Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8984 total)
48 online now:
DrJones*, jar, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), vimesey (7 members, 41 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Happy Birthday: Diomedes
Post Volume: Total: 877,669 Year: 9,417/23,288 Month: 432/1,544 Week: 146/561 Day: 49/50 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   calling creationists
Percy
Member
Posts: 19844
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 16 of 21 (9173)
05-02-2002 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by joz
04-30-2002 9:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Of course that observer is about 300 times as heavy...

But he won't mind because he's 300 times thinner in the direction of motion!

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by joz, posted 04-30-2002 9:51 AM joz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by joz, posted 05-03-2002 9:00 AM Percy has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 21 (9184)
05-03-2002 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Percy
05-02-2002 5:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
But he won't mind because he's 300 times thinner in the direction of motion!

--Percy


But he will because his Tadger is 300 times shorter....

Must be a Eunuch....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 05-02-2002 5:30 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 05-03-2002 9:31 AM joz has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19844
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 18 of 21 (9186)
05-03-2002 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by joz
05-03-2002 9:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
But he will because his Tadger is 300 times shorter...

Excellent point, and a significant consideration when showing off by moving fast, since these changes are only apparent to stationary observers.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by joz, posted 05-03-2002 9:00 AM joz has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 21 (9205)
05-04-2002 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Percy
04-29-2002 11:53 PM


"Fossils in the geologic column increasingly differ from modern forms with increasing depth."
--Yes they do.

"The geologic column is a record of change over time. It shows species passing into and out of existence."
--technically it is actually a record of change over depth, however, you can logically apply the concept of 'time' in the sense of a linear depth of strata. How much time is another question.

"Some persist in the geologic record for long periods, some for short. Deflecting discussion with a "like to see more information" type of comment is evasive."
--I wouldn't think so, I would rather see it as a need for information before a conclusion would be met. If I were to make conclusions without data, that would be a bit ignorant of me. I might as well make the statement rather than avoid it.

"The amount of information available in the early 1800s was sufficient for students of nature to conclude evolution had happened - no more is necessary."
--In your opinion and interpretation.

"A map of the entire United States will tell you that New York and San Francisco are about 3000 miles apart. Your hope that more detail will reveal the earth is really only 10,000 years old is like hoping that detailed examination of roadmaps for the individual states will reveal that San Francisco and New York are actually both in Manhattan."
--I don't think your mathematical analogy is very well applied to the question. Simply because we dont' have a 'road map'. What you actually have is a 'map' with no mileage scale to go by, so in a sense, New York and San Francisco could actually be right there in analogy.

"Just as a map of the entire country is more than sufficient for a solid estimate of the distance between New York and San Francisco, what you already know about fossils, geologic layers and radiometric dating is more than sufficient to understand that the earth is a very ancient place."
--I would highly disagree here, it is righly necessary to know much more than a straw-man on how radiometric dating works, geologic layers (on a uniformitarian basis) are deposited, as well as fossil deposition. Radiometric dating, I would highly recommend to anyone interested in using this argument to understand the geological, mineralogical, and geochemical context of rock and constituent mineral samples. Geochemical processes in the earth's mantle and crust must be understood, as the rocks and their constituent minerals which are dated ultimately have their source in the mantle and/or are generated in the crust and reside there.

"The sedimentary layers you mention are named for the periods of life contained within them: Pre-Cambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, etc. Our understanding of the geologic and fossil information in the layers developed simultaneously. Even Creationism recognizes this when they mistakenly claim that dating is circular (the layer tells what life will be found there, the life found there tells what layer it is). You can't possibly have read 10 geology books without knowing the intimate relationship between the fossil record and the geologic column of sedimentary layers."
--I do understand this reasoning for sedimentary chronology. However, unlike a paleontologist, fossils and the study of the fossils themselves is not as apparent in the various fields in geology such as the ones that I will study more in detail.

"Unless this translates as "I was wrong" or "I spoke without thinking", I have no idea what this means."
--What I mean is that what you stated is what I was having thoughts on in order to compile my comment.

"Are you asking if you posted messages in response? Or are you asking if you addressed the issues? If the latter, then no, you haven't."
--Right, it was a simple comment.

"You not only didn't address them, you didn't even indicate an understanding of them."
--This (I [Corrected by edit - 5/4/02]) seriously doubt.

"Every geology book includes a discussion of radiometric dating. This is yet another indicator lending me doubt that you've read any."
--Though this is not where I had gotten my knowledge on radionucleic decay, yes, just about every geology text-book will have a discussion on radiometric dating, however with the exception of one I find it odd they do not include fundamental pieces of information, it is simply a review or a breif overview. Such as alpha and beta decay, or mineral isochrons and whole-rock isochrons, neither had they even made mention to the well known phenomena in the field of excess A-40.

"This statement isn't consistent with your just previous question, "I had not displayed objections in my post?" If you don't think you know enough to address the issues now, then obviously you couldn't have addressed them in earlier messages."
--It was merely a comment, and a comment that in-fact was addressing what I am currently interested in and is something I am researching. This is consistent simply because when I said that It would be wise for me not to cite objections, it is consistent to say that 'I had not displayed objections in my post'.

"Someone who feels constantly called upon to claim that he does *to* know what he's talking about is in need of some serious self examination."
--Maybe so.

"Look, TC, everyone, including me, likes you and likes that you're here,"
--I am glad to hear it, in my experience this is a significantly rare occurrence (for YEC's [Corrected by edit - 5/4/02]).

"but that doesn't change the fact that you're transparently pretending you know and understand far more than you do. The act was fun for a while, but it's getting old and wearing thin."
--This may be what it seems at times, I do believe it may be due to the way I address issues. I address them with in the least a considerable understanding of the question. However, I am always open to new scientific information so I am not afraid to engage in debate with something I may not have as much knowledge in as the opponent, simply because I will learn it and it is a time for more research. Sometimes I may take this for granted and end up getting smacked a couple times, though again, it forces me to do the research, get the data, and form a model, and make conclusions.

"I have no idea what this means, and I don't think you do, either."
--What part done you understand? (please don't just say 'all of it')

"A lithophilic element is simply an element found in the lithosphere. That's pretty much all naturally occurring elements."
--No, I must say this may be a bit misleading. A lithophilic element is as I stated, 'pertaining to elements that tend to become concentrated in the silicate phase of meteorites or the crustal rocks of the earth', a definition drawn by Baumgardner. And if I must verify this as correct:

Glossary of Geology and Related Sciences - American Geological Institute;

quote:

Lithophile elements. Elements enriched in the silicate crust. Elements with a greater free energy of oxidation, per gram atom of oxygen, than iron; they concentrate in the stony matter or slag crust of the earth, as oxides and more often as oxysalts especially silicates.

--So it isn't an element that is 'simply an element found in the lithosphere', but one that tends to concentrate here, contrary to a Siderophile element.

"It has nothing specifically to do with radioactive isotopes at all."
--It may be important to note that all the major radioactive heat producing elements (U, Th, and K) are in this incompatible category. Most of the radioactive elements used as isotopic tracers and for dating purposes (such as Sm, Rb, Lu, K, U, and Th) are in this category as well. As a geochemist or Geophysicist studies the mechanical and chemical processes occurring at the mid-ocean ridges and subduction zones, a strong case emerges that the continental crust was the product of chemical fractionation of the rock that comprises at least the upper third, and perhaps even more, of the earth's mantle. This topic has a large amount of significance on the distribution of radioactive elements in the earth as a whole.

------------------

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-04-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 04-29-2002 11:53 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by edge, posted 05-04-2002 12:37 PM TrueCreation has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 256 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 20 of 21 (9221)
05-04-2002 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by TrueCreation
05-04-2002 12:50 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--I would highly disagree here, it is righly necessary to know much more than a straw-man on how radiometric dating works, geologic layers (on a uniformitarian basis) are deposited, as well as fossil deposition. Radiometric dating, I would highly recommend to anyone interested in using this argument to understand the geological, mineralogical, and geochemical context of rock and constituent mineral samples. Geochemical processes in the earth's mantle and crust must be understood, as the rocks and their constituent minerals which are dated ultimately have their source in the mantle and/or are generated in the crust and reside there.

I agree emphatically. Are you going to do this soon?

quote:
"The sedimentary layers you mention are named for the periods of life contained within them: Pre-Cambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, etc. Our understanding of the geologic and fossil information in the layers developed simultaneously. Even Creationism recognizes this when they mistakenly claim that dating is circular (the layer tells what life will be found there, the life found there tells what layer it is). You can't possibly have read 10 geology books without knowing the intimate relationship between the fossil record and the geologic column of sedimentary layers."

--I do understand this reasoning for sedimentary chronology. However, unlike a paleontologist, fossils and the study of the fossils themselves is not as apparent in the various fields in geology such as the ones that I will study more in detail.


What are you saying here?

quote:
"Every geology book includes a discussion of radiometric dating. This is yet another indicator lending me doubt that you've read any."

--Though this is not where I had gotten my knowledge on radionucleic decay, yes, just about every geology text-book will have a discussion on radiometric dating, however with the exception of one I find it odd they do not include fundamental pieces of information, it is simply a review or a breif overview. Such as alpha and beta decay, or mineral isochrons and whole-rock isochrons, neither had they even made mention to the well known phenomena in the field of excess A-40.


So, where did you get your education on radiometric dating? As to the details of radiometric dating, many may not be appropriate to a general textbook. Despite what you may have learned this is a highly technical field.

quote:
"It has nothing specifically to do with radioactive isotopes at all."

--It may be important to note that all the major radioactive heat producing elements (U, Th, and K) are in this incompatible category. Most of the radioactive elements used as isotopic tracers and for dating purposes (such as Sm, Rb, Lu, K, U, and Th) are in this category as well.


So then there may be a REASON that the original quantity of these elements in common minerals can be assumed? You may be on to something here, TC.

quote:
As a geochemist or Geophysicist studies the mechanical and chemical processes occurring at the mid-ocean ridges and subduction zones, a strong case emerges that the continental crust was the product of chemical fractionation of the rock that comprises at least the upper third, and perhaps even more, of the earth's mantle. This topic has a large amount of significance on the distribution of radioactive elements in the earth as a whole.

It also has significance in determining the age of the earth. You mean there are systematics in determining the original distribution of radioactive elements? Maybe you need to talk to your fellow creationists a little more on this. By the way, how long do you think it took to form the crust and then augment it by continued fractionation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by TrueCreation, posted 05-04-2002 12:50 AM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 05-08-2002 6:14 PM edge has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 21 (9404)
05-08-2002 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by edge
05-04-2002 12:37 PM


"I agree emphatically. Are you going to do this soon?"
--I might be able to contain some smaller arguments, more specific that is. Though it may take months for me to understand a nicely done complete model in the geochemistry, and maybe longer to get the nuclear and sub nuclear physics for some theoretical concept such as accelerated nuclear decay, whatever I will end up using as my argument.

"What are you saying here?"
--I stated that I understand the reasoning behind sedimentary chronology, though percipient stated that I did not and attempted to explain some fundamentals to it, which I already knew.
--As for the latter sentence. I stated that basically a paleontologist studies fossils directly and more in-depth, while a geochemist, or geophysicist may have very little to do with fossils.

"So, where did you get your education on radiometric dating?"
--Some physics from:
Nuclei and particles - an introduction to nuclear and sub nuclear physics.

--An in-depth study from:
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth

--And about 2 other mainstream books on radioactive decay which I no longer have(library check-outs) and remember the titles to(one was more focused on U235 & U238, the other on K40. Though they both contained general radioisotope information).

"As to the details of radiometric dating, many may not be appropriate to a general textbook. Despite what you may have learned this is a highly technical field."
--I would certainly agree, the more I read on the subject the more it seems there is.

"So then there may be a REASON that the original quantity of these elements in common minerals can be assumed? You may be on to something here, TC."
--Well yes, and no. Because it is the geochemistry which shows all or part the reason radioisotopes are concentrated in the way that they are. This for instance, is why U-Pb dating has been seriously invalidated quite significantly in the field of radioisotope dating.

"It also has significance in determining the age of the earth. "
--It very much does.

"You mean there are systematics in determining the original distribution of radioactive elements?"
--Yes if you can, followed with some assumptions it is 'possible', though unlikely that you can figure initial quantities. Most all dating methods will assume initial quantities of zero unless anomalous dates are found, then they will compromise.

"Maybe you need to talk to your fellow creationists a little more on this. By the way, how long do you think it took to form the crust and then augment it by continued fractionation?"
--Personally, I couldn't say, this depends on very many conditions, most specifically the viscosity of the mantle (thus convection rates), and the presence of water. A creationist source of mine says that they can put it all into 3 days. Mighty strong assertion there! As to their support I have more to read.

------------------

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-08-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by edge, posted 05-04-2002 12:37 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020