of rocks and the distribution of fossils are hardly 'random'. They are formed by processes which leave behind evidence in the form of patterns that tell us something about the rocks themselves.
This is something that YECs need to understand. Geology is not random. If randomness were the case, then predictive tools such as basin analysis and palynology (paleontology) would not be possible. And yet, there you are drilling into formations that might not exist in the case of random geology.
I'm not sure how to get this across to YECs. Maybe more exposure to the field, or some practical examples.
TAD, I might recommend, The Map that Changed the World for a presentation on how geology started moving from a 'natural philosophy' to an actual science, although someone must have already recommended it to you somewhere in this thread. It's all about patterns and processes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 899 by Faith, posted 07-25-2015 10:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 903 by Faith, posted 07-25-2015 2:53 PM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 903 of 1053 (763494)
07-25-2015 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 902 by edge
07-25-2015 1:41 PM


Re: Geologic column
As usual, it's a little more complicated than that.
Both the distribution of rocks and the distribution of fossils are hardly 'random'. They are formed by processes which leave behind evidence in the form of patterns that tell us something about the rocks themselves.
This is something that YECs need to understand. Geology is not random. If randomness were the case, then predictive tools such as basin analysis and palynology (paleontology) would not be possible. And yet, there you are drilling into formations that might not exist in the case of random geology.
I think you may have missed my point. Yes, GEOLOGY is not random but the stuff it interprets, the result of the Flood, IS random in reality, which makes it a marvel how you find such apparently consistent patterns to analyze. I spent some time studying the Rorschach test years ago, how different people deal with the random inkblots. Some "see" the most amazingly complex coherent scenes in them. The more coherent and complex the perception the higher the intelligence as a general rule, according to psychologists.
I'm not sure how to get this across to YECs. Maybe more exposure to the field, or some practical examples.
I don't know either, but I think it's possible to appreciate a lot of the work geologists do without being persuaded by the Old Earth interpretations.
TAD, I might recommend, The Map that Changed the World for a presentation on how geology started moving from a 'natural philosophy' to an actual science, although someone must have already recommended it to you somewhere in this thread. It's all about patterns and processes.
I love William Smith's map, wish I had a coherent copy of it to study. Just looked through the book at Amazon, might actually get it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 902 by edge, posted 07-25-2015 1:41 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 904 by NoNukes, posted 07-25-2015 9:22 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 904 of 1053 (763502)
07-25-2015 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 903 by Faith
07-25-2015 2:53 PM


Re: Geologic column
I think you may have missed my point. Yes, GEOLOGY is not random but the stuff it interprets, the result of the Flood, IS random in reality, which makes it a marvel how you find such apparently consistent patterns to analyze.
Most people would see that as an argument against the Flood.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 903 by Faith, posted 07-25-2015 2:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 905 of 1053 (763511)
07-26-2015 10:02 AM


Moderator Request
Repeating what I said all those years ago, er, I mean hours ago, as in yesterday, this thread is for defining an educational curriculum, not for discussing the particulars in detail. Just post information, suggestions, corrections, additions, etc. To discuss anything in detail, please propose new threads over at Proposed New Topics.
The points recently made seem like great starting points for new discussions, so I really do wish someone would propose a new thread or threads over at Proposed New Topics.
But if I find I have to post this note again tomorrow I'll begin handing out short "just trying to get your attention" suspensions.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2374 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(1)
Message 906 of 1053 (768437)
09-11-2015 5:07 PM


Dating the St. Helens lava dome
Does anyone have link to good articles or input on the 1992 dating of the St. Helens lava dome?
Talk Origins has sent me to this link: Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals
I'm trying to learn as much as I can on this specific topic as it is being rolled out as proof of radiometric dating unreliability.
Thanks
JB
Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2374 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 907 of 1053 (768451)
09-11-2015 9:03 PM


Igneous rock over sedimentary layers
Another question for the geology inclined:
Considering that sedimentary layers are usually dated by igneous rocks bracketing them, are there areas where it's easy to show igneous rocks overlaying sedimentary layers? Does someone have an easy example of an area for this?
Thanks
JB
EDIT: Found the San Francisco lava field in Arizona as a great example that can even be seen from space.
Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 908 by JonF, posted 09-11-2015 9:56 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied
 Message 909 by JonF, posted 09-11-2015 10:04 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied
 Message 913 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-13-2015 1:09 AM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(4)
Message 908 of 1053 (768452)
09-11-2015 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 907 by ThinAirDesigns
09-11-2015 9:03 PM


Re: Igneous rock over sedimentary layers
KBS Tuff is a good example. Human ancestry is involved. Creationists say bad stuff about it (Bones of Contention). In reality it's a triumph of modern science. Two methods, one well established (pig fossils) and the other fairly new at the time (the Ar-Ar radiometric method) disagreed by a *lot*, and Richard Leakey liked the older radiometric date. Because a hominid skull was found beneath it.
It was all hashed out extremely publicly in Nature, arguably the most prestigious journal, for some time. Turned out the pigs were right. But first the scientists had to understand what caused the conflict. They only accepted the revised radiometric date after they figured out what caused the error (washed-in and older sediment), established a procedure for separating the constituents, and dated the tuffacious component agreeing with the pigs by multiple methods (Ar-Ar, then better developed, and fission tracks) inin multiple labs.
Conflicting results were published in Nature, not hidden as YECs would have us believe. Radiometric dates were seriously questioned. Dogma didn't win; evidence, careful testing in any way anyone could think of, and replication won.
I'm on a tablet so links aren't handy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 907 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 09-11-2015 9:03 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 909 of 1053 (768453)
09-11-2015 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 907 by ThinAirDesigns
09-11-2015 9:03 PM


Re: Igneous rock over sedimentary layers
Oh, and Hell Creek. Lots of dinosaurs beneath, including the T. Rex in which Schweizer found traces of probably blood and YECs interpreted as cells. Dated by lots of methods. Dalrymple has a table in "Radiometeric Dating Does Work" (yes, spelled wrong) on the NCSE site.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 907 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 09-11-2015 9:03 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 910 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 09-11-2015 10:17 PM JonF has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2374 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 910 of 1053 (768454)
09-11-2015 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 909 by JonF
09-11-2015 10:04 PM


Re: Igneous rock over sedimentary layers
Thanks for those replies JonF
I'll do some research on those example.
As I added via edit to my original question, I found the San Francisco lava fields in Arizona as an example as well. Visible from space even.
Thanks again
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 909 by JonF, posted 09-11-2015 10:04 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 911 by Faith, posted 09-12-2015 12:43 AM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 911 of 1053 (768458)
09-12-2015 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 910 by ThinAirDesigns
09-11-2015 10:17 PM


Re: Igneous rock over sedimentary layers
Lava has burbled up through sedimentary layers and spilled over them in many locations. The Grand Canyon even. The Siberian traps. Sometimes forming sills between layers, sometimes just pushing up to the top and forming lava fields.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 910 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 09-11-2015 10:17 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 912 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-12-2015 2:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 912 of 1053 (768632)
09-12-2015 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 911 by Faith
09-12-2015 12:43 AM


Re: Igneous rock over sedimentary layers
Faith writes:
Lava has burbled up through sedimentary layers and spilled over them in many locations. The Grand Canyon even. The Siberian traps. Sometimes forming sills between layers, sometimes just pushing up to the top and forming lava fields.
Those cases are not used to date the underlying layers are they? They could be used to date overlying layers, right?

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 911 by Faith, posted 09-12-2015 12:43 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 915 by edge, posted 09-13-2015 11:08 AM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 913 of 1053 (768682)
09-13-2015 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 907 by ThinAirDesigns
09-11-2015 9:03 PM


Re: Igneous rock over sedimentary layers
Alternating layers of diatomite and volcanic tuff.
I wonder if Faith has a Floodist explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 907 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 09-11-2015 9:03 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 914 by Faith, posted 09-13-2015 7:51 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 914 of 1053 (768694)
09-13-2015 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 913 by Dr Adequate
09-13-2015 1:09 AM


Re: Igneous rock over sedimentary layers
No I don't have a Floodist explanation, just a tentative guess that both must have precipitated out of water as all the other sediments did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 913 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-13-2015 1:09 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 918 by Admin, posted 09-13-2015 3:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 915 of 1053 (768711)
09-13-2015 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 912 by Tanypteryx
09-12-2015 2:15 PM


Re: Igneous rock over sedimentary layers
Those cases are not used to date the underlying layers are they? They could be used to date overlying layers, right
The issue would be the presence of significant unconformities beneath or above the lava flows. I would be very careful about either unless I was in a fairly continuous sequence of sediments briefly interrupted by a volcanic event.
In the case of a sill, the only relationship would be intrusive younger than sediments on either side.
ETA: One thing to remember, in partial answer to TAD's question, is that usually volcanic ages are used more to bracket the sedimentary rocks rather than date them directly. In other words, rocks or sediments below a dateable volcanic layer would be considered older and above such a layer as younger. Now if the layers were all continuous and interlayered, you could be pretty certain of the absolute date. This is the case with the KBS tuff situation, IIRC.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 912 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-12-2015 2:15 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 916 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-13-2015 11:35 AM edge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024