|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
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: |
Are these peer reviewed papers?
Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
These are clearly mainstream books Mark. I would suspect that the books reference peer reviewed literature.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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'!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
wehappyfew Inactive Member |
quote: 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, NevadaIgnorance 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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"
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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??
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ I still don't know how relevant it is to the new RATE stuff. I'll let you know when I do.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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 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 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: 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]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024