Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Geologic Column
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 68 (4459)
02-13-2002 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by redstang281
02-13-2002 4:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
I'm asking them for proof that Charlie Lyle visited any of those locations.
Those locations are still there Red...you can visit them yourself today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by redstang281, posted 02-13-2002 4:54 PM redstang281 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 11:32 PM LudvanB has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 68 (4462)
02-13-2002 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by LudvanB
02-13-2002 10:17 PM


"Those locations are still there Red...you can visit them yourself today."
quote:
--How do they know that the whole geologic column is included in the crust, is it by sedimentation deposits, fossilized remains, or both?
--And what is the point of the argument on the Geologic column, what do we see it as proving and disproving, or showing that it sustains nothing.
--And last, I was just wondering, what are the mechenisms for sediment deposit, as I know of some, I am not sure If I am getting the whole pie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by LudvanB, posted 02-13-2002 10:17 PM LudvanB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by edge, posted 02-14-2002 12:07 AM TrueCreation has not replied

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


Message 32 of 68 (4464)
02-14-2002 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by TrueCreation
02-13-2002 11:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--How do they know that the whole geologic column is included in the crust, is it by sedimentation deposits, fossilized remains, or both?
--And what is the point of the argument on the Geologic column, what do we see it as proving and disproving, or showing that it sustains nothing.
--And last, I was just wondering, what are the mechenisms for sediment deposit, as I know of some, I am not sure If I am getting the whole pie.
Usually by drilling and comparing with mapped geology, fossil data and stratigraphic correlation. I think most of these areas have been extensively explored for oil.
These locations are brought up because of the common creationist argument that the entire geological column is not present anywhere in the world. But you are correct. It is not necessary in any event. There is no reason to expect all time periods to be represented at any one location.
Mechanisms for sedimentary deposits are many. Fluvial deposits, pelagic deposits and turbidites are just a few. I'm not sure what you mean here.
quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
I'm asking them for proof that Charlie Lyle visited any of those locations.
Do you mean Charles Lyell? Why would this be important?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 11:32 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 33 of 68 (4466)
02-14-2002 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Percy
02-13-2002 5:33 PM


Changing views of the history of the Earth
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri/geohist.html
This is a page, of which the link was given in the page I linked to in message 4. It better answers the question of message 1 of this string.
Moose
Added by edit, for whatever it's worth (from the Geology Glossary of this site:
Geologic column: A diagram representing divisions of geologic time and the rock units formed during each major period.
Geologic time scale: The time scale determined by the geologic column and by radiometric dating of rocks.
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 02-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 02-13-2002 5:33 PM Percy has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 34 of 68 (4475)
02-14-2002 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by TrueCreation
02-13-2002 9:24 PM


TC: Yeah, that's one way. UBB code has a similar set up (url=http://...of the website) name text (/url). Note I used parentheses in the explanation instead of square brackets so the computer wouldn't get confused. Another trick if you want to post a .jpg or .gif picture: (img)http://...of the image(/img). Again, using square brackets instead of parentheses. This board also allows you to preview everything with the "Preview" button, which is a great feature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 9:24 PM TrueCreation has not replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 68 (4512)
02-14-2002 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by mark24
02-13-2002 5:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
Although I'm interested in this question. That radiometric dating methods NORMALLY give a wild range of numbers is just plain wrong.
... it is usual to obtain a spectrum of discordant dates and to select the concentration of highest values as the correct age. (Armstrong and Besancon).
... the thing to do is get a sequence of dates and throw out those that are vastly anomalous. (Curtis et al)
As far as 40ar/39ar goes:
For more than three decades potassium-argon (K-Ar) and argon-argon (Ar-Ar) dating of rocks has been crucial in underpinning the billions of years for Earth history claimed by evolutionists. Critical to these dating methods is the assumption that there was no radiogenic argon (40Ar*) in the rocks (e.g., basalt) when they formed, which is usually stated as self-evident. Dalrymple argues strongly:
The K-Ar method is the only decay scheme that can be used with little or no concern for the initial presence of the daughter isotope. This is because 40Ar is an inert gas that does not combine chemically with any other element and so escapes easily from rocks when they are heated. Thus, while a rock is molten, the 40Ar formed by the decay of 40K escapes from the liquid.1
However, this dogmatic statement is inconsistent with even Dalrymple's own work 25 years earlier on 26 historic, subaerial lava flows, 20% of which he found had non-zero concentrations of 40Ar* (or excess argon) in violation of this key assumption of the K-Ar dating method.2 The historically dated flows and their "ages" were:
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801) 1.60.16 Ma; 1.410.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (122 BC) 0.250.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (AD 1972) 0.350.14 Ma
Mt. Lassen plagioclase, California (AD 1915) 0.110.03 Ma
Sunset Crater basalt, Arizona (AD 1064-1065) 0.270.09 Ma; 0.250.15 Ma
Far from being rare, there are numerous reported examples of excess 40Ar* in recent or young volcanic rocks producing excessively old K-Ar "ages":3
Akka Water Fall flow, Hawaii (Pleistocene) 32.37.2 Ma
Kilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii (AD 1959) 8.56.8 Ma
Mt. Stromboli, Italy, volcanic bomb (September 23, 1963) 2.42 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (May 1964) 0.70.01 Ma
Medicine Lake Highlands obsidian,
Glass Mountains, California (

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by mark24, posted 02-13-2002 5:05 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by joz, posted 02-14-2002 4:25 PM redstang281 has not replied
 Message 37 by mark24, posted 02-14-2002 5:50 PM redstang281 has not replied
 Message 39 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-14-2002 7:25 PM redstang281 has not replied
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 02-14-2002 8:18 PM redstang281 has not replied
 Message 41 by mark24, posted 02-15-2002 5:53 AM redstang281 has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 68 (4516)
02-14-2002 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by redstang281
02-14-2002 3:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
... the thing to do is get a sequence of dates and throw out those that are vastly anomalous. (Curtis et al)
Seems reasonable enough you gather a statistical population, find mean and sigma and apply an iterative method to eliminate statistical fliers.....
if you were to use 3 sigma limits you would be 97.5 percent sure that any point eliminated was not part of a gaussian distribution around the mean but a mis-measurement or a contaminated sample...
At least thats how I`d do it and they are smarter than me so I doubt they just pick results on a whim.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by redstang281, posted 02-14-2002 3:52 PM redstang281 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 37 of 68 (4522)
02-14-2002 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by redstang281
02-14-2002 3:52 PM


Redstang,
In addition to Joz,
It still doesn't explain why a single method is so consistent.
If ONE method is so poor, why do three other methods corroberate it so consistently?
I repeat:
"So the K-T Tectites were dated by no less than four methods, that corroborate. 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb . If that weren't evidence enough, lets take a look at how innacurate they all must be, to fit a YEC world view. I'll assume, for the sake of simplicity that the K-T boundary is 60 mya, not 65 mya. Now, assuming a 6,000 year old YEC earth. This means that all the above methods, were ALL 1,000,000% innacurate. Let me reiterate, the YEC movement requires these FOUR different, corroberating methods to be ONE MILLION PERCENT INNACURATE. Thats all of them innacurate by the same amount."
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by redstang281, posted 02-14-2002 3:52 PM redstang281 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by gene90, posted 02-14-2002 6:10 PM mark24 has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 38 of 68 (4523)
02-14-2002 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by mark24
02-14-2002 5:50 PM


The majority of Redstang's most recent post was taken verbatim from ICR's website, "Excess Argon", IMPACT number 307, accessible here:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-307.htm
Without sufficient attribution or bibliographic data...the closest thing to an attribution is "+ Dr. Snelling is Associate Professor of Geology at ICR." and it looks likely that he grabbed that by mistake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by mark24, posted 02-14-2002 5:50 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by redstang281, posted 02-15-2002 8:27 AM gene90 has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 39 of 68 (4524)
02-14-2002 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by redstang281
02-14-2002 3:52 PM


Note that most of the references at the bottom of redstang281's list (which was from http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-307.htm ), are from respected scientific journals. These are published papers that are obviously exploring situations where there are problems with radiometric dating methods. Blatantly NOT efforts at a cover up.
I quote from the end of the paper I cited back in message 4 ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html ):
quote:
For potential critics: Refuting the conventional geological time scale is not an exercise in collecting examples of the worst samples possible. A critique of conventional geologic time scale should address the best and most consistent data available, and explain it with an alternative interpretation, because that is the data that actually matters to the current understanding of geologic time.
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by redstang281, posted 02-14-2002 3:52 PM redstang281 has not replied

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


Message 40 of 68 (4525)
02-14-2002 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by redstang281
02-14-2002 3:52 PM



Redstang writes:
... it is usual to obtain a spectrum of discordant dates and to select the concentration of highest values as the correct age. (Armstrong and Besancon).
... the thing to do is get a sequence of dates and throw out those that are vastly anomalous. (Curtis et al)

Do you really believe that scientists who are cooking the data are also admitting it publicly? These quotes are probably genuine because most Creationist quotes of scientists are genuine, but they're very likely taken way out of context, and the one from Curtis is very hard to figure. Perhaps the quote is from a joke he told at a party.
A search of the web reveals that your "Curtis et al" is Garniss Curtis, a well-known geochronologist. If you look at this critique of Woodmorappe you can see that what Curtis considers "vastly anomalous" is when he can't get agreement anywhere close to 1%, and even then the last thing he would do, indeed the last thing any respectable scientist would do, is "throw out" the anomalous dates. And if they did do it they'd never, ever, admit it.
It helps to bring some simple common sense to some of the quotes you're going to see from Creationist sources. Perhaps it would help to turn it around and think how likely it would be that Creationists would say wildly negative things about Creationism. If someone quoted a Creationist saying something like, "Creationist criticisms of radiometric dating are largely without merit," wouldn't you be a bit skeptical? You would, right? So would I, and I'm an evolutionist. It just makes sense that people wouldn't go around ripping the very things they deeply believe in.
So when you see Creationist quotes of geologists ripping their own science to which they've devoted their lives, you might try casting a skeptical eye.
Anyway, the link describes where dating of the same layer using two different methods yielded dates of 32.5 and 34.4 million years, a difference of only 6%. A mere 6% difference is probably not what you had in mind when you saw the term "vastly anomalous."
You can be sure radiometric dating is not false and scientists are not simply, in effect, pulling dates out of a hat because of the fact that scientists have not fractured into many opposing camps, each with their own favorite set of dates. If the results of radiometric dating were largely random and unreliable we'd have situations such as one group claiming the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, others claiming it was only 35 million years ago, and yet others saying it was 100 million years ago. The reason there are no such dramatic disagreements but instead extremely broad consensus among scientists about the age of the geologic layers is because radiometric dating gives consistent and accurate results.
Your closing lengthy excerpt comes from ICR Impact No. 307 by Andrew A. Snelling. His claim that Brent Dalrymple's early work contradicts his later claims is the opposite of what is actually the case.
Brent Dalrymple is a well-known, one might even say famous, geochronologist. He did much of the landmark work establishing the guidelines and baselines for more accurate potassium/argon dating, and part of this work entailed measuring Ar-40 levels in relatively young lava flows to make certain that Ar-40 actually did evaporate from the hot lava. One additional thing he verified was that intrusions (basalt from lava that didn't make it all the way to the surface but rather became trapped within or between geologic layers) cannot be reliably dated using K/Ar dating because the Ar-40 had no opportunity to escape into the atmosphere and so is still trapped in the rock.
If you look at reference #3 for where Snelling says he got the dates that he attributed to Dalrymple you'll see that the reference is not to Dalrymple but from Snelling himself. Snelling's text attributes the dates to Dalrymple, but in reality they come from a different Snelling paper. Follow the link in reference #3 to this Snelling paper titled The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon "Ages" for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon "Dating" and you'll see the 7 dates of young basalts that actually come from Dalrymple are less than 2 million years old. Since K/Ar dating is only used for material older than 50 million years, a possible residual amount of Ar-40 at levels measured by Dalrymple could cause no more than a 2 million year descrepancy, and Dalrymple's work help establish guidelines for correcting even that small error.
Snelling then goes on to list a number of other Ar-40 measurements of young basalts, but he never provides references for these numbers, and they're certainly not Dalrymple's. Most of the dates are much less than 50 million years, but some of them are huge, like 580, 690 and 700 million years, and if true it would mean that K/Ar dating is largely unreliable. But if that were the case then K/Ar dating could not yield the consistent results that it does.
So something is wildly wrong with Snelling's numbers. I see some of the oldest dates come from volcanoes near the ocean, and lava under water solidifies far too rapidly for the Ar-40 to escape, so perhaps that explains these old dates, but there's no way to tell for sure.
Bottom line: Snelling's data is a ringing indictment of radiometric dating, but his numbers are unattributed and suspect, and don't jive with reality anyway.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by redstang281, posted 02-14-2002 3:52 PM redstang281 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 41 of 68 (4550)
02-15-2002 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by redstang281
02-14-2002 3:52 PM


Redstang,
http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/lies/lie024.html
At this site you will find a complete rebuttal.
Unfortunately I can't post a relevant paragraph as the whole page is relevant. It is a paragraph by paragraph rebuttal.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by redstang281, posted 02-14-2002 3:52 PM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by redstang281, posted 02-15-2002 8:34 AM mark24 has replied
 Message 54 by redstang281, posted 02-15-2002 11:39 AM mark24 has replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 68 (4563)
02-15-2002 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by gene90
02-14-2002 6:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
The majority of Redstang's most recent post was taken verbatim from ICR's website, "Excess Argon", IMPACT number 307, accessible here:
This is where all of Mark's post came from. And it's pretty much verbatim. So I don't see what the problem is with me doing the same thing.
Radiometric Dating Does Work
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 02-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by gene90, posted 02-14-2002 6:10 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by mark24, posted 02-15-2002 8:47 AM redstang281 has replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 68 (4565)
02-15-2002 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by mark24
02-15-2002 5:53 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
Redstang,
http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/lies/lie024.html
At this site you will find a complete rebuttal.
Unfortunately I can't post a relevant paragraph as the whole page is relevant. It is a paragraph by paragraph rebuttal.

Mark, can you say honestly that you really understand this dating method and all the inner workings of it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by mark24, posted 02-15-2002 5:53 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by mark24, posted 02-15-2002 8:52 AM redstang281 has replied
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 02-15-2002 9:51 AM redstang281 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 44 of 68 (4566)
02-15-2002 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by redstang281
02-15-2002 8:27 AM


I provided a link to the site I was quoting.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by redstang281, posted 02-15-2002 8:27 AM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by redstang281, posted 02-15-2002 8:49 AM mark24 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024