|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total) |
| |
Skylink | |
Total: 919,419 Year: 6,676/9,624 Month: 16/238 Week: 16/22 Day: 7/9 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 417 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Asimov covered that issue very well in The Relativity of Wrong (I think that's not it's original publication).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 417 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I'm on a tablet so urns urls are tricky so Google:
Asa kbertsce coal
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 417 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
To expand a tad on Coyote's answer:
An index fossil is easily recognized and occurs over a relatively small time period. They are used to correlate, not actually date, different places. If sedimentary layers A and B, widely separated, both contain index fossil X they are close to the same age. If igneous layer C above layer A is 5 Mya and igneous layer D below layer B is 5.2 Mya, that gives a range of dates in which A and B must lie. This is the source of the common YEC canard "The rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks; that's circular reasoning." Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 417 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
That area of Africa had a lot of volcanic activity, so there are ash and other volcanic layers all over the place. That reminds me of the KBS Tuff, beloved of creationists because originally two very different dates were obtained, therefore radiometric dating doesn't work. Of course it's really a triumph of the scientific method; the differences were argued out in Nature (arguably he most prestigious scientific journal) rather than being buried (as YECs claim discordant dates are treated). Only when the reason for the discordant dates was well understood,and multiple labs had replicated the final analysis using both Ar-AR and fission tracks, was the question settled. Anyhoo, all the original samples were used up in the first measurements and the first attempt at replication in a different lab, so we'll never know exactly what went wrong initially. The original investigators' theory, published in the late 80's, is that the field workers, not trained geologists who collected the samples somewhat removed from the place where it overlays hominid fossils, got the wrong tuff because there are so many around there.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 417 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Talk to the local librarian. http://journals.aps.org/...-public-and-high-school-libraries.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 417 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I think Aarsdma isn't a less-than-10,000 years YEC, but he is an honest and knowledgeable source.
Many of his ICR articles went against the party line. I don't know anything about his separation from ICR but I wonder...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 417 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
FWIW the MIT libraries will send you a PDF of any paper they have (not OCR'd, just pictures of the paper) for $20.
Document Services
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 417 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Is it the knife-edge straight tight contacts we see in so many places perhaps? No, that just indicate a sudden change of depositional environments.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 417 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
ONLY AFTER THE WHOLE STACK WAS IN PLACE, from Precambrian to quaternary, do we then see EROSION of the stack
Except for the many places we see erosion inside the stack, despite your many unevidenced assertions to the contrary..
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 417 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Funny, I just demonstrated that you are wrong.
Neither is a demonstration. You still haven't figured out that your unsupported opinions are not evidence.Here's another demonstration in case you missed it: How 'bout you explain exactly what known facts or referenced material makes that map a demonstration of your claim? Never happen.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 417 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Layers can't be deposited by water, even receding water, AND be sub-aerial at the same time
Faith's water is magic water. It did whatever she wants it to do at the moment. Even if it contradicts something she said in the preceding message.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 417 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
They were looking in the wrong place.
Yeah, they looked at reality instead of their own fantasy worlds.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 417 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
They were looking for the evidence in particular layers, not in the entire geological column. Some people still have that wrong idea.
They were looking at everything they could find, which was a lot. You don't need to see much of the geologic record to see there was no global flood and the Earth and life are old. Of course we've seen much more now, and all that we have found reinforces their conclusions.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 417 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Ask and ye shall receive.
It's obvious that the guy has a sense of humor, and it's also obvious that he's discussing the need for better 14C calibration, which was still in its infancy at that time, and he's not talking about the validity of the overall method.
quote: If I had an email address for you I could send you the whole thing. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 417 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
KBS Tuff is a good example. Human ancestry is involved. Creationists say bad stuff about it (Bones of Contention). In reality it's a triumph of modern science. Two methods, one well established (pig fossils) and the other fairly new at the time (the Ar-Ar radiometric method) disagreed by a *lot*, and Richard Leakey liked the older radiometric date. Because a hominid skull was found beneath it.
It was all hashed out extremely publicly in Nature, arguably the most prestigious journal, for some time. Turned out the pigs were right. But first the scientists had to understand what caused the conflict. They only accepted the revised radiometric date after they figured out what caused the error (washed-in and older sediment), established a procedure for separating the constituents, and dated the tuffacious component agreeing with the pigs by multiple methods (Ar-Ar, then better developed, and fission tracks) inin multiple labs. Conflicting results were published in Nature, not hidden as YECs would have us believe. Radiometric dates were seriously questioned. Dogma didn't win; evidence, careful testing in any way anyone could think of, and replication won. I'm on a tablet so links aren't handy.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024