Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

Nonsense. You were already here posting Flood nonsense before I made any remarks about your participation. I suppose this is yet another example of Faith's revisionist view of history.The only thing you need to 'force' your participation is to know that a Flood discussion exists. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, it's an example of you reading out of context as usual.

Or it should be spread out through the entire package of rocks and, hence, so diluted as to preclude the creation of an anomaly, which manifestly exists.Oh well, don't worry. The flood explains it all,,,

Iridium is fairly unique with respect to density. Almost nothing is more dense. I'm not sure you've quite made your point here.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

But the asteroid impact hypothesis does not postulate an asteroid made of pure Ir. The asteroid would have been largely iron, with a small amount of Ir dissolved in the iron. Some of the particles thrown into the atmosphere would have been iron from the asteroid; other particles would have been composites of asteroid iron and earth crustal material.

Well, I can't discover anything in the Bible that justifies any age determinations older than 6000 years from Creation or about 4300 years from a worldwide Flood that there is absolutely no doubt occurred. Just can't. All the efforts to make any of it older violate the Bible and are clearly just a giving-in to worldly thinking. As for "flood geology" there are different ways of putting it together and I don't see it as a finished theory but a work in progress, though I don't think anything I've said, or any creationists I'm aware of either, violates observed facts. Why is this a problem? Nobody's trying to EXPLAIN everything by the Flood, simply understand how it all works together so that there is no contradiction. There are lots of reasons creationists think asteroid or meteor activity would have been associated with the Flood. The only real disconnect with contemporary science is the timing, and all I can do with that is wait for it to be resolved. I really do seriously think that establishment science's explanation of the strata and the fossils is absurd on the face of it, no matter what difficulties we may encounter in trying to explain it all by the Flood.The big problem for a Christian is the scientific contradiction of God's word so casually accepted by modern science, and I really don't see how any Christian can just blithely ignore this and accept unbelievers' science over God's word. Sure, in the service of defending God's word we can run afoul of actual facts, but I'm trying not to do that and don't see that I have. I'm not arguing for NEEDING the Flood to explain it, just for its being explainable in the context of the Flood. If such an asteroid hit during the Flood period it would most likely have hit IN the flood waters which were carrying all the sediments and dead creatures washed off the land mass as well. It COULD have hit either while the water was rising or falling and not completely covering the land so that's another scenario to consider, depends on when the layers got laid down. But the task is to explain how the iridium got dispersed in the Flood context that sees the strata as built up during that event. So we have to find an explanation for that. I can't just dismiss it based on your ponderings you know, I can't see any other explanation for the strata than the Flood, the establishment explanations hitting me as extreme absurdity besides flying in the face of God's word, so I have to expect that there is yet to be found a good explanation for how the iridium got dispersed in a thin clay layer at the boundary of one of the layers.ABE: But you make a very common error here when you talk about what "floods" can do. THE Flood simply cannot be compared with any other "floods." It covered the earth, it would have involved ocean movements among other differences. /ABE So it's incomplete, so establishment geology has a head start. I can't see any other way to make sense of God's word and I'm already convinced of the basic facts about the strata and the fossils so for me it's just a matter of time before we have a good explanation for the details you think it can't account for. But you know what, I think you are most likely overlooking some good explanations that are already accepted by creationists. That's how I see establishment geology despite its greater plausibility in some areas.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But then I'd like to know exactly what the "iridium layer" is composed of. Not pure iridium but some iron, and what about the "clay" it's part of?

Right. But one of your points was the discredit of a 'flood hypothesis'. You said that material being sorted by density was understandable. Well, iridium is really dense.

Why don't you tell us? One of the criticisms of 'Creation Science' is that no one cannot discovery anything by employing it. Creation Science is limited to 'explaining away' anomalies that contradict creation and flood stories.If Creation Science really worked it ought to be able to predict stuff like this.

According to one paper, the sediments at the K-T boundary layer (the "Ir layer") vary in iron content, and can be up to about 15% iron in some places. The iridium concentration in the K-T boundary layer is typically about 1-100 ppb (parts per billion). This is much higher than the normal concentration of Ir in earth's crust, which is typically less than 0.1 ppb. While the Ir concentration in the K-T boundary layer is much higher than normal, Ir is still only a trace element in the sediment.

Maybe Creation Science can predict and explain a lot of things I'm not personally able to do since I'm not a scientist.

Very interesting. If you look at the pictures of the iridium layer at GOOGLE IMAGE it stands out quite dramatically from the surrounding rock and often has a very regular look to it, like a neat ribbon of material. It also seems to look shiny or metallic, but if it's such a small part of the layer it must be something else that's giving it that look.Its density might not have all that much to do with how it could have been dispersed in the Flood then, there being so little of it. The clay that carries it may be the bigger factor in how it got dispersed.what does the iridium layer look like - Google SearchEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

This was a rather common criticism at the time of that paper, and it is due to several factors:1.) the amount of 14C in the atmosphere is not constant as was initially assumed, and
B.) the actual half-life of 14C is 5,730 40 years years, not 5568 years as measured by Libby.
ζ.) the proportion of 14C in the atmosphere had been declining since the start of the industrial revolution due to the release of fossil carbon into the atmosphere, with no 14C faction.More 12C than in the past means the constant level 14C assumed was too low compared to pre-industrial artifacts atmosphere.A couple of half-lives out and you are getting dates that are noticeably too young.Enjoy

Exactly. These are geochemical iridium values, not visible to the naked eye, and yet are highly anomalous. The visuals on this layer are not due to iridium alone, but other chemical and textural factors as well.To have such a precisely defined iridium layer would be impossible in a global flood environment that is is depositing thousands of meters of sediment in a year. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Luis Walter Alvarez - Wikipedia

quote:

---

... In the years following the publication of their article, the clay was also found to contain soot, glassy spherules, shocked quartz crystals, microscopic diamonds, and rare minerals formed only under conditions of great temperature and pressure.[1]

---

The clay would have formed from the ash like particles around the iridium particles from the impact ash cloud dust (the cause of the "atomic winter" scenario), which would be similar to a volcanic ash cloud in that respect ... the clay and soot particles should have separated from the iridium, glass and quartz crystals in water, settling at different rates due to density. On land it would be mixed and appear like a volcanic tuff.It also appears that the layer varies in thickness from location to locationEnjoy