Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

Shall I be more precise then for the hairsplitting nitpickers? The WHOLE SCOPE of what I can envision is irrelevant. That was the question I was answering. The specific things that I CAN envision is something else.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Mountains.

To be even more nit-picky, Faith, the thread is about science you can demonstrate, experiments you can do, facts ... and not what can be imagined, fantasized, envisaged, or hypothesized.Do you have ONE experiment you can suggest?What about your sandbox experiments?Enjoy

OK, I see you edited your post to be a bit more clear as to your presented arguments (thanks) so I'll briefly address the edits. A: Is it a global flood, or the river Noah we're talking about here?B: And I suspect with no formal geology training that it's damn straight easy to tell sediments laid down by currents vs those settled out of standing water. I could even predict numerous ways it would be done, but whose counting? Of course is does -- that's been the foundation of panning, sluicing and dredge mining for centuries. To apply that to the flood though you can't just say it and expect it to mean anything -- you must propose a mechanism by which water being sloshed about in a giant tub can produce what we see. I'm listening.JB

This stuff is all speculative because it is about the past. They speculate about the iridium layer, I speculate about the iridium layer. I mentioned some observations I'm aware of about water deposition of sediments, which is already off the topic of iridium. I'm not interested in getting deeper into this right now.

I thought we'd done this.Using scientific methods is to a certain extent "speculative" whether we use it about the past, present, or future. But it's all we've got. Using science to find out things about the past that you personally don't like isn't any different.

If you agree that water sorts sediments, that's all I was saying. Some argue that the Flood would only have mixed things up, but water sorts sediments in many ways. Settling out, wave deposition of beach sand, Walther's Law deposition as sea water rises and falls, all suggest ways it must have happened in the Flood."Sloshed about in a tub" is hardly a model of the Flood. Rain saturating the land mass, causing mudslides probably the first effect, water rushing down in streams and rivers from higher to lower land, carrying massive amounts of sediments that then mix with the rising sea water. Sea water sorts into layers anyway, and currents. However it sorts beach sand it would sort the sediments now mixing into it, and the living things that it picked up with the sediments. When the water covers everything it may still have a lot of wave action but should become relatively placid after a while. When the deposition of sediments occurs is a question, perhaps during different stages of the rising and standing and falling. Walther's Law shows a definite pattern of deposition that should be explored. Anyway, no "sloshing" in my scenario.And just for your information, I did not learn anything about creationism from church as a child, I gave up on religion for thirty years from age 15 on, became born again in my mid forties, and a few years later read some of the creationists but a lot of my thinking is my own variations on their ideas. I BECAME a YEC from my own reading and study, I wasn't subjected to it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes we've done it to death and I never agreed with you that science that interprets the past has the same explanatory power as science has that can be replicated in the present over and over and over.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Indeed. You can have stochastic events (storms, bursting dams) and you can have seasonal events (spring runoff). Rhythmites are periodic sedimentation systems, while varves are generally annual events.One of the problems for creationists are factual evidence of many layers of alternating materials, not just by particle size but also by content.Particle size is one thing that affects rhythmite and varve formation, and varves can have different layers with different size particles, some that settle faster than others. The problem is that the conditions for fine layers are different from the conditions for coarse layers, so if there are many alternating layers that then there must be alternating conditions. Settling Velocity and Suspension Velocity⁽¹⁾

quote:

---

Every material has its own suspension and settling velocity. The suspension velocity is the speed of water above which the water will pick up the material and hold it in suspension. The settling velocity is the speed below which the material will be dropped out of suspension and will settle out of the water.

​

The relative sizes of gravel, sand, silt, and clay particles are shown below:

​

​

Sand and gravel are both large and dense. In addition, they have a small surface area per unit volume since they are roughly spherical. So these types of particles have a high suspension velocity.

---

13.6 Colloids⁽²⁾

quote:

---

When finely divided clay particles are dispersed throughout water, they do not remain suspended but eventually settle out of the water because of the gravitational pull. The dispersed clay particles are much larger than molecules and consist of many thousands or even millions of atoms.

---

Particle Size Analysis Lab⁽³⁾

quote:

---

The connection between particle size and settling rate is expressed by Stoke's Law. This relationship shows that small particles, those exposing high specific surface area (m2 g-1), produce more resistance to settling through the surrounding solution than large particles and, hence, settle at slower velocities

​

Stoke's Law: V = (D^{^2}g(d₁-d₂)/(18n)

​

The formula shows that the settling velocity, V, is directly proportional to the square of the particle's effective diameter, D; the acceleration of gravity, g; and the difference between the density of the particle, d1, and density of the liquid, d2; but inversely proportional to the viscosity (resistance to flow) of the liquid, n. The density of water and its viscosity both change in a manner so that particles settle faster with increased temperature. Hence, it may be necessary to apply temperature correction factors as explained with the procedure.

​

Stoke's Law can be condensed to V=kD^{^2} by assuming constant values for all components except the effective diameter of soil particles. Then, for conditions at 30 degrees C, k=11241. For particles size values in centimeters, the formula yields settling velocity, V, in centimeters per second. Because soil particles do not meet the requirements of being smooth spheres, exact conformance to Stoke's Law is not realized.

---

Basically, if the water is moving faster than the settling rate then the particles don't settle. Soil Colloids⁽⁴⁾

quote:

---

The colloidal state refers to a two-phase system in which one material in a very finely divided state is dispersed through second phase.

​

The examples are:

​

Solid in liquid - Clay in water (dispersion of clay in water)
Liquid in gas -Fog or clouds in atmosphere

​

The clay fraction of the soil contains particles less than 0.002 mm in size. Particles less than 0.001 mm size possess colloidal properties and are known as soil colloids.

---

If we use 0.002 mm (0.0002 cm) for clay in the above formula we getV = 11241(0.0002)^{^2} = 0.00044964 cm/s
= 1.62 cm/hr = 38.8 cm/day
= 15.3 in/day.As you can see the theoretical settling velocity of clay according to Stoke's Law would be very, very slowly. In a 100 ft deep lake a new clay particle deposited at the surface would theoretically take ~80 days to reach the bottom. Actual times are longer due to the interaction of charged clay particles with water, and because the clay particles are not spherical, but it would take days if not weeks or months for new clay from rainstorms to settle to the bottom. This is especially true in the center of the lake as the new inflow must take time to mix with the lake water and get dispersed sufficiently to reach the center area. This means that a lake can act as a buffer to average out all the clay sediment being introduced to the lake by the inflow: even large variations in inflow will have little effect on the amount of clay settling to the bottom at the center of the lake.This means that clay layers in varves are strong indicators of extended periods of undisturbed settling in the water column, and that is only half of the varve formation process -- the other half is the deposit of shells ("tests") from diatoms (algae) and foraminifera (amoeboid protists).That means bloom and die of these organisms in-between the calm settling periods for the fine sediments.There are over 30,000 such varves in Lake Suigetsu, Japan of clay alternating with diatom tests ...Enjoy.

---

References

1. Cooke, R., Settling Velocity and Suspension Velocity, Mountain Empire Community College. 2013 [2013, December 2] http://water.me.vccs.edu/concepts/velocitysusp.htm
2. Prenhall.com, 13.6 Colloids, Chemistry, Prentice Hall, Pearson Education 2002 [2013, December 2] http://wps.prenhall.com/...objects/3312/3391718/blb1306.html
3. Farrel, P., Particle Size Analysis Lab, Soil, Water, and Climate Dept, University of Minnesota, 2010-2013 [2013, December 2] UMD: 404 Page Not Found
4. AgriInfo.in, Soil Colloids, Introduction to Soil Science, AgriInfo.in 2011 [2013, December 2] Soil Colloids - agriinfo.in

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Then there's no reason whatsoever to expect that the flood could have placed the bazillion cubic miles of earth in the many layers above the iridium anomaly and then carved features in them (to say nothing of the fossils in those layers).You see, this is a perfect display of the thought (not) put into transparent YEC crap: "Oh, I'll solve the problem of the water dispersing the newly placed iridium bearing layer by having everything go calm." Yeah, AND THEN WHAT??? How does the rest of the work that the flood supposedly accomplished get done?This is why the YEC crowd is losing ground and will continue to lose ground. Y'all are satisfied with attempting to sell a selection of individual, contradictory, ad hoc explanations that anyone willing to give them a 30 second sniff test chokes on the stench.JB

There is nothing speculative about my interest in the iridium layer. As I mentioned in my initial post on the question, I'm not that interested (for my current purpose) in how it actually formed, I want to know if it EXISTS ... TODAY. That's hardly a speculative matter.Why am I interested in it's existence? Because as you've perfectly highlighted with your blather, it demonstrates *again* the lack of scientific rigor displayed by the supporters of the Noahic flood. Yeah, this is a play on the old "I have a theory, you have a theory. We're tied" YEC argument. Well, in scientific terms you don't even yet have a hypothesis so turn the pompous knob down until you have something approaching the cohesive nature of the knowledge demonstrated by geologists. Let me know when your speculation can withstand 10 seconds of scrutiny because so far it's coming up about 9 seconds short.Suggest an experiment - a specific one. Use the oft published scientific method as your guide to setting it up please.JB

So the layer of iridium was deposited during the receding of the water.Nobody claims the Flood has been adequately understood, we're just trying to put together the possibilities. Nothing is hard and fast, we're working on it. What are you so angry about? The science that is used to debunk the Flood is all speculation too, because it has to be because it's about the past which can't be replicated.

So now you know the iridium layer does exist. Happy?I said nothing about being "tied," the point is that science about one time events in the past can't be definitively proved as the hard sciences often can be. That means we're left with speculative methods.Since it is about the past, coming up with an experiment is an unfair request. There are experiments with water behavior and that sort of thing that can be used in the speculations I suppose, but you are still left with speculation about how they apply to one-time past events, but experiment is exactly what CAN'T be done with the sciences of the unreplicable past as they are done in the hard sciences etc. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, that's not all you were saying. You're saying that the waters of the flood *specifically* are responsible for the layers and I'm responding "provide an experiment that supports your assertion and we'll test it side by side with others and let the kids decide." Nonsense -- it's an extremely good model considering the flood waters would have to have been miles freaking deep to be biblically correct. By YEC description, it's one giant worldwide mass of churning water able to do massive damage to the face of the earth. I'm uninterested in your own pet speculations. Those are a dime a dozen. Yeah, because that's what large bodies of water exposed to wind and weather do on their own ... become relatively placid. And the bigger and more exposed they are the more relatively placid they get. OMG you're a hoot.Here's the deal Faith -- unless you are going to suggest direct science experiments, observations and knowledge (not speculation) that can be repeated in my curriculum, there's no point in your participation here. I'm not on this thread to change participants minds. I'm here to collect verifiable ideas and experiments and knowledge that can be incorporated in a way that will allow people who aren't here to decide for themselves from the evidence, not speculation.JB

There is no way I know of to come up with an experiment to demonstrate how the layers formed miles thick across whole continents on a spherical globe. If I come up with one or find one described on a creationist site or somewhere I'll let you know.As for participating on this thread, I'm not interested in participating on this thread, I'd like to get off it. My interest is wholly limited to the remark I made that the iridium layer can be explained in relation to the Flood. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.