Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

The rim of the Grand Canyon is only the Permian, the KT boundary is higher. The question is whether the iridium shows up in the Grand Staircase to the north of the Grand Canyon, whose layers climb from the Permian to the Holocene.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Good question. It has been eroded away, but not during canyon formation. It was actualy eroded at an earlier time when the course of the Colorado River was at a lower elevation, meandering across a low coastal plain.I'm not sure if the iridium layer has been documented in this area. I will do some research; but because erosion occurs not only in the present, if the layer was deposited on land it could have been immediately eroded just as the MSH ash is gone from most continental areas today. In other words, it's as if it never were deposited.

What a FUN story. One the most interesting aspects (to me) is the possibility that this discovery may have lead to the knowledge that kept some damn finger of the big red nuclear button. Who would have thought that the study of geology might have saved mankind (from themselves). I will check out those links you provided. I real a lot and it's very little fiction, mostly science and biographies. Those sound very interesting.JB

There are several places in the US where the K/T boundary layer is exposed but none in the Grand Canyon that I am aware of. The closest to me is up in Big Bend, Tx but there are also spots along the Brazos River here in Texas. Other places I'm aware of are the Hell Canyon formation and in the Raton Basin.

The answer ought to be pretty obvious.No discovery can be inconsistent with the Flood, because Flood believers will just invent properties for massive amounts of water that can reproduce any phenomenon. Because the Flood happened in the past, and you weren't there, then whatever they say is beyond challenge.Of course if you know anything about chemistry, geology or physics, that knowledge simply interferes with the spiritual discernment necessary to know the truth. Or something like that.

In a way, that would be one of the coolest things learned from the discovery -- it would provide 'snapshot in time' of what areas where exposed and what areas were underwater at that moment.Just speculating the possibilities, backed up by no knowledge whatsoever. JB

This story is also a very good way to show young people how scientific discoveries are actually made. Luie tried to use Ir as a "clock", but got unrealistic results. Rather than giving up and trying something else for a clock, he tried to understand why the Ir clock hadn't worked. In doing so, he made a huge new discovery.

When you and RAZD and ThinAir continue to misrepresent my point of view you just keep me posting on this thread where I didn't want to be in the first place except to make a brief comment. I did not want to get into a discussion with edge because I didn't want to be on this thread at all, AND I know where those discussions go too. I've already been accused of "hijacking" this thread when I'm not the one prolonging the discussion. This has happened many times before and in the past I wasn't careful enough to cut off lines of discussion that others kept bringing up. I hoped to be more alert here, but I keep being required to defend myself from misrepresentations. ThinAir isn't even thinking clearly enough to know that the age of a canyon would have nothing to do with the deposition of the layers exposed in the walls of that canyon. I have never made any such insane claim. What I've said about the Flood is perfectly reasonable. You could say the same thing about establishment Geology, that it just invents whole scenarios to fit their ridiculous idea that a solid slab of rock that spans thousands of square feet miles of geography represents a whole time period with its own flora and fauna. This is a pernicious misrepresentation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This refers back to the question of unconformities, which some YECs strenuously deny. And yet, there is the evidence...Of course, it can all be explained by the flood! It all fits together if you follow the evidence far enough.

Alrighty, I guess I'm on this thread like it or not. The only kind of unconformity YECs deny is the purported absence of particular strata that establishment theory says should have been there instead. And speaking of evidence, nice clean contact lines may even exist where this "missing layer" is supposed to have been.Otherwise we have other explanations for other kinds of unconformities. such as angular unconformities, but I have explained these not in terms of the Flood but in terms of the tectonic activity that must have followed the Flood. A purported absence is certainly very easy to explain by the Flood, since we wouldn't expect such a catastrophe always to supply the layer Geology expects to have been there. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't know who is forcing you to post here. But I'd be happy to put a headlock on him/her so that you can act according to your own will.

Misrepresent my argument and I do feel required for the sake of preserving my point of view to post here. Since you are one of the offenders let's see you perform a headlock on yourself.

quote:

---

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
-- Abraham Lincoln

---

So Coyote generously provided me with the paper in question (appreciated). Pretty interesting.I'm not sure what reputation the Anthropological Journal of Canada (AJC) had in the field, or what the qualifications of the writer were in regards to carbon dating. The journal has apparently been out of publication since 1982/83.The very first thing I noticed that it listed Thomas E Lee as the Editor. A little research found that Thomas Lee is the father of Robert Lee (the paper author). Additionally, Thomas E Lee died right at the same time the publication of the AJC ceased. I would suspect that the timing was not a coincidence and that the AJC was likely not a peer reviewed publication of a well established organization, but rather a pet publication of one man (please note that last sentence is near total speculation but based on what I found). What we do know is we have son writing in daddy's paper. Take that for what it's worth.As a note on the positive side, Thomas Lee is a person of enough renown to have a wikipedia page: Thomas E. Lee - WikipediaHere's where it gets interesting for me -- I came to the paper because its oft quoted presence on YEC sites. First remember it's a near 35 year old paper, but as it turns out, Robert Lee is repeatedly throughout the paper trying to make the point that reported carbon dates are TOO YOUNG. While he does mention a few situations (mostly hypothetical rather than examples) that could cause older dates, it's clear his problem with carbon dating up that that point was one of it reporting dates that were younger than what he considered reality.This of course is just a perfect example of how the YEC crowd lies and misrepresents and quote mines to the ends of the earth in an attempt to keep their fantasy alive.So now I know the full content of the paper and can respond if asked about his 'finding'. Thanks for the helpful resource.(and on the topic or quote mining, I learned something from the paper (related to another author) that shows just how dishonest the YEC crowd is. I'll write about that in another post).JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Faith, the problem with your position is not the Bible, or Creation, or even Noah's Flood. The problem is flood geology, which is extra-biblical, pseudo-scientific nonsense.The problem is illustrated by what you say above. Flood geology does not help with the source of Ir. You still need an asteroid/meteor to provide the Ir. If you've got a large asteroid, which would have thrown lots of particles into the upper atmosphere, you've already got a good mechanism for spreading and dispersing the Ir worldwide. You don't need a worldwide flood to spread the Ir.In fact, postulating a worldwide flood to spread the Ir creates more problems. According to flood geology, very thick layers of rock were laid down by a worldwide flood. If the flood laid down many meters or kilometers of material, why is the Ir excess concentrated into a single layer only a few centimeters thick? Floods can sort material by particle size or by density. But they can't sort material by chemical composition (or by isotopic concentration)! The Ir should have been spread throughout most, if not all, of the flood sediments, not concentrated into a thin layer.This is the problem with flood geology. It may sound superficially plausible to a non-scientist, but as you drill down you will find that it does not and can not account for scientific details. Flood geology is not much more than a hand-waving plausibility argument.