Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why aren't flowering plants in the lowest layers?
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 1 of 12 (11033)
06-05-2002 6:39 PM


C'MON, YEC'ers!
Surely you can't just sit there and believe in YEC, the flood, etc, when you have this GIGANTIC problem of there not being ANY flowering plants below a certain level in the GC.
How does flood geology explain this?
Are you all data-driven (like real scientists) or Bible story-driven, (like people trying to make Bible stories true after seeing the evidnece)??

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Percy, posted 06-05-2002 6:49 PM nator has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2 of 12 (11035)
06-05-2002 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
06-05-2002 6:39 PM


Mark posed another unanswered question about the geological column, or at least I missed the answer if there was one. Perhaps we can piggyback these two together.
The question concerned the worldwide geological layer containing elevated iridium levels, and how that could have happened due to Noah's flood.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 06-05-2002 6:39 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by TrueCreation, posted 06-05-2002 7:04 PM Percy has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 12 (11036)
06-05-2002 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Percy
06-05-2002 6:49 PM


I tackled this odd assertion some time ago here:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=14&p=2
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=14&p=3
Me and Joe Meert tumbled around it but I think that either Mark24 was confused when he typed up the question or it was something else. (irridium is a heavy element)
As for Flowering plants, this is more biology/zoology than hydrology or geology. So for the same reason I don't argue too much in Cosmology and biology, this isn't going to be a strong point for me.
--This will also need a bump:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=21&p=7
--I know Joe had something to compile by June 1st(?), though he's been posting around and its past this date.
--Also sorry about the lack in posting, I went surfing on Friday on the East coast of Florida and got a serious sun burn so I've been in pain for the past couple days. I'll start posting and doing more reading in a few.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-05-2002]
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-05-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Percy, posted 06-05-2002 6:49 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 06-05-2002 8:36 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 4 of 12 (11039)
06-05-2002 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by TrueCreation
06-05-2002 7:04 PM


TrueCreation writes:

I tackled this odd assertion some time ago starting here:
Message 25
And here:
Message 31
Me and Joe Meert tumbled around it but I think that either Mark24 was confused when he typed up the question or it was something else. (irridium is a heavy element)

I couldn't follow your proposed scenario. Could you explain it again at, say, a 4th grade level? If I can just get a general idea of what the proposed events were and the order that they happened that would be great.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Modify/rerender to get rid of old-style reference to discussion board pages.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by TrueCreation, posted 06-05-2002 7:04 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by TrueCreation, posted 06-05-2002 10:54 PM Percy has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 12 (11046)
06-05-2002 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
06-05-2002 8:36 PM


"I couldn't follow your proposed scenario. Could you explain it again at, say, a 4th grade level? If I can just get a general idea of what the proposed events were and the order that they happened that would be great."
--Hm.. Well I'm confused as well as to what the initial question is. I mean I know what the question is but I don't see its relevance, it seems 'misplaced'. Are you referring to Mark24's question here:
quote:
If the layer has a higher concentration of iridium than lava, how did a THIN global layer of iridium rich rock appear in the turbulent waters of the flood?
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=14&p=2
--If it is, I think it is evident by the fact that iridium is one of the heaviest natural elements, right next to the element osmium.
--Joe Meert in being a bit sarcastic said that I need to 'add flood hydraulics to your reading list'. So I'm thinking that they don't think I can get an iridium deposit to settle quick enough for it to be so condensed.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-05-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 06-05-2002 8:36 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by wehappyfew, posted 06-06-2002 10:08 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 12 (11079)
06-06-2002 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by TrueCreation
06-05-2002 10:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
/B]
Anything added to the oceans in dissolved or fine particulate form will take a considerable time to settle out. Longer than the age of the earth in the YEC timeframe. Its a function of ocean mixing, seawater chemistry, particle and ion adsorption and flocculation, etc.
Read this:
...Among Anbar's eventual findings was that iridium's "residence time" -- a measure of the rate of an element's natural removal from the oceans, much as half-life is a measure of the rate at which radioactive materials decay -- is 2,000 to 20,000 years.
"If a large amount of iridium from a meteorite dissolved in the oceans, it could very well have taken as long as 100,000 years for the contamination to wash out, and the sediments deposited during that time would reflect the oceans' elevated concentrations," Anbar says.
NEW METEOR DINO DEATH LINK
In the YEC timeline, the iridium from this meteor has to be spread to the entire world's oceans in a matter of minutes or hours, which requires very vigorous mixing. Then it has to settle out in another short time - minutes or hours - which cannot happen in a real ocean, especially one being mixed so vigorously. Otherwise the iridium anomaly would be spread throughout the entire geologic column, not concentrated in a layer only millimeters to centimeters thick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by TrueCreation, posted 06-05-2002 10:54 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by TrueCreation, posted 06-06-2002 5:49 PM wehappyfew has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 12 (11091)
06-06-2002 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by wehappyfew
06-06-2002 10:08 AM


"In the YEC timeline, the iridium from this meteor has to be spread to the entire world's oceans in a matter of minutes or hours, which requires very vigorous mixing. Then it has to settle out in another short time - minutes or hours - which cannot happen in a real ocean, especially one being mixed so vigorously. Otherwise the iridium anomaly would be spread throughout the entire geologic column, not concentrated in a layer only millimeters to centimeters thick. "
--Nice link, however do you have the variables handy which were used to calculate this? ie, do you have the data?
--This is another nice link and a graph of the concentration of iridium, the format is interesting by which it decreases in quantity.
http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/courses/v1001/impact23.html
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by wehappyfew, posted 06-06-2002 10:08 AM wehappyfew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by wehappyfew, posted 06-07-2002 11:23 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 12 (11141)
06-07-2002 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by TrueCreation
06-06-2002 5:49 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]--Nice link, however do you have the variables handy which were used to calculate this? ie, do you have the data?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Anbar, A. D., G. J. Wasserburg, D. A. Papanastassiou, and P. S. Andersson, Iridium in natural waters, Science , 273, 1524-1528, 1996
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/273/5281/1524
[QUOTE]--This is another nice link and a graph of the concentration of iridium, the format is interesting by which it decreases in quantity.
http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/courses/v1001/impact23.html
[/B][/QUOTE]
It seems to decay exponentially over tens of thousands of years, corraborating Anbar's numbers very nicely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by TrueCreation, posted 06-06-2002 5:49 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by edge, posted 06-07-2002 3:54 PM wehappyfew has not replied
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 06-07-2002 3:59 PM wehappyfew has replied
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 06-09-2002 2:16 AM wehappyfew has not replied

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


Message 9 of 12 (11151)
06-07-2002 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by wehappyfew
06-07-2002 11:23 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by wehappyfew:
It seems to decay exponentially over tens of thousands of years, corraborating Anbar's numbers very nicely.[/B][/QUOTE]
This is probably an effect of reworking the event materials into younger and younger sediments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by wehappyfew, posted 06-07-2002 11:23 AM wehappyfew has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 12 (11153)
06-07-2002 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by wehappyfew
06-07-2002 11:23 AM


"Anbar, A. D., G. J. Wasserburg, D. A. Papanastassiou, and P. S. Andersson, Iridium in natural waters, Science , 273, 1524-1528, 1996
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/273/5281/1524
--I don't think I'm able to access this, would you post the abstract or the article here, we can keep it a secret
. Or something to get around this.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by wehappyfew, posted 06-07-2002 11:23 AM wehappyfew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by wehappyfew, posted 06-07-2002 9:21 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 12 (11163)
06-07-2002 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by TrueCreation
06-07-2002 3:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Anbar, A. D., G. J. Wasserburg, D. A. Papanastassiou, and P. S. Andersson, Iridium in natural waters, Science , 273, 1524-1528, 1996
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/273/5281/1524
--I don't think I'm able to access this, would you post the abstract or the article here, we can keep it a secret
. Or something to get around this.

Its a free registration to get the abstract. you should sign up for it. The full article is in the library. I don't have online access to the full text.
Abstract:
Iridium in Natural Waters
A. D. Anbar, * G. J. Wasserburg, D. A. Papanastassiou, P. S. Andersson
Iridium, commonly used as a tracer of extraterrestrial material, was measured in rivers, oceans, and an estuarine environment. The concentration of iridium in the oceans ranges from 3.0 (1.3) 108 to 5.7 (0.8) 108 atoms per kilogram. Rivers contain from 17.4 (0.9) 108 to 92.9 (2.2) 108 atoms per kilogram and supply more dissolved iridium to the oceans than do extraterrestrial sources. In the Baltic Sea, 75% of riverine iridium is removed from solution. Iron-manganese oxyhydroxides scavenge iridium under oxidizing conditions, but anoxic environments are not a major sink for iridium. The ocean residence time of iridium is between 2 103 and 2 104 years.
I'll be gone for 8 days, so you'll have to carry on without me. You could do some research into other iridium enrichment layers in the GC. They are quite common. Most are from normal volcanism. Every such layer requires many millenia to settle out. Of course we already knew that from the nature of the deep sea sediments these samples are taken from - no rapid deposition of siliceous and calcareous oozes, thank you.
Not good for the YEC model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 06-07-2002 3:59 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 12 (11204)
06-09-2002 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by wehappyfew
06-07-2002 11:23 AM


"It seems to decay exponentially over tens of thousands of years, corraborating Anbar's numbers very nicely."
--Actually I think in the mainstream model, you would rather use atmospheric iridium precipitation models. Your not going to need to use ocean depths to analyze what ws deposited without the presence of water, let alone ocean depths. Unless of course I misunderstand the information that is actually included in the full article.
I just spotted this page which may have some information valuable to this discrepancy:
http://es.epa.gov/ncer/final/grants/96/air/ondov2.html
Some other resources which like the other, am unable to access:
Hansen, H. J., Rasmussen, K. L., Gwozdz, R. & Kunzendorf, H., 1987.
Iridium-bearing carbon black at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. Bulletin
of the Geological Society of Denmark, 36, 305-314.
Lerbekmo, J. F., Sweet, A. R. & St. Louis, R. M., 1987. The relationship
between the iridium anomaly and palynological floral events at three
Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary localities in western Canada. Geological
Society of America Bulletin, 99, 325-330.
Tredoux, M., De Wit, M. J., Hart, R. J., Linsay, N. M., Verhagen, B. &
Sellschop, J. P. F., 1988. Chemostratigraphy across the Cretaceous-Tertiary
boundary and a critical assessment of the iridium anomaly. Journal of
Geology, 97, 585-605.
Crockett, J. H., Officer, C. B., C., W. F. & Johnson, G. D., 1988.
Distribution of noble metals across the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary at
Gubbio, Italy: Iridium variation as a constraint on the duration and nature
of Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary events. Geology, 16, 77-80.
Robin, E., Boclet, D., Bont, P., Froget, L., Jhanno, C. & Rocchia, R.,
1991. The stratigraphic distribution of Ni-rich spinels in
Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary rocks at El Kef (Tunisia), Caravaca (Spain)
and Hole 761C (Leg 122). Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 107, 715-721.
(this reference also contains a discussion of the Ir anomalies in these
sections).
Colodner, D. C., Boyle, E. A., Edmond, J. M. & Thomson, J., 1992.
Post-depositional mobility of platinum, iridium and rhenium in marine
sediments. Nature, 358, 402-404.
Sawlowicz, Z., 1993. Iridium and other platinum-group elements as
geochemical markers in sedimentary environments. Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 104, 253-270.
Wang, K., Attrep, M., Jr. & Orth, C. J., 1993. Global iridium anomaly, mass
extinction, and redox change at the Devonian-Carboniferous boundary.
Geology, 21, 1071-1074.
Elliot, D. H., Askin, R. A., Kyte, F. T. & Zinsmeister, W. J., 1994.
Iridium and dinocysts at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary on Seymour
Island, Antarctica: implications for the K-T event. Geology, 22, 347-355.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by wehappyfew, posted 06-07-2002 11:23 AM wehappyfew 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