|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/0 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2631 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
So here is a snippet from Geological Survey Professional Paper, Volume 669 (pulled up via a "Tapeats Sandstone England" Google books search)
It talks about these formations "correlating" with certain formations in England. I'm wondering what that term means in this context ... temporally? Geological Survey Professional Paper - Google Books
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1964 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
This is true. However it is not completely unjustified.
The Tapeats Sandstone, the Potsdam Sandstone, the Saint Peter's Sandstone, and the Sawatch Quartzsite, among otbers are all time-equivalent units. These are all basal Sandstone units related to the first major Paleozoic marine transgression. What Snelling fails to tell you is that there are discontinuities due to non-deposition (which would mean contemporary land masses) and/or later erosion. He also fails to tell you why this scenario indicates rapid deposition. That is simply another baseless assertion. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2631 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Snelling does talk about rapid deposition in the sentence right after what I quoted -- I cut it out because my question was only regarding the range portion of the paragraph.
The entire paragraph follows, including the rapid deposition sentence:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1702 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I have also wanted to find information about the full range of the various strata and/or time periods associated with them. A few years ago herebedragons posted THIS, illustrating four time periods in relation to North America. The illustrations have become distorted for some reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2631 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Here is another statement about 'range' that interests me:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/creation-conference.html
quote: Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1964 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Still, rapid deposition does not mean old ages. One could have rapid deposition of one layer ... hundreds of millions of years ago.
This is deception on the part of Snelling.. Also, note that he is switching from the Tapeats to the Coconino in the same paragraph. This is more deception. The Tapeats is a beach sandstone and the Coconino is an eolian sand deposit. And yes, we can tell the difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1964 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
More nonsense.
The White Cliffs of Dover were deposited at about the same time as the Cretaceous Seaway in North America. At that time, the oceans were at a higher level covering large amounts of the continents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1964 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
More nonsense.
The White Cliffs of Dover were deposited at about the same time as the Cretaceous Seaway in North America. At that time, the oceans were at a higher level covering large amounts of the continents. This resulted in large areas shallow seas covering the continental shelves with little input from continental sediments. In Europe and into the Middle East the sediments were starved of terrigenous sediments and developed carbonate banks. In North America, formations such as the Niobrara limestone are the equivalent of the White Cliffs of Dover. However, there were land masses to the west in North America. It all makes sense if you understand the distribution of rocks in a global conrext.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1964 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Well, considering that YECS do not recognize that these time periods exist, it is no wonder that it is a mystery to them. However, there is little doubt that they exist and that they are associated with major geological changes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6077 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
To add to edge's reply, here is a reference about rapid depositation:
quote:We can tell a lot about a stratum when we examine the rock closely. This article described some of the characteristics of rapidly-deposited sediment, namely the inclusion of larger particles that would fallen out of suspension very much earlier in a case of slower depositation. I received that reference from a SDAist on CompuServe in the early 90's by which he sought to support his claim of polystrate trees with root systems extending into the coal seams under them. Instead, that article specifically stated that the root systems did not so extend. But it also described how geologists can tell how rapidly sediment had been deposited, which should make it of interest here. I believe that that SDAist ("Seventh Day Adventist") had pulled that citation from something written by Dr. Steve Austin (PhD Geology). Actually, that SDAist provided me with one of my first realizations of creationists' primary goal for going on-line: to convert us. He was in the habit of copying entire sections of creationist books verbatim (even including the footnote numbers, but without including any of the footnotes). When I had finally worn him down to writing his own messages, he immediately tried to convert me. He even went so far as to as to praise the miracles that SDA's prominent founder, Ellen G. White (uncomfortably close to my ex-wife's name), could perform after she had gone into a trance. I responded with complete honesty that I used to be able to perform the exact same "miracles" when I was still well-practiced in Aikido (Tohei Sensai's school, which emphasizes Ki development) and I never ever had to go into any trance to do it. It was at that instant that he suddenly had very pressing business matters to attend to (he ran a mail-order hobby business) after which he completely disappeared. A word about Dr. Steve Austin. Yes, his doctorate is legitimate. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) had paid all his expenses, including living expenses, for him to earn that degree, just so they could have an actual PhD Geology on staff whose degree was legitimate (unlike the ones bought from diploma mills). While he was a student, he wrote several geology articles for creationist publications (eg, the ones I read in Creation Society Research Quarterly), but he used the pseudonym of "Stuart Nevins", near-anagram of his real name (it's missing an "e" and has an extra "r"). In one of his articles I read, he repeated the false idea of absolutely gradual building of the strata (ie, take a system of strata representing some millions of years, so "that must mean that each layer was built up by this miniscule fraction of an inch each and every year"); even a first-semester geology student should have known better and here he was already a graduate student -- either he had absolutely no understanding of geology or he was lying and, since I'm certain he isn't that stupid, he must have been knowingly lying. And indeed, now that he knows as a PhD what can create invalid radiometric dates, he has been using that knowledge to selectively collect samples that will give invalid dates. Creationist is as creationist does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6077 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Circa 1990, there was a young-earth creationist fossil shop in a local shopping mall. Even though he was a YEC, his fossils were displayed in jewelry cases with the commonly accepted (AKA "old earth") dates; only the prominent display of many posters from ICR books and the creationist books for sale at the cash register betrayed his YEC beliefs (though he also sold a book by Hugh Ross, an OEC, but then that's capitalism for you).
However, here is something that you could benefit by regardless of your immediate rejection of anything old-earth. The vast majority of geological observations of age are of relative ages. We can plainly see that A happened before D and that B happened before D but after A, etc, etc, etc. It is when we then can find some igneous intrusions that we can tie some fixed ages to particular layers, along with a realization of how long it would take certain formations to form. Now, even though you reject the radiometric dating of those tie points (used by a geology book I own, though I don't know how widely the term is used) or of how long it would take for certain formations to form, there is still the relative ages of the layers that you could use. I would assume that you can accept the relative ages of the various layers. That could even be something that you and geologists could agree on, the relative ages of the layers. True, geologists then go on to establish absolute ages, which you reject. OK, but at least you still have the relative ages.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1702 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, considering that YECS do not recognize that these time periods exist, it is no wonder that it is a mystery to them. However, there is little doubt that they exist and that they are associated with major geological changes. Who said it is a mystery? I find those illustrations to be very interesting and useful. The only problem is that they don't show what particular sediment occurs where. It might be all one sediment or it might not. It may not be terribly important, but it's something it would be nice to know. I know that in the Grand Canyon the Cambrian is Tapeats sandstone, the Mississippian is redwall limestone, the Permian is Kaibab limestone and so on, and that all of these cover a number of states at least. It would be nice to have charts that show both the time period and the sedimentary rock associated with it all over the world. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1702 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
In one of his articles I read, he repeated the false idea of absolutely gradual building of the strata (ie, take a system of strata representing some millions of years, so "that must mean that each layer was built up by this miniscule fraction of an inch each and every year"); even a first-semester geology student should have known better and here he was already a graduate student -- But this incremental buildup idea is what one just naturally gets from the usual presentation of the formation of the strata. In fact if there is an accepted understanding of rapid deposition for all or some of them I've never encountered it except as rejoinders in the debate here. You say Austin should have known better as a geology graduate student but clearly he didn't get that information as a student. There is no reason to accuse him of lying. He didn't get that information as a student. But it's also quite an odd idea to think that there could have been a period of very rapid deposition that happened to trap and fossilize some particular creatures, and that is all that is preserved of an entire time period of hundreds of millions of years. If that occurred once or twice it might not be too odd, but so many of the time periods are characterized by a very particular sediment with very particular fossils. ALL Tapeats sandstone, ALL Redwall limestone etc etc. And they often have such nice neat razor-straight contacts too. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 426 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
The little investigation that I have done suggests that they are probably including other formations, such as the St Peter Sandstone. There was a long discussion on the St. Peter over at Talk Rational. There was a YEC map (IIRC from Snelling) that tremendously exaggerated the extent of it. But it still wasn't even close to spanning continents. I'll see if I have time to dig it up a little later.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024