Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
28 online now:
jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Stile, Tangle, vimesey (6 members, 22 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,948 Year: 21,984/19,786 Month: 547/1,834 Week: 47/500 Day: 5/42 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood = many coincidences
edge
Member (Idle past 44 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 436 of 445 (614666)
05-05-2011 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by Robert Byers
04-29-2011 2:42 AM


Re: A side note from the admin-mode
Robert Byers writes:

I use the word forces instead of processes because geology is about results in structures of the earth. Chemical breakdown is so minor in affecting the earth structures that in effect its a atomic process on low power merely breaking things done.


Geochemists would be very disappointed in this explanation...

Geology surely is about forces moving things however slow or fast.

And that often has to do with the chemistry of rocks. But, yes, Geology is about many things.

Chemistry is on a boundary of the real segregational divisions here.

Ummmm, sure.

Chemical break down is trivial as any evidence of earth events and processes of note.

Where do you get this stuff?

Geology is about pick axes and dynamite. Not test tubes.
They just have to include it in geology class under a big tent because it rides a boundary in a minor way. not the real mccoy as i see it.

Yes, geology is a very big subject. But I'm not sure of your point here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Robert Byers, posted 04-29-2011 2:42 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 44 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 437 of 445 (614668)
05-05-2011 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 421 by Robert Byers
04-27-2011 1:05 AM


Robert Byers writes:

Steve Austin is a great creationist thinker.


Nevins, er... Austin is a great creationist deceiver.

... yet I still say that these dating methods of yours and cooling ideas are not processes that affect anything people understand to be geology.

Well, they seem to be processes that affect things that Robert Byers doesn't understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by Robert Byers, posted 04-27-2011 1:05 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2203
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 438 of 445 (615895)
05-18-2011 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 432 by Robert Byers
05-04-2011 1:07 AM


Re: Take a Hint
Robert Byers writes:

It did turn into a interesting conversation.
i do say the operative word here is CHEMISTRY.
all they did was apply chemial ideas into minor matters of sediment consolidation.
They made a big tent but are wrong to see the real processes of earth sediment as related to special cases of chemistry or bugs making holes in the dirt. I guess they would call that biologicalgeological processes.
Its just bugs and not geology.
Its joining very different subjects together for special investigation.

anglagard writes:

Robert Byers writes:

I use the word forces instead of processes because geology is about results in structures of the earth. Chemical breakdown is so minor in affecting the earth structures that in effect its a atomic process on low power merely breaking things done.
Geology surely is about forces moving things however slow or fast.
Chemistry is on a boundary of the real segregational divisions here.
Chemical break down is trivial as any evidence of earth events and processes of note.
Geology is about pick axes and dynamite. Not test tubes.
They just have to include it in geology class under a big tent because it rides a boundary in a minor way. not the real mccoy as i see it.

The absolute ignorance of this statement leaves me aghast.

Look up the term "geochemistry" in Wikipedia, if you can't be bothered to visit a library.

Signed - one with a BS in Geological Engineering and a Master's in categorizing knowledge. However, I do not have a PhD in geochemistry, even though it is offered by dozens of universities. Is that what I need to convince you the field exists?

"Pearls for Swine" - Monty Python

It did turn into a interesting conversation.
i do say the operative word here is CHEMISTRY.
all they did was apply chemial ideas into minor matters of sediment consolidation.
They made a big tent but are wrong to see the real processes of earth sediment as related to special cases of chemistry or bugs making holes in the dirt. I guess they would call that biologicalgeological processes.
Its just bugs and not geology.
Its joining very different subjects together for special investigation.

I find your response completely incomprehensible, or in the vernacular, what the hell are you going on about?

When I took sedimentology, chemical reactions seemed quite important as to what form the resultant ancient sediment would become.

As for the field of paleontology, you do (or should) recognize that it is not limited to just dinosaurs, it also includes invertebrates, fungi, and bacteria, just as the sedimentology portion of the geosciences includes chemistry, physics, biology, and mathematics (and even English, in nations where it is the primary language).

Edited by anglagard, : Last two paragraphs along with a period that is more properly a comma.

Edited by anglagard, : Proper grammar, best be pure before being critical of others

Edited by anglagard, : third sentence added plus a few phrases


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Robert Byers, posted 05-04-2011 1:07 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 439 of 445 (615936)
05-18-2011 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 432 by Robert Byers
05-04-2011 1:07 AM


Re: Take a Hint
It did turn into a interesting conversation.
i do say the operative word here is CHEMISTRY.
all they did was apply chemial ideas into minor matters of sediment consolidation.
They made a big tent but are wrong to see the real processes of earth sediment as related to special cases of chemistry or bugs making holes in the dirt. I guess they would call that biologicalgeological processes.
Its just bugs and not geology.
Its joining very different subjects together for special investigation.

Robert, you are simply ignoring some very important concepts. Chemistry has everything to do with how rocks form, how they weather, how the cement together, how they age, etc. Some of that chemistry comes from life. For example, the banded iron formations seen prior to the Cambrian was due to the biological production of oxygen. This free oxygen oxidized soluble iron and turned it into insoluble iron oxide (aka rust). Limestone and chalk are made up of the skeletons of living creatures.

Understanding chemistry and biology is vital to studying rocks. It can't be done without this knowledge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Robert Byers, posted 05-04-2011 1:07 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
misha
Member (Idle past 2966 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


Message 440 of 445 (619556)
06-10-2011 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by Robert Byers
04-29-2011 3:03 AM


Robert Byers writes:

I'll put another way.
If the magna never cooled and stayed in its magna state it would not be a act or result of geology.

Actually, it would still be geology. Geology is concerned with the materials that form the solid portion of the earth. So although the magma is not yet solid, it is the precursor to the solid material (rock) and is therefore still a topic for discussion in Geology.

As a material scientist I study the strength and properties of solid materials (ceramics, metals, polymers etc). However, when studying the properties of these materials a full understanding of their chemical components is necessary. This includes the materials in their molten state, even though i can't run a tensile test on a liquid.

In order to understand the tensile strength of steel it is also necessary to understand the solubility of oxygen and carbon in molten iron. Molten iron is not steel but it is still a valid topic when discussing metallurgy.

In the same way, although magma may not be a rock, its chemical composition and cooling rates are necessary to understand the properties of the rock it will form when cooled.

Also, grain size of rocks/minerals is extremely important in understanding the cooling rates of molten materials. I work with grain size measurements all the time in metallurgy to see how quickly a material was quenched. I can even look at grain growth and tell in which direction the material cooled.


only after the chemical reaction has stopped and the material, upon cooling and another reaction, becomes hard or rock is it to be seen as geology.
So magna processes are not a part of geology. only the finished material after the magna has ceased to be.

Wrong again. The cooling rates of molten rock have profound consequences to the mechanical properties and grain structure of these rocks. It has EVERYTHING to do with geology. Magma processes, their cooling rates and solubility rates are integral to geology.


This was my problem. i can't see a chemical action being applied to a geological issue. In nature boundaries over lap but they exist.

Cooling calcuactions is not geology. its chemistry.
I have no interest in that and its not evidence for geological claims in a geology section.
its about rocks and bigger rocks.

But thats exactly why cooling rates and cooling calculations matter. These rates determine the grain size in both metallic and non-metallic crystalline structures. These processes are what make rocks and bigger rocks. So, heck yes they matter. And cooling rates are not even restricted to chemistry. They are predominantly a physics issue. Cooling and phase change is a physical change not a chemical change.

But what do I know after a few classes in phase diagrams and material thermodynamics?

I see the issue here. Byers is trying to separate the sciences. He believes that all of the sciences are mutually exclusive. And he needs to believe this. Its the only way he can tear down the ones that oppose his beliefs without realizing that he's a kook.

To Byers, physics is physics and has nothing to do with chemistry. Geology is geology and has nothing to do with chemistry. I guess that's news to those of us who studied material science or geology. I always thought chemistry was based on the physics of atoms and molecules. I guess all these experiments i've been running with astounding predictability and accuracy are wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Robert Byers, posted 04-29-2011 3:03 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by Percy, posted 06-10-2011 11:47 AM misha has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19071
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 441 of 445 (619559)
06-10-2011 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 440 by misha
06-10-2011 11:36 AM


See Message 433. Robert hasn't posted to this thread since.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by misha, posted 06-10-2011 11:36 AM misha has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member
Posts: 1495
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 442 of 445 (619659)
06-10-2011 10:18 PM


No chemistry in geology?
To borrow a few words of another: Nothing in geology makes sense except in the light of chemistry.

My job entails attempting to unravel the mysteries of why and how ore deposits form and this would be impossible without a good understanding of chemistry. I use chemistry every single day as a geologist.


  
nofloods2012
Junior Member (Idle past 2509 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 10-26-2012


Message 444 of 445 (677016)
10-26-2012 10:52 AM


Flood Barriers
Natural disasters may come and go and at times it led to a huge amount of disasters we've to guarantee that when they do happen again, they would not cause just as much as hardships and tragedies. Basically, prevention defeats safety. We need to have flood barriers in store for future use.

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by Admin, posted 10-26-2012 11:57 AM nofloods2012 has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 445 of 445 (677029)
10-26-2012 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 444 by nofloods2012
10-26-2012 10:52 AM


Re: Flood Barriers
You're either completely clueless or an incompetent spammer. If the former then please be careful to post about the topic next time. If the latter then please just go away.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by nofloods2012, posted 10-26-2012 10:52 AM nofloods2012 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 © 2019