Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So how did the GC get laid down from a mainstream POV? Deterministic models?
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 16 of 64 (10235)
05-22-2002 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Tranquility Base
05-22-2002 9:22 PM


Are these peer reviewed papers?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-22-2002 9:22 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-22-2002 9:36 PM mark24 has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 64 (10236)
05-22-2002 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Mister Pamboli
05-22-2002 9:21 PM


MP, apart from Edge's recent post there hasn't been anything for me to try and take in yet!
And MP, stating there is no problem with the helium budget and listing refs are not the same thing. i have listed 3 refs that show there is a problem. if there isn't anymore there should be refs that resoved the problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-22-2002 9:21 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 64 (10237)
05-22-2002 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by mark24
05-22-2002 9:27 PM


These are clearly mainstream books Mark. I would suspect that the books reference peer reviewed literature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 05-22-2002 9:27 PM mark24 has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 64 (10238)
05-22-2002 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by edge
05-22-2002 9:20 PM


Thanks Edge.
But if scientists can't talk to each other about their (very differnet) work it is a sad day for science. I truly disagree that this is necessary. I met with a PhDed climatologist a couple of months ago. We spent half an hour together on science issues and I walked away with a good feeling of the status of climatology modelling (I got a grasp of the driving forces, the time and spatial resolution, the computaitonal difficulties etc) and he the same for the protein folding problem from me.
Why can't you guys summarize the status of this issue and stop worrying that 'I'll try and morph it into flood geology'?
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-22-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by edge, posted 05-22-2002 9:20 PM edge has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 64 (10241)
05-22-2002 10:11 PM


By the way this thread I created is a 'Geological Column' thread, not a Grand Canyon thread as some believed due to my unfortunate use of the acronym 'GC'!

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Joe Meert, posted 05-22-2002 10:51 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 21 of 64 (10246)
05-22-2002 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tranquility Base
05-22-2002 10:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
By the way this thread I created is a 'Geological Column' thread, not a Grand Canyon thread as some believed due to my unfortunate use of the acronym 'GC'!
JM: Well, gee that certainly narrows it down! I still maintain that there is no helium problem insofaras it relates to the age of the earth. I will look for references, but so far I have not come across anything other than creationist sites vaguely describing what I believe is an invented problem. PS: Vardiman's book is a religious book, its sole purpose is to support a religious viewpoint and that makes it suspect.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-22-2002 10:11 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 64 (10249)
05-22-2002 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Tranquility Base
05-22-2002 7:52 PM


quote:
From Tranquility Base:
Refs: The RATE book (see last link) has the diffusion calc in it (I've read it), the mainstream Gentry ref records evidence of vast excess helium in zircons, the web links contain mainstream refs to the helium budget problem, and I link to the RATE site where they report that the experimental helium diffusion rate backs up their previouls argon extrapolation:
R.V. Gentry, G.L. Glish and E.H. McBay (1982) Geophys Res Lett 9:1129-1130
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1401.asp#r7
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v8n2_helium.asp
http://www.icr.org/headlines/ratereport.html
I'd like to address the helium retention in granite issue:
For Creationists, this subject by itself should be enough to convince them of the untenability of YECreationism. A small dose of understanding, and a healthy skepticism of supposed "scientists" who intentionally mislead the lay public will awaken those who are willing to examine the facts objectively.
TB's links are the usual data-free content paraded by YEC-mouthpieces (as Joe has complained about). It takes a little more digging to find actual numbers. Here's one bit I found:
Gentry's Helium stuff
It says, in part...
"we cite two interesting items of data from research Dr. Robert Gentry was involved in for the purpose of locating suitable sites for nuclear waste storage. A byproduct of his work was data that supports a recent creation.
He was studying core sections taken at five different depths from about 3,000 to 15,000 feet during a drilling operation in granite
{from a borehole in New Mexico}. He found that the temperature increased with depth--up to 313 C (595 F) at the deepest point...
...(stuff about lead retention deleted)...
[i][b]Helium Absence [/i][/b]{this should read helium excess, of course...whf} [b][i]Indicates Youth[/b]
Other experiments with these deep core well sections were run. This time, the amount of helium was measured. During the radiometric decay of uranium to lead, alpha particles are given off. These particles are helium nuclei. Helium, a gas, has been found to migrate out of various minerals, such as zircon, even at room temperature. Hence scientists have generally given up trying to use this system as an accurate radiometric age measurement, even on surface rocks.
If the evolutionary suppositions were correct, it would be expected that because of the long earth history and the high temperatures of the deep core wells, that there would be very little or no helium left here. However, if the creation of the earth were recent (several thousand years ago), then measurable quantities of helium would be expected.
Gentry’s data indicated amazingly high retention of helium even at 197 C (387 F).[/i]
Unfortunately for the YEC case, this entire argument is based on a couple of glaring factual errors, with a few ridiculous assumptions thrown in to sweeten the pot. The result is a slick, plausible-sounding argument that does an excellent job of deluding those already inclined to accept mythology and fairy-tales as factually accurate (thus producing the desired effect - donations!), but is entirely divorced from reality.
I'll bet you are just dying to learn about these factual errors and assumptions... yes?
No 1.
Helium, a gas, has been found to migrate out of various minerals, such as zircon, even at room temperature.
This is misleading to the point of falsehood. Helium does, in fact, migrate out of minerals - even at room temperature. But a few - [i][b]including zircon[/i][/b] - loose so little He at room temperature that they are effectively closed for the lifetime of the Earth (meaning far longer than billions of years). The closure temperature for zircon is 180-230 deg C. Apatite = 70 deg C, and titanite = about 200 deg C.
The very next sentence is just plain dead wrong. Only colossal ignorance of geology or intentional deception can explain this:
No 2.
Hence scientists have generally given up trying to use this system as an accurate radiometric age measurement, even on surface rocks.
As of about 15 years ago this was correct. Then the high closure temperature of these 3 minerals was discovered. Since then, much work has been published using helium diffusion as a thermochronometer (quick tutorial). You can buy a thermal history reconstruction of a sample from many labs (Geotrack International). For a thorough treatise on the subject, read several geochemistry books before tackling this...He diffusion and (U-Th)/He thermochronometry of zircon: Initial results from Fish Canyon Tuff and Gold Butte, Nevada
Ignorance of this work would be appalling incompetence in a serious earth scientist who is interested in the age of the earth. Deliberately failing to mention it would be dishonest. Without more data, I cannot say which is true in this case, although I lean toward the incompetent explanation, given the track record of these "researchers".
More subtle is the simplistic assumption built into Gentry's argument:
No 3.
Erroneous assumption:
Creationists commonly misapply the principle of uniformitarianism. ASSUMING that the rock has ALWAYS been at 197 deg C is the mistake here. A good clue that this is a faulty assumption is found in the borehole temp vs depth data supplied in the figure above. The 197 deg temp is found at a depth of 3 km, when we would expect to find that temp at a depth of 5 or 6 km or more. Unless this is a cooling, recently emplaced pluton (it's not, it's a billion years old), such high temps define an area of high heat flow from below the surface - a hot spot - similar to the one under Hawaii. As we all know, hot spots move relative to the surface. The hot spot under New Mexico has left a trail of volcanoes through California, Arizona, New Mexico and western Texas.
So the rocks in the borehole certainly cannot be assumed to have been at their current temps for a billion years - the hot spot hasn't been there very long in geological terms.
One more fatal error remains in this argument. This one is a flaw of logic:
No 4.
Under the YEC model favored by Tranquility Base, billions of years worth of helium were released in one massive pulse of radioactive decay only a few thousand years ago. Ignoring the fact that this would melt the entire earth, helium should still be found in ALL minerals of the Earth, regardless of temperature...
"if the creation of the earth were recent (several thousand years ago), then measurable quantities of helium would be expected. "
They would be expected in ALL minerals, not just the zircons, because the diffusion process is so slow. Even for the minerals with low closure temps, significant amounts of helium should still be present after only a few thousand years.
The Creationist argument..."If the evolutionary suppositions were correct, it would be expected that because of the long earth history and the high temperatures of the deep core wells, that there would be very little or no helium left here. " ...applies equally well to ALL minerals. Since helium is, in fact, missing in ALMOST all minerals, we only need to explain why a very few minerals contain measureable helium. In the case of zircon, it retains its helium even at a range of temperatures in the neighborhood of 180-230 deg C. Recent heating of the site in New Mexico to slightly more than the closure temp has not finished driving out all the helium from the zircons yet.
Far from being evidence for a young Earth, this issue actually presents compelling reasons why the Earth CANNOT be only a few thousand years old. There is no possible mechanism - other than ad hoc appeals to miracles - for removing helium so thouroughly from the vast majority of the minerals in the Earth's crust within the timeframe required by YEC mythology. But miracles are standard fare in mythology... just don't try to pass it off as science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-22-2002 7:52 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-23-2002 12:01 AM wehappyfew has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 64 (10252)
05-23-2002 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by wehappyfew
05-22-2002 11:42 PM


Wehappyfew, I don't know enough about it but I'll summarize the stuff from the RATE book tommorow for you. In the recent work they talk about helium in granites and have experimentally measured the diffusion rates. I can't deny your zircon stuff but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the granite work unless I'm mistaken.
For the others (not you wehappy) this thread is about mainstream qualitative and deterministic mechanisms for generating the geological column strata. Any takers? Any summaries? Any books/reviews on this subject? Joe M suggested a few including geology of various US regions but I sort of mean on the world wide scale?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by wehappyfew, posted 05-22-2002 11:42 PM wehappyfew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 05-23-2002 12:23 AM Tranquility Base has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 24 of 64 (10253)
05-23-2002 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tranquility Base
05-22-2002 12:08 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I think that this topic deserves treatment in it's own right. I have spent the last 6 months trying to uncover the answer to these questions and IMO it is very poorly understood from a mainstream POV. This is not a sideline to the purpose of this BBS and neither should it be tucked away in discussions on 'rapid generation of layers in the creationist model'.
I want to know about YOUR model. I have done a lot of reading and I can't find out about this aspect specifically.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps, just maybe, six months of casual self-study (of mainly Creationist sources, I'll wager) of a subject might not be enough for you to be able to judge if an entire field "understands" something as large and broad as the GC??
Perhaps it is you who doesn't understand.
I will refer you to my signature quote:
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-22-2002 12:08 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-23-2002 12:12 AM nator has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 64 (10255)
05-23-2002 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by edge
05-22-2002 9:20 PM


Edge, from your example model I can therefore assume that there is no true consensus on how the transgressions occurred or on a deterministic model that reproduces the data?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by edge, posted 05-22-2002 9:20 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by edge, posted 05-23-2002 12:31 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 64 (10256)
05-23-2002 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by nator
05-23-2002 12:02 AM


Schraf: I've hardly read any creaitonist sources. The RATE group book, some ICR IMPACT web artciles on rapid tectonics. A few creaionist stratigrphy pages. No, most of my reading has been mainstream geology (intro books & origin of sedimentology) and paleontology. I've read quite a lot - you can ask my wife
.
I wanted to see and understand the raw data of geology and paleontology for myself and it seems here that I am scolded for it simply becasue I was already a creationist and am not a professional geologist.
How much longer are people here going to deny that there is no good deterministic mainstream model for the origin of the geolgoical column and that even the qualitative mechanisms are only proposals. If you disagree with me - tell us and show us! Isn't this what this BBS is all about?
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-22-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by nator, posted 05-23-2002 12:02 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by edge, posted 05-23-2002 12:39 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 31 by Joe Meert, posted 05-23-2002 12:47 AM Tranquility Base has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 27 of 64 (10258)
05-23-2002 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tranquility Base
05-23-2002 12:01 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Wehappyfew, I don't know enough about it but I'll summarize the stuff from the RATE book tommorow for you. In the recent work they talk about helium in granites and have experimentally measured the diffusion rates. I can't deny your zircon stuff but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the granite work unless I'm mistaken.
For the others (not you wehappy) this thread is about mainstream qualitative and deterministic mechanisms for generating the geological column strata. Any takers? Any summaries? Any books/reviews on this subject? Joe M suggested a few including geology of various US regions but I sort of mean on the world wide scale?

You seem to be looking up in the air and whisling right now, TB.
Aren't you completely appalled by the deplorable 'scholarship' of that Creationist article??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-23-2002 12:01 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-23-2002 12:28 AM nator has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 64 (10261)
05-23-2002 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by nator
05-23-2002 12:23 AM


^ I still don't know how relevant it is to the new RATE stuff. I'll let you know when I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 05-23-2002 12:23 AM nator has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 29 of 64 (10263)
05-23-2002 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tranquility Base
05-23-2002 12:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, from your example model I can therefore assume that there is no true consensus on how the transgressions occurred or on a deterministic model that reproduces the data?
What do you mean by 'true consensus?' That everyone agrees? Is that your criteria for a qualitative model? Actually, this is pretty widely accepted as far as I know. It is supported by several lines of evidence, especially in younger transgressions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-23-2002 12:04 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 30 of 64 (10264)
05-23-2002 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tranquility Base
05-23-2002 12:12 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Schraf: I've hardly read any creaitonist sources. The RATE group book, some ICR IMPACT web artciles on rapid tectonics. A few creaionist stratigrphy pages. No, most of my reading has been mainstream geology (intro books & origin of sedimentology) and paleontology. I've read quite a lot - you can ask my wife
.
With all due respect to your wife, I remain skeptical. You seem to understand Baumgardner and Austin quite clearly, but you cannot quite fathom a post from anyone here.
quote:
I wanted to see and understand the raw data of geology and paleontology for myself and it seems here that I am scolded for it simply becasue I was already a creationist and am not a professional geologist.
I seriously doubt this. Besides, you are scolded because you have no intention of listening to the arguments that devastate your position.
quote:
How much longer are people here going to deny that there is no good deterministic mainstream model for the origin of the geolgoical column and that even the qualitative mechanisms are only proposals.
How much longer are you going to claim that you have the background to be able to tell? Do you really think that after 200 years, there is really no substantial supporting framework for the geological column? This is what I mean when I say you have no intention of listening. You can make such assertions with no conscience whatever.
quote:
If you disagree with me - tell us and show us! Isn't this what this BBS is all about?
We are not here to provide you with an education. If you can't keep up with the discussion it is not our problem.
[This message has been edited by edge, 05-22-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-23-2002 12:12 AM Tranquility Base 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