Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

Thread copied here from the Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

I'll be keeping an eye on this thread. Just a few requests:

• Please stay on topic.
  ​
• Please address rebuttals. Responding to a message means addressing its arguments, not just using it as a vehicle for rehashing your own arguments.
  ​
• Please let the moderator handle moderator issues.

Faith's objections could be useful examples for you and I encourage her participation, but if discussions begin to develop around them then they should be taken to other threads.

I'm going to rule that questioning the basic tenets of geology, such as that tectonic forces and continental motions produce mountains, is on-topic because it would be very helpful to the thread's topic.But I'm going to rule that asking what are the basic tenets of geology, such as how mountains are built, is off-topic. In this case you've participated in many threads where the process of mountain building has been described, and whether you agree with it or not it makes no sense to pretend ignorance of it.Please, no replies to this message.

Hi Faith,In Message 806 I requested that there be no replies to the message, yet you're responding to it anyway. Do you somehow believe that using the general reply button makes it okay? Are you saying that this is what YEC's believe happened? If so then yes, indubitably, it is on-topic. But if you're saying that this is what you think geology believes happened, then no, it isn't what geology believes happened, and if you want to argue this point then you'll have to take it to another thread.Please, no replies to this message in any form. If you have further concerns or questions please take them to Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

Dr Adequate thinks you're making things up. I think you're making things up. If you're not making things up then please provide the evidence for the things you're saying, otherwise don't post.

Hi Faith,First you complain that Dr Adequate didn't explain how the strata form when he did, then when he points out that he *did* explain how the strata form you next complain that his example didn't address your scenario about continent spanning strata when it was intended to address your concerns about mountain formation and erosion and the strata that form from that erosion. This complaining just to complain isn't helpful. You also seem unaware that the principles Dr Adequate illustrated apply equally well to seas whose sediments eventually become part of continents.Your participation in this thread could be very helpful if you brought up your objections and concerns in the context of the topic, which is about an earth science curriculum for receptive YECs. Full blown discussions of your favorite ideas don't really fit here.About continent spanning strata, strata really only span the region of a homogenous depositional environment, which isn't static but can move around (for example, a coastline (which can represent as many as three adjacent homogenous depositional environments: sand, shale and limestone) will move back and forth as sea levels rise and fall). A stratigraphic layer could span a continent, but one wouldn't expect it to be common. For example, the Kaibab limestone spans several western states, but it's actual deposition was not simultaneous across the region. The Kaibab was deposited offshore from a coastline that shifted back and forth across the region as sea levels rose and fell. But the important point is that there is no requirement or expectation that strata should span continents.I'm sure there are lots of legitimate challenges that you could raise. For example, if a shale sedimentary layer is miles and miles in extent in all directions, then doesn't that mean it could only have formed as a result of a single transgression or regression? But if that's true then why do people keep talking about multiple transgressions and regressions? Wouldn't multiple transgressions and regressions result in alternating sand, shale and possibly limestone layers, and not in a thick shale layer?Edited by Admin, : Typo.

Hi Faith,Much of your post was about your topic proposal (The Absurdities of the Geologic Time Scale). If I have any responses I'll post them over there, but about this: You could help guide discussion to issues of concern for YECs, and then if any heavy discussions begin to develop new threads can be proposed.

Hi Edge,Is there an answer to my question about how thick shale layers great in extent form?

Please, let's stop the off-topic jabber and nitpicking. Just post information, suggestions, corrections, additions, etc.

So when a shale layer is great in extent it implies an underlying wide continental shelf, such as the one off our east coast?The continental runoff suspended in the water that makes up shale deposits doesn't just disappear at the edge of the continental shelf, where the depth increases rapidly. What do deep water shale deposits look like?

Hi Moose,That's a good diagram to return to. What I was originally wondering when I replied to Edge was how a shale layer of great extent could result from transgressing/regressing seas. I was imagining that that would produce a shale layer pattern like this (showing just the shale layer): But Edge pointed out that shale deposits can occur hundreds of miles from shore so that not only do you get the pattern above, you also get a thick shale layer of great extent, as shown in this diagram with the tongues of shale and sandstone intertwined at the left margin of the Marcos Shale: Edited by Admin, : Make image larger.

Repeating what I said last month, please, let's stop the off-topic jabber and nitpicking. This thread is for defining an educational curriculum, not for discussing the particulars in detail. Just post information, suggestions, corrections, additions, etc. To discuss anything in detail, please propose new threads over at Proposed New Topics.

Repeating what I said all those years ago, er, I mean hours ago, as in yesterday, this thread is for defining an educational curriculum, not for discussing the particulars in detail. Just post information, suggestions, corrections, additions, etc. To discuss anything in detail, please propose new threads over at Proposed New Topics.The points recently made seem like great starting points for new discussions, so I really do wish someone would propose a new thread or threads over at Proposed New Topics.But if I find I have to post this note again tomorrow I'll begin handing out short "just trying to get your attention" suspensions.

Precipitation and sedimentation are two different things. Precipitation is the result of a chemical reaction. Sedimentation is when solids suspended in a liquid fall out of suspension. The only way they're related is that after solids precipitate out of a solution via chemical reaction, those solids are then suspended in the liquid, and they will over time fall out of suspension, but they are called precipitates, not sediments.There's an experiment anyone can perform that's been described to you many times. Take a few tablespoons of dirt and stir them into a large glass of water, then let it sit. While being stirred the dirt will remain suspended in the active and energetic water. Once the stirring stops there is no longer sufficient energy to maintain the larger particles in suspension and they will fall to the bottom, the larger first. Over time smaller and smaller particles will fall of suspension. The end result will be the dirt sorted by particle size, with the largest particles on the bottom and the smallest on the top.It would be very unlikely for there to be no chemical reactions taking place in our dirt, but certainly not anything particularly noteworthy. There wouldn't be any expectation of noticeable precipitates.In other words, the Earth's sedimentary layers consist primarily of sediments, not precipitates.