Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   calling creationists
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 20 of 21 (9221)
05-04-2002 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by TrueCreation
05-04-2002 12:50 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--I would highly disagree here, it is righly necessary to know much more than a straw-man on how radiometric dating works, geologic layers (on a uniformitarian basis) are deposited, as well as fossil deposition. Radiometric dating, I would highly recommend to anyone interested in using this argument to understand the geological, mineralogical, and geochemical context of rock and constituent mineral samples. Geochemical processes in the earth's mantle and crust must be understood, as the rocks and their constituent minerals which are dated ultimately have their source in the mantle and/or are generated in the crust and reside there.
I agree emphatically. Are you going to do this soon?
quote:
"The sedimentary layers you mention are named for the periods of life contained within them: Pre-Cambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, etc. Our understanding of the geologic and fossil information in the layers developed simultaneously. Even Creationism recognizes this when they mistakenly claim that dating is circular (the layer tells what life will be found there, the life found there tells what layer it is). You can't possibly have read 10 geology books without knowing the intimate relationship between the fossil record and the geologic column of sedimentary layers."
--I do understand this reasoning for sedimentary chronology. However, unlike a paleontologist, fossils and the study of the fossils themselves is not as apparent in the various fields in geology such as the ones that I will study more in detail.
What are you saying here?
quote:
"Every geology book includes a discussion of radiometric dating. This is yet another indicator lending me doubt that you've read any."
--Though this is not where I had gotten my knowledge on radionucleic decay, yes, just about every geology text-book will have a discussion on radiometric dating, however with the exception of one I find it odd they do not include fundamental pieces of information, it is simply a review or a breif overview. Such as alpha and beta decay, or mineral isochrons and whole-rock isochrons, neither had they even made mention to the well known phenomena in the field of excess A-40.
So, where did you get your education on radiometric dating? As to the details of radiometric dating, many may not be appropriate to a general textbook. Despite what you may have learned this is a highly technical field.
quote:
"It has nothing specifically to do with radioactive isotopes at all."
--It may be important to note that all the major radioactive heat producing elements (U, Th, and K) are in this incompatible category. Most of the radioactive elements used as isotopic tracers and for dating purposes (such as Sm, Rb, Lu, K, U, and Th) are in this category as well.
So then there may be a REASON that the original quantity of these elements in common minerals can be assumed? You may be on to something here, TC.
quote:
As a geochemist or Geophysicist studies the mechanical and chemical processes occurring at the mid-ocean ridges and subduction zones, a strong case emerges that the continental crust was the product of chemical fractionation of the rock that comprises at least the upper third, and perhaps even more, of the earth's mantle. This topic has a large amount of significance on the distribution of radioactive elements in the earth as a whole.
It also has significance in determining the age of the earth. You mean there are systematics in determining the original distribution of radioactive elements? Maybe you need to talk to your fellow creationists a little more on this. By the way, how long do you think it took to form the crust and then augment it by continued fractionation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by TrueCreation, posted 05-04-2002 12:50 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 05-08-2002 6:14 PM edge 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