Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 112 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-30-2017 4:46 AM
438 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 437 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,213 Year: 6,819/21,208 Month: 2,580/2,634 Week: 243/525 Day: 2/74 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
6667
68
697071Next
Author Topic:   Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists
Faith
Member
Posts: 24006
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1006 of 1053 (782354)
04-22-2016 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1005 by PaulK
04-22-2016 11:36 AM


Re: The geological range of the tapeats / redwall
All of them. Every single boundary that marks off both a sedimentary deposit and a time period.

But what I'm hoping is that someone else will come along who simply gets what I'm talking about from what I've already said. I've explained it as well as I'm able. There's no point in trying harder to convince somebody who is determined not to be convinced, even if I had more I could say about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1005 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2016 11:36 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1007 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2016 12:19 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1018 by edge, posted 04-22-2016 11:22 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12452
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1007 of 1053 (782355)
04-22-2016 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1006 by Faith
04-22-2016 12:04 PM


Re: The geological range of the tapeats / redwall
Every boundary ? Well, let's consider the Redwall again.

The Redwall is from the Carboniferous.

In places it sits on the Muav Limestone from the Cambrian. A difference of more than 100 million years, missing out the Devonian altogether. Is it really strange that rocks deposited at such different times should be different ?

In other places it sits on the Temple Butte Limestone, which is closer in age - but even there, there is a break in deposition, again for a considerable period. Again, not strange.

Above you have the Surprise Canyon formation, which is also quite similar in age, also starting in the earlier part of the Carboniferous. So this doesn't represent a boundary between geological periods, but even here there is a long break in deposition, as shown by the erosion of the Redwall surface.

So where is the strangeness ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1006 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 12:04 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1008 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 12:30 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24006
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1008 of 1053 (782357)
04-22-2016 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1007 by PaulK
04-22-2016 12:19 PM


Re: The geological range of the tapeats / redwall
So where is the strangeness ?

In there being any correlation whatever between a rock type and a time period.

In there being a pattern of time periods marked by rock types that repeats up the entire geo column.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1007 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2016 12:19 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1009 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2016 12:37 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1010 by Admin, posted 04-22-2016 12:47 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1013 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2016 1:43 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12452
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1009 of 1053 (782358)
04-22-2016 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1008 by Faith
04-22-2016 12:30 PM


Re: The geological range of the tapeats / redwall
quote:

In there being any correlation whatever between a rock type and a time period.

That isn't really strange. The rock has to be deposited at some time, and it isn't surprising that it would all be deposited within a single geological period since those periods are so long. So, to the extent that it is true it isn't strange at all.

quote:

In there being a pattern of time periods marked by rock types that repeats up the entire geo column.

That would be strange if it were true. But it isn't,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1008 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 12:30 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12395
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1010 of 1053 (782361)
04-22-2016 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1008 by Faith
04-22-2016 12:30 PM


Re: The geological range of the tapeats / redwall
Hi Faith,

Please support your assertions of "strangeness" and of "neat and tidy layers" and of how "they are a lot more neat and tidy than they should be" with specific descriptions and evidence. What you've provided so far is much too vague.

Please, no replies to this message.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1008 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 12:30 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
ThinAirDesigns
Member
Posts: 563
Joined: 02-12-2015
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 1011 of 1053 (782367)
04-22-2016 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1002 by JonF
04-22-2016 11:25 AM


Thank Jonf. Appreciated.

JB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1002 by JonF, posted 04-22-2016 11:25 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24006
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1012 of 1053 (782369)
04-22-2016 1:23 PM


the strangeness argument
I have described as well as I can what I mean by the strangeness. I wish I had more support to offer, I would love to have more support to offer. As it is I can only hope someone will see what I mean from what I've already said. If I come up with a better way of supporting what I mean so that it would be clearer to others, I will be more than happy, I will be ecstatic, to be able to offer it. Meanwhile, what I've already said says it for me, I can only hope someone else will see it the same way.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 1016 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2016 2:03 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15485
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 1013 of 1053 (782371)
04-22-2016 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1008 by Faith
04-22-2016 12:30 PM


Re: The geological range of the tapeats / redwall
In there being any correlation whatever between a rock type and a time period.

In there being a pattern of time periods marked by rock types that repeats up the entire geo column.

You have repeatedly been informed that any given time period will have lots of rock types. So it seems that the "strangeness" here is all in your head.

As usual.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1008 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 12:30 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1014 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 1:53 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24006
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1014 of 1053 (782376)
04-22-2016 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1013 by Dr Adequate
04-22-2016 1:43 PM


Re: The geological range of the tapeats / redwall
You have repeatedly been informed that any given time period will have lots of rock types. So it seems that the "strangeness" here is all in your head.

I get "informed" of all kinds of things that totally miss the point, as you are missing it here, as usual. "Lots of rock types" that nevertheless are identifiable rock types that define identifiable time periods.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1013 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2016 1:43 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1017 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2016 3:43 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12395
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1015 of 1053 (782377)
04-22-2016 1:58 PM


Moderator Notice
About the last couple posts, that's enough of the off-topic comments. This is how the beginning of a spiraling out of control keeps happening in threads in which Faith participates. Everyone, please stop baiting people, and when baited please don't take it.

Please, no replies to this message.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12452
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1016 of 1053 (782380)
04-22-2016 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1012 by Faith
04-22-2016 1:23 PM


Re: the strangeness argument
[ Content hidden. --Admin ]

The only strange thing is that you think that you have an argument without being able to point to a single example of this "strangeness". Vague general impressions are a poor basis for an argument - especially when they seem to lack any basis in fact.

Edited by Admin, : Hide content.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1012 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 1:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15485
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 1017 of 1053 (782386)
04-22-2016 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1014 by Faith
04-22-2016 1:53 PM


Re: The geological range of the tapeats / redwall
Start a thread.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1014 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 1:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 1018 of 1053 (782408)
04-22-2016 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1006 by Faith
04-22-2016 12:04 PM


Re: The geological range of the tapeats / redwall
All of them. Every single boundary that marks off both a sedimentary deposit and a time period.

Actually, the rock types fit within a time period. And those 'rock types' are not pure. For instance the Supai group is a sequence of thin beds of mudstone, sandstone and limestone in no particular order nor purity.

In general, the contacts are not as sharp as you think. Yes, from a great distance, they are distinct, but upon viewing in detail, most contacts are gradational.

Have you actually visited the GC?

My impression is that you have not.

But what I'm hoping is that someone else will come along who simply gets what I'm talking about from what I've already said. I've explained it as well as I'm able. There's no point in trying harder to convince somebody who is determined not to be convinced, even if I had more I could say about it.

The reality is not what you make of it. Consequently, you will never have any support.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1006 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 12:04 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 1019 of 1053 (782409)
04-22-2016 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 998 by Faith
04-22-2016 10:35 AM


Re: The geological range of the tapeats / redwall
Well I wish somebody would acknowledge the strangeness. It's hard to put into words any better than I have done already, but some honest contemplation of the facts should make it apparent. There is just no way to rationally explain how discreet time periods over the history of the earth got marked by clearcut sediment depositions that start at the beginning of the period and end at the end of it.

Well, they don't do that...

As many of us have said, there are a number of unconformities in the GC record.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 998 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 10:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member
Posts: 563
Joined: 02-12-2015
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 1020 of 1053 (782932)
04-30-2016 10:24 PM


Bristlecone pine question.
I'm struggling with a small detail in my research on the history of dendrochronology as it relates to the White Mountain Bristlecone pines.

Wikepedia lists the Pinus longaeva and the Pinus aristata as two distinct species with two distinct ranges (with little to no range overlap).

https://en.wikipedia.org/...istlecone_pine#Species_and_range

This Forest Service link lists Pinus aristata as a "synonym" to the Pinus longaeva.

http://www.fs.fed.us/...ase/feis/plants/tree/pinlon/all.html

While this link specifically lists the ancient grove species as Pinus aristata.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/159/3817/839

What gives?

This is an important detail for me to sort out since Lammerts (in his oft quoted and bullshit multiple ring per year "study") says he used the Colorado species (see below)

quote:
“Seed of the Colorado strain of the bristlecone pine was purchased from the Clyde Robin Seed Co., Inc., and planted March 9, 1978. By way of explanation, because of park restrictions it is practically impossible to get seed of the trees growing in the White Mountain area. However, botanically speaking, the trees growing in California and in Colorado are all considered to be the same species.”

If the longaeva an the aristata are distinct species as per the Wiki with a non-overlapping range, how can the the Ancient Grove be aristata?

Thanks
JB


Replies to this message:
 Message 1021 by Genomicus, posted 04-30-2016 10:39 PM ThinAirDesigns has responded
 Message 1023 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2016 3:55 AM ThinAirDesigns has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
6667
68
697071Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017