Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
68 online now:
kjsimons, Tanypteryx (2 members, 66 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,162 Year: 4,274/6,534 Month: 488/900 Week: 12/182 Day: 12/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 679 of 1053 (758764)
06-01-2015 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 678 by kbertsche
06-01-2015 4:31 PM


Re: Looking for Libby paper
quote:

It doesn't matter whether C-14 is produced by a decay chain or is cosmogenic. The C-14 concentration will build up at the same rate, with the same math, as a short-lived isotope formed from a long-lived parent.

It's not quite that simple. The calculations work for a constant production rate, but the cosmogenic production of C14 is not constant.

And there are other factors, human activity has upset the balance with nuclear testing, and with the release of old carbon from burning fossil fuel.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 678 by kbertsche, posted 06-01-2015 4:31 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 681 by kbertsche, posted 06-01-2015 5:57 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 684 of 1053 (758773)
06-02-2015 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 681 by kbertsche
06-01-2015 5:57 PM


Re: Looking for Libby paper
I think that we can agree that, as a practical matter, the atmosphere is close enough to equilibrium that radiocarbon dating will produce reasonable results without correcting for the differences.

However, corrections are needed - to account for historic variations as well - if we want really accurate dates. And the argument that the Earth must be young because the atmosphere is not in equilibrium is just plain wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 681 by kbertsche, posted 06-01-2015 5:57 PM kbertsche has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 878 of 1053 (761186)
06-29-2015 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 877 by ThinAirDesigns
06-29-2015 12:23 PM


Re: Looking for Stukenrath Paper
I found a paywalled copy, but you can read the first page here

However, even ignoring the suspicious lack of any substantive criticism in the quote, the fact that the article is nearly 40 years old makes it of very questionable relevance.

Edited by PaulK, : fixed URL tag


This message is a reply to:
 Message 877 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 06-29-2015 12:23 PM ThinAirDesigns has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 962 of 1053 (772510)
11-15-2015 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 961 by ThinAirDesigns
11-15-2015 6:58 AM


Re: Hugh Miller Debate
Looks like an example of a creationist fraud. Obtaining samples by deception and having them dated despite being warned that they were thoroughly contaminated.

Bradley Lepper's report


This message is a reply to:
 Message 961 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 11-15-2015 6:58 AM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 963 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 11-15-2015 7:41 AM PaulK has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 972 of 1053 (782259)
04-21-2016 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 970 by ThinAirDesigns
04-21-2016 4:41 PM


Re: The geological range of the tapeats / redwall
Wikipedia states that the Redwall Limestone is found in Northern Arizona, southeast California, New Mexico, and southern Utah. The Tapeats Sandstone is found in northern Arizona (Grand Canyon), central Arizona, southeast California, southern Nevada, and southeast Utah

So, I don't know what he is talking about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 970 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 04-21-2016 4:41 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 973 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 04-21-2016 5:19 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 974 of 1053 (782264)
04-21-2016 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 973 by ThinAirDesigns
04-21-2016 5:19 PM


Re: The geological range of the tapeats / redwall
That map - and similar ones - seem to come from Creationist sources (and only Creationist sources), which is a bit of a red flag.. The little investigation that I have done suggests that they are probably including other formations, such as the St Peter Sandstone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 973 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 04-21-2016 5:19 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 975 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 04-21-2016 5:41 PM PaulK has taken no action
 Message 977 by edge, posted 04-21-2016 5:54 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 990 by JonF, posted 04-22-2016 8:10 AM PaulK has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 987 of 1053 (782291)
04-22-2016 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 977 by edge
04-21-2016 5:54 PM


Re: The geological range of the tapeats / redwall
So if I understand correctly we have similar rocks deposited at the same time (with some leeway, no doubt) rather than a single formation. In some cases the similarities could be quite extensive - possibly even derived from the same source of sediment? but nevertheless there are reasons to consider them distinct.

Another point to consider, especially with older formations, is continental drift. Places which are far apart now, may not have been so when the material was originally deposited.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 977 by edge, posted 04-21-2016 5:54 PM edge has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 993 of 1053 (782319)
04-22-2016 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 989 by Faith
04-22-2016 3:59 AM


Re: The geological range of the tapeats / redwall
To make a quick reply, the idea is that the rate of deposition can vary, but it would be surprising indeed - at least to geologists - to interpret a massive formation like the Redwall as being due to a single event.

But my main point is this: it is wrong to describe the Redwall Limestone as being "all Redwall Limestone" when it is in fact a mix of varying limestones, dolomites and chert.
The Redwall Limestone is composed of distinct "members", and even those are not uniform. here is a description of the actual composition - perhaps a bit technical but it does make it clear that even the individual members are not homogenous.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 989 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 3:59 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 994 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 9:21 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 995 of 1053 (782326)
04-22-2016 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 994 by Faith
04-22-2016 9:21 AM


Re: The geological range of the tapeats / redwall
Hundreds of millions of years is an exaggeration, so let's not worry about that.

Limestone is especially easy to explain - because so much of it is biogenic. So long as the organisms producing it keep on going there will be sediment to deposit.

Really, the mechanisms of deposition aren't believed to be any different from those operating today. And so long as conditions remain similar, why shouldn't the material deposited also remain similar ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 994 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 9:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 996 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 10:09 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 997 of 1053 (782329)
04-22-2016 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 996 by Faith
04-22-2016 10:09 AM


Re: The geological range of the tapeats / redwall
The fact that it's only 540 million years to the Cambrian supports my point. No single formation is likely to occupy more than a third of that.

And I'm certainly not going to reject scientific conclusions just because you find them "strange" for some unexplained reason. I find Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to be much stranger, and I'm still happy to accept them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 996 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 10:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 998 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 10:35 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


(3)
Message 1000 of 1053 (782340)
04-22-2016 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 998 by Faith
04-22-2016 10:35 AM


Re: The geological range of the tapeats / redwall
What you are imagining is quite strange but it isn't the reality - the rocks are not is neat and tidy as you think. Not nearly. Now, the geological periods are based on the rocks, but not because there are sudden closely synchronised changes in the rock being deposited on a global basis. (This is even more true of subdivisions of the major periods which are NOT recognised globally). Rather, there are global changes affecting the environment which, by my understanding, have a more gradual effect.

In reality the iridium layer produced by the meteorite strike at the end of the Cretaceous was something of a gift for geologists because it did provide a precise marker for the end. Something that the rocks otherwise did not provide.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 998 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 10:35 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1001 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 11:21 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1003 of 1053 (782346)
04-22-2016 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1001 by Faith
04-22-2016 11:21 AM


Re: The geological range of the tapeats / redwall
Since the periods are identified from the rocks, and since they represent the effects of global changes, and since they are not at all precise where the boundary is actually present I am at a loss to see anything actually strange.

Perhaps you could point to a genuinely strange example ? Let's have something we can clearly look at instead of arguments based on the way you think things are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1001 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 11:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1004 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 11:30 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1005 of 1053 (782351)
04-22-2016 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1004 by Faith
04-22-2016 11:30 AM


Re: The geological range of the tapeats / redwall
That tells me nothing. Be precise. Which boundaries between formations represent strange correlations with geological periods, and why do you think so ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1004 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 11:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1006 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 12:04 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1007 of 1053 (782355)
04-22-2016 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1006 by Faith
04-22-2016 12:04 PM


Re: The geological range of the tapeats / redwall
Every boundary ? Well, let's consider the Redwall again.

The Redwall is from the Carboniferous.

In places it sits on the Muav Limestone from the Cambrian. A difference of more than 100 million years, missing out the Devonian altogether. Is it really strange that rocks deposited at such different times should be different ?

In other places it sits on the Temple Butte Limestone, which is closer in age - but even there, there is a break in deposition, again for a considerable period. Again, not strange.

Above you have the Surprise Canyon formation, which is also quite similar in age, also starting in the earlier part of the Carboniferous. So this doesn't represent a boundary between geological periods, but even here there is a long break in deposition, as shown by the erosion of the Redwall surface.

So where is the strangeness ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1006 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 12:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1008 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 12:30 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1009 of 1053 (782358)
04-22-2016 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1008 by Faith
04-22-2016 12:30 PM


Re: The geological range of the tapeats / redwall
quote:

In there being any correlation whatever between a rock type and a time period.

That isn't really strange. The rock has to be deposited at some time, and it isn't surprising that it would all be deposited within a single geological period since those periods are so long. So, to the extent that it is true it isn't strange at all.

quote:

In there being a pattern of time periods marked by rock types that repeats up the entire geo column.

That would be strange if it were true. But it isn't,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1008 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 12:30 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022