Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,249 Year: 5,506/9,624 Month: 531/323 Week: 28/143 Day: 1/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists
edge
Member (Idle past 1822 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 194 of 1053 (751360)
03-02-2015 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Dr Adequate
03-02-2015 11:51 AM


Re: Lava
In water and in air, it'll be basalt. I don't know if the difference in cooling rates is so different as to make underwater basalt consistently more fine-grained, so that we could use that as a test --- if anyone knows that that's the case, please set me right.
It's hard to get finer-grained that a true 'trap' rock. However, the very presence of water along with rapid cooling will change the texture completely. Most subaqueous volcanics will be fragmental (broken up), and often altered (heat plus water plus dissolved materials). Look up the term 'hyaloclastite' sometime.
The exception to this is in the case of some pillow basalts, but again, they have macro-textures that are immediately recognized by virtually all geologists. They are also usually altered to a sodic (remember the salt questions?) type.
Again, the reality is complex. For instance, what happens when a magma encounters groundwater? We could go on and on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2015 11:51 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1822 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 196 of 1053 (751362)
03-02-2015 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Dr Adequate
03-02-2015 12:17 PM


Re: Layers visible in salt mines
Afterthought: this can't even be the case even with underwater volcanism without sea-floor spreading. Otherwise incipient volcanic islands would basically be shaped like hollow pillars, wouldn't they?
Volcanic islands are problematic. Most subaqueous volcanics are pyroclastic; that is, they are broken up and tend to collapse or erode easily. So, what you need is a huge amount of eruptive material to actually form an island that will resist wave action long enough for intrusive and extrusive lava to be deposited and support a long lasting island. As we can see, it does happen. However, if you look at the seafloor topography around the Hawaiian Islands, you will see huge landslide deposits all around the emergent islands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2015 12:17 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-02-2015 5:04 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1822 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 198 of 1053 (751366)
03-02-2015 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by ThinAirDesigns
03-02-2015 12:21 PM


Re: Layers visible in salt mines
Well, not so much pillars, but steep cone shape (underwater) vs shallow cone shape (open air).
That was purely a guess and I accept that there are a TON of things I haven't considered in that 2 second hypothesis.
To amplify on my previous post, the subaqueous lavas encounter water and cool so rapidly that they fragment into tiny grains that are mostly glass and therefor are readily altered in the presence of water. So, they are not only broken up, but they are converted quickly to clay minerals. This means that they are exceedingly weak.
I'm showing a picture here of a subaerial example of clay-altered volcanic rocks in the San Juan Mountains of Colorado. The lobe of material flowed from right to left, into a valley and formed Lake San Cristobal. You might imagine that same type of material partly suspended and thinned by water and and how far it might flow.
I'm also sure that this same phenomenon is what happened in Washignton state a few years ago, killing a number of people. To my mind, a lot of these things are predictable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-02-2015 12:21 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-02-2015 5:24 PM edge has not replied
 Message 209 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2015 10:14 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1822 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 203 of 1053 (751389)
03-02-2015 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by ThinAirDesigns
03-02-2015 4:52 PM


Re: Curriculum focus
f there is one bias they have (and of course they have a lot more than one), anti-radiocarbon is it. It's almost a demon to them.
Heh, heh ...
This always seemed odd to me. I think most YECs feel the same way to some degree; but realistically, it's not that big a deal. The other radiometric methods date much older events and are probably much easier to deal with as far as technique. Frankly, it is easier to attack than other methods because of the nature of the 'beast'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-02-2015 4:52 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1822 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 205 of 1053 (751391)
03-02-2015 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by ThinAirDesigns
03-02-2015 5:04 PM


Re: Layers visible in salt mines
Ah, so the rapid cooling makes the end product structurally weak (my guess). Interesting.
Thanks
JB
Rapid cooling forming glass fragments, and in the presence of water. We are talking about subaqueous volcanism here.
Here is an example of a volcanic island.
quote:
Surtsey ("Surtr's island" in Icelandic, pronounced ˈsʏr̥tsei) is a volcanic island located in the Vestmannaeyjar archipelago off the southern coast of Iceland. At 63.303N 20.605WCoordinates: 63.303N 20.605W, Surtsey is the southernmost point of Iceland. It was formed in a volcanic eruption which began 130 metres (426 ft) below sea level, and reached the surface on 14 November 1963. The eruption lasted until 5 June 1967, when the island reached its maximum size of 2.7 km2 (1.0 sq mi). Since then, wave erosion has caused the island to steadily diminish in size: as of 2002, its surface area was 1.4 km2 (0.54 sq mi).[1] The most recent survey (2007) shows the island's maximum elevation at 155 m (509 ft) above sea level.[2](Surtsey - Wikipedia bold added)
Note that the island has lost half its area between 1967 and 2002. Not sure what's happened since then, but at an elevation of 155m, it may have built something of a skeleton and a mass to help resist future wave erosion.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-02-2015 5:04 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1822 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 213 of 1053 (751416)
03-03-2015 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by RAZD
03-02-2015 10:14 PM


Re: volcanoes on land and in water
Don't you also get ash on land and clay in water from the cloud particulate material?
Yes. Ash can fall in air as a cold or hot deposit. If hot enough, it can make a very competent rock. If cold, it will be a fine dust, just as the ash from Mt. St. Helens was deposited over most of the northwest US. That material will essentially disappear and eventually be preserved in places like the Columbia River alluvial fan.
Are not Tuffs formed from ash material compacted and solidified (the footprints in laetoli)?
Volcanic ash - Wikipedia
Again, yes. Tuff is a rock type composed of consolidated volcanic ash. And again, the hotter, the more compacted it can become forming a 'welded tuff'.
The exact mode of composition, transport and deposition will result in numerous variations of tuffs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2015 10:14 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2015 7:16 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1822 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 217 of 1053 (751484)
03-03-2015 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by RAZD
03-03-2015 7:16 AM


Re: volcanoes on land and in water
There are also correlations with major volcanic ash clouds causing climate change - the year without a summer (1816) - that also show up as frost rings in trees. The larger the ash cloud the more widespread the effect.
Tambora (Sumbawa Island, Indonesia), April 1815, largest historic volcanic eruption. Up to 100,000 deaths attributed to the climate and tsunami effects of the one, single eruption. Tambora is still considered active.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2015 7:16 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2015 4:24 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1822 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 227 of 1053 (751684)
03-04-2015 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by ThinAirDesigns
03-04-2015 7:54 PM


Re: Carbon dating paper sought
I'm seeing a paper by Dr. Robert Lee quoted time and time again in YEC circles and I'm trying to find the actual paper.
quote:
Lee, Robert E., 1981. Radiocarbon: Ages in error. Anthropological Journal of Canada 19(3): 9-29. Reprinted in Creation Research Society Quarterly 19(2): 117-127 (1982).
Any help would be appreciated. I'm always suspect of content when a paper is quoted and quoted but never shown the light of day - when found they never quite seem to say what it is said they say. I went though this with the widely quoted Lammerts paper on bristlecone rings and once found my suspicions were again confirmed in that case.
Any help would be appreciated. The only option currently is to by the entire CRSQ back catalog and I'm pretty sure I don't want to pay for that much slime.
Thanks
JB
Just a quick reference:
CD011: Carbon dating.
ETA: Heh, heh...
Anyone that says this:
quote:
"If the earth and life on earth are really as ancient as the theory of evolution requires, a great proportion of radiocarbon ages should be infinite. This is because, with a half-life of only 5,730 years, initial radiocarbon in a fossil decreases in about ten half-lives to a level too low to be measured."Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1982, pp. 116-117.
...doesn't have a clue. In radiocarbon dating anything over 50ky, depending on the sample characteristics, IS an infinite age.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-04-2015 7:54 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-04-2015 8:38 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1822 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 234 of 1053 (751777)
03-05-2015 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by ThinAirDesigns
03-04-2015 11:49 PM


Re: Carbon dating paper sought
I tried that earlier, but it says right on that link that single issues can only be bought back to 1984 and what I need is from 1982.
I'm trying to imagine what the world has come to when someone 'needs' an issue of CRSQ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-04-2015 11:49 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-05-2015 4:42 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1822 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 239 of 1053 (751845)
03-06-2015 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by ThinAirDesigns
03-06-2015 12:50 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
quote:
I see much active/historical debate about the proposed causes of this anomaly. I'm not so interested (for current purposes) in the cause so much as whether it's accepted and demonstrable that it exists as a world wide layer. If you understand the theology that I'm up against (all life killed all at once), having such an identifiable marker laid down world wide, smack in the middle of all this death is a nice arrow in the evidence quiver.
I'm wondering how broad the confirmation is of this layer. Is it a solid accepted fact of geology? I reading the Wiki page for Luis Alverez, I saw this statement: Not Found
quote:
"Publication of the 1980 paper brought criticism from the geological community, and an often acrimonious scientific debate ensued."
Was/is that debate centered around cause of the layer or the existence of the layer? I don't want to put this arrow in my quiver without confirming it's validity and understanding any controversy. It would seem to me that with as many holes as we drill in the earths crust, confirmation of this layer could be pretty broad if it exists.
I have been unable to find any reference to this yet in the excellent Wiki-book on geology provided by Dr Adequate, but I'm not even close to being all the way through that reference and I can't seem to find a way to search the contents of that book electronically (without searching the entire site).
Any suggestions appreciated.
What you are seeing is the nature of science and learning about the earth. There were several issues with the origination of the impact theory.
As with many debates in the sciences, there was a problem with the mechanism. Some people had a problem with the concept as there was no known source for the iridium layer. As the wiki article shows, the Chicxulub crater was discovered later.
The next problem was timing and duration of the extinction event for the dinosaurs. Even to this day, there is still some debate as to how long it took the dinosaurs to go extinct and exactly when it happened.
These are not critical to the interpretation of an impact origin for the iridium layer or that it occurred near the K/T boundary, or that the event occurred millions of years ago.
And yes, debate in the scientific community can by 'acrimonious'. Bad theories don't last very long in that environment.
AFAIK, the layer is global except where it is eroded away. The thing about iridium is that it is a rare element in the earth's crust, and anomalies are pretty well-defined and easy to detect. Even tiny amounts are significant.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-06-2015 12:50 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-07-2015 9:05 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1822 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 241 of 1053 (751848)
03-06-2015 2:28 PM


After a little search, I found this map:
In this reference:
The Chicxulub multi-ring impact crater, Yucatan carbonate platform, Gulf of Mexico
Some of the other figures in the article are important as well, showing, for instance the differences between proximal and distal deposits. Note also that they rely not only on iridium but shocked quartz, magnetics and some other geochemical variability in ferrous metals.
quote:
"Characteristics of K/Pg boundary sections world—wide are also important in studies of the climatic and environmental perturbations generated by the impact and in evaluating effects in the biosphere. Initial studies were carried out in distal sections from Europe (lvarez et al., 1980), and only later analyses of sections in proximal sites were completed. Studies demonstrated the global distribution of the ejecta layer, with K/Pg boundary sections in all continental areas and ocean basins (Figures 19 and 20). Marine and continental deposits were characterized by the iridium anomaly, and shock minerals. Studies in the Gulf of Mexico—Caribbean Sea areas showed that sections were more complex and thicker as compared with distal sites, with presence of high—energy sedimentary deposits and fireball layer, and also indicating that iridium enrichment patterns varied with relative location to impact site (Bourgeois et al., 1988; Smit et al., 1992; lvarez et al., 1992; Urrutia—Fucugauchi, 1993). The K/Pg boundary layer in distal and proximal sections is characterized by a magnetic anomaly, with increased magnetic susceptibility and remanent magnetization (Figure 21) (Villasante et al., 2007)."

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1822 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 242 of 1053 (751850)
03-06-2015 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Faith
03-06-2015 2:25 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
The thing is, the existence of a worldwide deposition of iridium can be explained in terms of the Flood of Noah too, as evidence of a meteor hit during the Flood, dispersing its iridium along with all the sediments the Flood deposited. I've mentioned it many times here and HERE's one of those posts.
If you presuppose a biblical flood, yes. However, there is no evidence for such a flood event.
Besides, you are still using an impact to explain the iridium, not a flood per se. But yes, there could be other things going on at the time. There were probably volcanoes erupting too, but so what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 2:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 2:35 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1822 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 244 of 1053 (751853)
03-06-2015 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Faith
03-06-2015 2:35 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
The "so what?" is that as long as there is a plausible explanation for a given phenomenon's being caused by the Flood, you can't use it as an argument against YEC belief in the Flood.
Ummm, ... we aren't doing that.
Impacts can happen whether there was a flood or not. We were discussing the global occurrence of an iridium layer supporting the interpretation of a global event caused by an extraterrestrial origin. Your flood has nothing to do with this discussion.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 2:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 2:51 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1822 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 246 of 1053 (751856)
03-06-2015 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Faith
03-06-2015 2:51 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
I think it does for ThinAir. His whole point is to find arguments against YEC.
A very specific question was asked. I was attempting to answer. There was nothing in the question regarding the validity or disproof of a flood.
When the flood comes up, your statement will be relevant... maybe.
Or maybe you could complain that the iridium layer does not disprove the existence Cambrian mammals, also.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 2:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 3:07 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1822 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 251 of 1053 (751869)
03-06-2015 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Faith
03-06-2015 3:07 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
If the Flood explains it all, there is no such thing as "Cambrian" animals for iridium to prove or disprove. They're all antediluvian creatures from bottom to top of the geo column.
Are you saying that the flood explains the iridium layer?
If so, then you need to explain your explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 3:07 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 5:00 PM edge 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