RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (46) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   
  Topic: Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits ?, Anti science.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,12:20   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,12:04)
I don't have an exact time--I gave you a time span--the time span that it takes for crinoid to start showing signs of decay--in shallow oxygenated water most probably although I do believe some of them live in deeper waters.

I'm sorry then, I must have missed that. What time period was that?

Your previous post, as you say gives a time span. What you have not said is what possible chronological time period that span potentially covers.

 
Quote
Why is it necessary for you to have an exact time?


I don't expect an exact time. I expect a "time span" to be given in units of time, and so far I've not seen that. As far as I can tell you could be defining "rapid" as millions of years.

What's the upper limit on the the time span that it takes for crinoid to start showing signs of decay?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,15:22   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,09:03)
Deadman,  Here's a summary--it you need references I can get it. So quit your griping--I'm trying to do you right.

"Trying to do me right" --  on what? I point out the verticals on the Redwall limestone, their deposition and dolomitization, and how this factors into verticality that is contrary to Morris....and you trot out a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with that verticality question.

Here's what I had posted with that accompanying picture of Redwall Limestone:
   
Quote
"Look at it, then look at the THOUSANDS of meters of material that overlay it in the stratigraphic column above. How could soft, unconsolidated ooze (according to Henry Morris' bullshit scenario)  that is over 95% PURE CALCIUM CARBONATES stand up vertically underneath gravity and that amount of overlay pressure?  Morris was an idiot -- and since I DIDN'T say it before, I'll say NOW that Austin is a crank, too."

So what does YOUR post have to do with that? Why, nothing! Gish Gallop!

You did this earlier with Louis -- avoid what he's talking about, whip out enirely unrelated claims on T.Rex fossils, then ---what?

Sit back and enjoy your Gish Gallop?

-------------------------------------------------------------

Besides being completely off-point, virtually all of your post is merely you regurgitating Austin at ICR here:  http://www.icr.org/article/337/ and yes, the only thing you did (other than regurgitating Austin's claims) is look up "chert" (probably on Wikipedia) -- you don't KNOW this material, you're just parroting it, and amusingly stupidly. Oh, and since you said you can give me references on these claims of yours, I want them. All of them, because I'll be asking questions that will concern them. You'll be copy-pasting them from the Austin ICR article, won't you?

Most importantly, as I said, it has nothing to do with the reason I mentioned the Redwall -- VERTICAL CLIFFS that would NOT stand up under Henry Morris' scenarios.

Austin is able to bullshit you and casual "believers"  because he's selecting out or emphasizing things in a pseudo-"sciency" way calculated, designed, intended to merely cast doubt on "long-age" claims. He's stupid,  so he figures, hey, my readers are just as stupid, too. Which is why he uses his crap as propaganda and never publishes his (relevant)  claims in peer-reviewed journals.

What I'd like YOU to do is for YOU to go beyond this little bit you've read and puked up from from Austin and give me YOUR complete scenario on

(1) how the Redwall formed and how it was deposited IN CONTEXT of other underlying and overlying strata, keeping in mind basic rules of deposition like Stokes' Law. I don't want guesses here, I want evidence-supported materials, showing how such rapid formation is even possible at all, FOR the Redwall and surrounding strata...a COMPLETE PICTURE, WITH REFERENCES.
(2) How the Redwall lithified and dolomitized -- with chert lenses from silicified algal mats. NO GUESSES, DETAILS, baby. WITH references, please.
(3) Karstic erosion surfaces (with sinkhole/caves!) and paleosols (old land surfaces) resulting from multiple "long-time" transgression- regression
sequences.   DETAILS
(illustration from here )

(4) How those fossil crinoid, bryozoan, coral and brachiopod fossils formed at all. DETAILS!! Make sure you include a section on ichnofossil burrows found in the Redwall Members...that don't fit Austin's previous  claims.  That way, maybe we can get Austin to deal with Glenn Morton in person, here -- something Austin has been avoiding a great deal.

In short, I'd like you to show that YOU can learn, rather than just squawk and parrot ICR and AIG. Can you? 

---------------------------------------------

And on that peer-review journal bit...the ICR and AIG seem to always tout the fact that some of their folks HAVE gotten their work in print, so how is it that you say people like Austin CAN'T? You can't have it both ways and say "look, we have creationists in peer-reviewed scientific journals !!!" and then turn around and say "The Evil Evolutionist Cabal won't let us publish in their journals"

And one final point; I'm sure you realize that once again you've failed to actually address the questions I HAVE asked (oh, about 7 or  8 times now).

Start answering MY questions and I'll start answering yours -- otherwise, you can just continue your mindless Gish-gallop parroting, and I'll just keep mocking your ignorant recycling of already-dismantled "Young-Earth" creationist claims

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,16:44   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 03 2009,05:37)
Vertical canyon wall "shaping"You are completely right deadman.  But you forget we're not talking about a brick wall here--were talking about the ground.  It would be physically impossible for the walls to lean toward the river--but not impossible for them to be vertical or lean away from the river--WERE TALKING ABOUT HIGHLY SILICATE BASED SEDIMENT, NOT TOPSOIL MUD. 

I hike through a canyon that in places are vertical and some are not.  Where there are waterfalls there are vertical walls OF CLAY-- high in silicate material.  There are huge boulders of sedimentary clay (some of them you can scratch sand off with your fingers) strewn over the bottom on top of each other, which are obviously a result of gravity pulling them off the side.  In effect gravity shaped the canyon--NOT THE WATER--flooding has cut the canyons--but gravity shaped it.  And the walls are vertical, this principle would still work even if the walls were 10 times higher.

It is silicate based clay that can cause vertical walls on canyons--yet be "soft" enough for flooding to cut through.  The grand canyon is a large scale of this principle--because it's walls are silicate based--not soft mud formed in the topsoil.

I now know from the quoted material that this sciencey guy is either a loki troll, or a total whack-job.

I don't care either way. I have better ways to waste time.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,16:49   

I think he's just a kid (and a troll, sure). But... since I'm only half-watching american football at the moment (grunt, snork), I have time to play "hamstring the Gish Galloper"

P.S. "Scienthuse" I'm sure you'll be directly addressing OM's questions here, right?
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 04 2009,12:20)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,12:04)
I don't have an exact time--I gave you a time span--the time span that it takes for crinoid to start showing signs of decay--in shallow oxygenated water most probably although I do believe some of them live in deeper waters.

I'm sorry then, I must have missed that. What time period was that?

Your previous post, as you say gives a time span. What you have not said is what possible chronological time period that span potentially covers.

   
Quote
Why is it necessary for you to have an exact time?


I don't expect an exact time. I expect a "time span" to be given in units of time, and so far I've not seen that. As far as I can tell you could be defining "rapid" as millions of years.

What's the upper limit on the the time span that it takes for crinoid to start showing signs of decay?


--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,17:54   

Quote
As for the comment made by Lou in the prior post. Why don't you spend your energy answering why there are no fossilized coral reefs in the limestone -- since you must believe that organisms can remain un-decomposed indefinitely and be buried slowly -- in accordance with standard uniformintarian doctrine??

I thought "uniformitarian" meant following the same rules of physics as similar processes would follow today? I.e., it doesn't imply anything about the rate of the process.

Henry

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,18:46   

I'm just wondering how well hysterics, whining and chucking teddy from the pram regarding all Teh Meanies of Teh Internetz has served our new chum in the past. He/she seems fond of the melodramatic approach.

Frankly, my 4 month old kid can spit his dummy out with more style and panache than this latest funster. (He rolled over by himself today, I am so proud.)

Clownshoes honks in, red nose and all, and chucks whitewash around whilst telling us off for being meanies and cynical, hard hearted meanies at that. Why some of us, according to Clownshoes, don't even believe Teh Jebus was real.

Someone please think of the children.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,19:09   

Quote
Someone please think of the children.

Well, ap-parent-ly you just did, so that request is already satisfied. :p

Henry

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,19:15   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 05 2009,01:09)
Quote
Someone please think of the children.

Well, ap-parent-ly you just did, so that request is already satisfied. :p

Henry

My hat is off to you, sir. You never fail to pun appropriately. Here's looking at you, kid. I am now going to my new springless bed with a lady of negotiable virtue called Jenny. That's right, I'm about to be off spring with my pro Jenny.

Tip your veal, try the waitress, I'm all weak here.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,19:52   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 04 2009,17:54)
     
Quote
As for the comment made by Lou in the prior post. Why don't you spend your energy answering why there are no fossilized coral reefs in the limestone -- since you must believe that organisms can remain un-decomposed indefinitely and be buried slowly -- in accordance with standard uniformintarian doctrine??

I thought "uniformitarian" meant following the same rules of physics as similar processes would follow today? I.e., it doesn't imply anything about the rate of the process.

Henry

While we wait for the...er...aroma of Louis' last post to dissipate,  it's fun to see why I was pointing out that "Scienthuse's" posts also reeked, but for different reasons, and with Scienthuse's containing the familiar stench of creo-bullshit. Here's two of Scienthuse's posts:

     
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,09:03)
b)McKee and Ghutschick (1969) admit lack of coral reefs,(hello WHERE ARE THEY?????) and stromalites "which might form slowly in tidal flat environments...."

and
     
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,11:47)
As for the comment made by Lou in the prior post. Why don't you spend your energy answering why there are no fossilized coral reefs in the limestone


Notice that scienthuse is utterly ignorant of some basic facts: The redwall limestone generally dates from the early to middle Mississippian. In the grand canyon this limestone averages about 450 feet in thickness and 335 million years in age. It holds fossil corals, along with the bryozoans, crinoids, brachipods and other critters mentioned previously

Yet, "Scienthuse" seems to think he's (or she, who knows) is making some really IMPORTANT POINT by saying "look, no coral reefs, ma!"

Reef systems (say, in the Ordovician) were composed primarily of stuff like crinoid, bryozoan and brachiopod communities. By the Devonian, reefs incorporated more rugose corals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugosa -- but with brachiopods and crinoids still dominating.

This continues down through the Mississippian, which is why we do find coral fossils in the Redwall Limestone -- along with all the other fossils (crinoids, brachiopods, etc) characteristic of shallow epeiric seas

It's only really since the Triassic that we see modern corals (scleractinian) and bivalves, sponges, etc as primary reef-building organisms globally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral

So, in parroting Austin -- who is simply a con-artist -- "Scienthuse" (what a misnomer portmanteau that is!) simply shows how truly ignorant of the topics he is. Well, that and he apparently can't be arsed to either think for himself OR use Wikipedia, even.

And now, we return viewers back to the regularly scheduled pun 'n fun fest.

ETA: I'll be betting that "Scienthuse" tries to respond to *this* post rather than my previous one, which he'll avoid (in any meaningful detail) like the plague.

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,11:47)
you are going to  preach at me with your "liar for Jesus" stuff--you probably don't even believe he existed! When at the same time you are obviously full of bitterness and malice.  It's almost time for me to go--because I can feel the absolute cynicism and hardness in some of you.  It spreads like cancer!


Hahaha. Shorter Scienthuse:

"Stop spanking me like that! Yes, I avoid, bullshit and fling fallacies, but I'm *innocent*!! I'm going to run away, just you wait! WATERLOO!!!"

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,21:00   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,12:47)
As for the comment made by Lou in the prior post. Why don't you spend your energy answering why there are no fossilized coral reefs in the limestone--since you must believe that organisms can remain un-decomposed indefinitely and be buried slowly--in accordance with standard uniformintarian doctrine??  

But instead you are going to  preach at me with your "liar for Jesus" stuff--you probably don't even believe he existed! When at the same time you are obviously full of bitterness and malice.  It's almost time for me to go--because I can feel the absolute cynicism and hardness in some of you.  It spreads like cancer!

Idiot.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,22:02   


There's your image deadman, and now here's your quote.
       
Quote
Look at it, then look at the THOUSANDS of meters of material that overlay it in the stratigraphic column above. How could soft, unconsolidated ooze (according to Henry Morris' bullshit scenario)  that is over 95% PURE CALCIUM CARBONATES stand up vertically underneath gravity and that amount of overlay pressure?  Morris was an idiot -- and since I DIDN'T say it before, I'll say NOW that Austin is a crank, too.


You gave me a pixel of the entire redwall formation, but we'll go with an initial observation.  First of all--there is no way it is 95% calcium carbonate. Do you know what is about 98% pure--the WHITE cliffs of Dover.  Did I "gallop' to know that?  Nah.  I already knew it.  

The cliffs of dover are WHITE chalk--made up of forminefera and other phytoplankton. Did I gallop--nah. Look at how RED your cliff is.  Do we need to say that's some kind of oxidation? Did I gallop--nah. Probably with some metal like magnesium--since you want me to talk about dolomitic limestone.  Did I gallop--a little, i had to research a little on dolomite--isn't a troll dishonest?

Limestone is not that pure. Maybe there is iron or another metal mixed in, I don't know--do you know what causes it to be red?  I'm sure you went there and analyzed the entire cliff Deadman--so why don't you tell me what it is (lol--I think we need to laugh a little).  Maybe it has "red clay" which comes from an ooze that is 30% or less of marine shells.  Anyway, I'm sure you're going to let me know after you tell me how much I don't know about it...:D

As far as jumping through your hoops--last time I checked you weren't my professor--so I don't have an assignment due.:)

Vertical structure--Ooze? Oozes are not 95% pure CC. Well didn't I tell you once that the RL is calcite and modern oozes are aragonite.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty.  Do you or I think that cliff sits as it was originally formed--you don't and I don't.  Stuff fell off of it.  If it was cut by massive amounts of water having only a little plasticity (there is a scientific word for the thickness of a solution--do you remember what it is? I'm trying not to regurgitate much), which I believe it did--the pressure made it to drain quickly and probably it had already began to have secondary chemical changes--which some scientists believe is the cause of dolomite--but they don't know for sure--so I don't either.

Okay, you keep tripping over the fact that somehow it's going to fall over--I'll say it again--IT IS NOT A WALL--IT IS THE EDGE OF THOUSANDS OF CUBIC MILES OF HORIZONTAL SEDIMENT.  

My little illustration--Say you were assigned to make  a 2 foot thick wall of wet sand by 8 feet long.  You began to pile it up and shape it.  How high do you think you could get it before it fell.  Just off the top of your head what?  6 feet 8 feet maybe?    Now if you had to make (hypothetically) a 100 foot thick wall by say 1000 feet long.  How high could get it?  Just say 300 feet.   Now if you had packed it good.   Now leave it set for a few months and come back and and start digging a trench through the thickness--for 100 foot. Dig it 50 foot deep--what would happen.  You think it would collapse?  Some of it would some of it wouldn't.  Like your picture.  It would eventually harden and stuff would keep falling  off now and then.

Then and most importantly above all.  You have no idea how many tectonic events have affected the Grand Canyon--while (hypothetically) the material was wet and when after (hypothetically) it was cut.

You have to understand, Deadman--you have to ask!  And another thing--I think we are all taking ourselves too seriously here.  Maybe we need to take a chill pill or blood pressure or something.

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,22:13   

Disclaimer-- I realize after reading the illustration in my previous post that 1) the Redwall Limestone is much more complex, and 2) the illustration is very inexact and there is no way to know if it is accurate.  It is an illustration designed to get an idea accross.  Mainly that the edge of thousands of cubic miles of wet sediment is not necessarily  going to collapse--otherwise one could never dig a 35  foot well through "soft wet" soil.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,22:19   

My thought will never be the same when I hear that someone is being parroted.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T1vfsHYiKY

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,22:41   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,22:02)

There's your image deadman, and now here's your quote.
       
Quote
Look at it, then look at the THOUSANDS of meters of material that overlay it in the stratigraphic column above. How could soft, unconsolidated ooze (according to Henry Morris' bullshit scenario)  that is over 95% PURE CALCIUM CARBONATES stand up vertically underneath gravity and that amount of overlay pressure?  Morris was an idiot -- and since I DIDN'T say it before, I'll say NOW that Austin is a crank, too.


You gave me a pixel of the entire redwall formation, but we'll go with an initial observation.  First of all--there is no way it is 95% calcium carbonate. Do you know what is about 98% pure--the WHITE cliffs of Dover.  Did I "gallop' to know that?  Nah.  I already knew it.  

The cliffs of dover are WHITE chalk--made up of forminefera and other phytoplankton. Did I gallop--nah. Look at how RED your cliff is.  Do we need to say that's some kind of oxidation? Did I gallop--nah. Probably with some metal like magnesium--since you want me to talk about dolomitic limestone.  Did I gallop--a little, i had to research a little on dolomite--isn't a troll dishonest?

Limestone is not that pure. Maybe there is iron or another metal mixed in, I don't know--do you know what causes it to be red?  I'm sure you went there and analyzed the entire cliff Deadman--so why don't you tell me what it is (lol--I think we need to laugh a little).  Maybe it has "red clay" which comes from an ooze that is 30% or less of marine shells.  Anyway, I'm sure you're going to let me know after you tell me how much I don't know about it...:D

As far as jumping through your hoops--last time I checked you weren't my professor--so I don't have an assignment due.:)

Vertical structure--Ooze? Oozes are not 95% pure CC. Well didn't I tell you once that the RL is calcite and modern oozes are aragonite.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty.  Do you or I think that cliff sits as it was originally formed--you don't and I don't.  Stuff fell off of it.  If it was cut by massive amounts of water having only a little plasticity (there is a scientific word for the thickness of a solution--do you remember what it is? I'm trying not to regurgitate much), which I believe it did--the pressure made it to drain quickly and probably it had already began to have secondary chemical changes--which some scientists believe is the cause of dolomite--but they don't know for sure--so I don't either.

Okay, you keep tripping over the fact that somehow it's going to fall over--I'll say it again--IT IS NOT A WALL--IT IS THE EDGE OF THOUSANDS OF CUBIC MILES OF HORIZONTAL SEDIMENT.  

My little illustration--Say you were assigned to make  a 2 foot thick wall of wet sand by 8 feet long.  You began to pile it up and shape it.  How high do you think you could get it before it fell.  Just off the top of your head what?  6 feet 8 feet maybe?    Now if you had to make (hypothetically) a 100 foot thick wall by say 1000 feet long.  How high could get it?  Just say 300 feet.   Now if you had packed it good.   Now leave it set for a few months and come back and and start digging a trench through the thickness--for 100 foot. Dig it 50 foot deep--what would happen.  You think it would collapse?  Some of it would some of it wouldn't.  Like your picture.  It would eventually harden and stuff would keep falling  off now and then.

Then and most importantly above all.  You have no idea how many tectonic events have affected the Grand Canyon--while (hypothetically) the material was wet and when after (hypothetically) it was cut.

You have to understand, Deadman--you have to ask!  And another thing--I think we are all taking ourselves too seriously here.  Maybe we need to take a chill pill or blood pressure or something.

If you would simply google "redwall limestone"  you would find that the red is staining from the red beds of  the overlying Supai formation.

and you seem to be the only one hyperventilating.  Everyone else is just laughing.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,23:42   

Essentially, Scienthuse's argument boils down to "yes, Austin and Morris are right about how limestone can magically solidify, then be eroded because of a magical flood, and you should take a chill pill because you get mean in the way you get impatient with my inane non-responses!"

And this also fails to explain how there can be several fossil reefs preserved within the Grand Canyon, nor how the various layers of igneous rock were also magically lain down then eroded in a magical flood lasting 40 days and 40 nights.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,01:16   

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 04 2009,22:41)
       
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,22:02)
There's your image deadman, and now here's your quote.
                 
Quote
Look at it, then look at the THOUSANDS of meters of material that overlay it in the stratigraphic column above. How could soft, unconsolidated ooze (according to Henry Morris' bullshit scenario)  that is over 95% PURE CALCIUM CARBONATES stand up vertically underneath gravity and that amount of overlay pressure?  Morris was an idiot -- and since I DIDN'T say it before, I'll say NOW that Austin is a crank, too.


You gave me a pixel of the entire redwall formation, but we'll go with an initial observation.  First of all--there is no way it is 95% calcium carbonate. Do you know what is about 98% pure--the WHITE cliffs of Dover.  Did I "gallop' to know that?  Nah.  I already knew it.  

The cliffs of dover are WHITE chalk--made up of forminefera and other phytoplankton. Did I gallop--nah. Look at how RED your cliff is.  Do we need to say that's some kind of oxidation?... Limestone is not that pure. Maybe there is iron or another metal mixed in, I don't know--do you know what causes it to be red?  I'm sure you went there and analyzed the entire cliff Deadman--so why don't you tell me what it is (lol--I think we need to laugh a little).  

If you would simply google "redwall limestone"  you would find that the red is staining from the red beds of  the overlying Supai formation.

and you seem to be the only one hyperventilating.  Everyone else is just laughing.


What's even funnier is this: earlier, local resident "genius" Scienthuse posted this site as evidence:
     
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,09:03)
4) Detailed but broken up fossils along with sand and other minerals shows rapid burial--evidence of transport
and rapid burial of bryozoan and an abundance of detailed crinoid fossils.

Mckee and Gutschick redwall

If he'd actually read that information THAT HE HIMSELF CITED, he'd see this:
"The Redwall Limestone is a very pure calcium carbonate rock containing less than one percent sand and shale particles."

High Purity or HICAL (high calcium) limestone is defined as limestone at (>95% wt% CaCO3) note to Clownshoes: CaCO3 = calcium carbonate

It's used for portland cement, gas-flue desulfurization, metallurgical flux, etc.

They used to mine limestone from the Grand Canyon Redwall for high-purity limestone.  Hell, the Horseshoe and Mooney Falls members of the Redwall both contain oolitic limestone and are both over 98% pure calcium carbonates. http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grandb.htm

They can't mine the limestone out of protected federal lands anymore, but they DO mine the Redwall limestone in Utah, where it is 99% pure CaCo3.

See:   Tripp, Bryce T. (2003) High-calcium limestone resources of Utah. Pub. Utah Geological Survey. Table, p.8

Not the best image in the world, but I just used something that you could find online so that you didn't need to hyperventilate, Clownshoes. It says "99.4%" pure CaCO3(on average).

So, why didn't you answer my questions above, Scienthuse?
Quote
(1) how the Redwall formed and how it was deposited IN CONTEXT of other underlying and overlying strata, keeping in mind basic rules of deposition like Stokes' Law. I don't want guesses here, I want evidence-supported materials, showing how such rapid formation is even possible at all, FOR the Redwall and surrounding strata...a COMPLETE PICTURE, WITH REFERENCES.
(2) How the Redwall lithified and dolomitized -- with chert lenses from silicified algal mats. NO GUESSES, DETAILS, baby. WITH references, please.
(3) Karstic erosion surfaces (with sinkhole/caves!) and paleosols (old land surfaces) resulting from multiple "long-time" transgression- regression
sequences. DETAILS
(4) How those fossil crinoid, bryozoan, coral and brachiopod fossils formed at all. DETAILS!! Make sure you include a section on ichnofossil burrows found in the Redwall Members...that don't fit Austin's previous claims. That way, maybe we can get Austin to deal with Glenn Morton in person, here -- something Austin has been avoiding

Can't do that, can you? Not with any of your YEC resources online. Oh, yeah -- I'm really unnerved and on edge about your teenage incompetence and that of Steve Austin ( who's only just a little better at bullshitting than you, Clownshoes) .

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,02:52   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 04 2009,12:20)
 
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,12:04)
I don't have an exact time--I gave you a time span--the time span that it takes for crinoid to start showing signs of decay--in shallow oxygenated water most probably although I do believe some of them live in deeper waters.

I'm sorry then, I must have missed that. What time period was that?

Your previous post, as you say gives a time span. What you have not said is what possible chronological time period that span potentially covers.

     
Quote
Why is it necessary for you to have an exact time?


I don't expect an exact time. I expect a "time span" to be given in units of time, and so far I've not seen that. As far as I can tell you could be defining "rapid" as millions of years.

What's the upper limit on the the time span that it takes for crinoid to start showing signs of decay?

Coward.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,04:08   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,22:02)
My little illustration--Say you were assigned to make  a 2 foot thick wall of wet sand by 8 feet long.  You began to pile it up and shape it.  How high do you think you could get it before it fell.  Just off the top of your head what?  6 feet 8 feet maybe?    Now if you had to make (hypothetically) a 100 foot thick wall by say 1000 feet long.  How high could get it?  Just say 300 feet.   Now if you had packed it good.   Now leave it set for a few months and come back and and start digging a trench through the thickness--for 100 foot. Dig it 50 foot deep--what would happen.  You think it would collapse?  Some of it would some of it wouldn't.  Like your picture.  It would eventually harden and stuff would keep falling  off now and then.

This was the funniest part, really. If you read it carefully, it's like someone on hallucinogens -- or maybe with brain damage -- wrote it.

Apparently, wet sand formed into a wall "300 feet" high (on a base 100 feet thick) ... left to dry for months...doesn't all collapse when one digs into it.

Majickally, no doubt.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,04:16   

Well if it's 95 % CaCO3 then it must not have much CaMg(CO3)2 in it.  But I was told it does...(?) You can guess who on this post--since you have it all figured out. Where did all that go?  As I was told in a manner of speaking--terminology means things.

Does anyone know the actual % of marine shells--because OOZES and lime muds do not produce the % you are talking about?

Anyway I'll be researching it. Now that you THINK your right and that you THINK you have discounted all my questions-- Why don't you guys all go research how your little Santa Cruz River got those boulders on top of that  300 foot valley?

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,04:18   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 05 2009,04:16)
Well if it's 95 % CaCO3 then it must not have much CaMg(CO3)2 in it.  But I was told it does...(?) You can guess who on this post--since you have it all figured out. Where did all that go?  As I was told in a manner of speaking--terminology means things.

Does anyone know the actual % of marine shells--because OOZES and lime muds do not produce the % you are talking about?

Anyway I'll be researching it. Now that you THINK your right and that you THINK you have discounted all my questions-- Why don't you guys all go research how your little Santa Cruz River got those boulders on top of that  300 foot valley?

I already know how they got there and so would you if you knew how to do a search.

Why don't you answer the questions I asked you, Clownshoes?
Quote

(1) how the Redwall formed and how it was deposited IN CONTEXT of other underlying and overlying strata, keeping in mind basic rules of deposition like Stokes' Law. I don't want guesses here, I want evidence-supported materials, showing how such rapid formation is even possible at all, FOR the Redwall and surrounding strata...a COMPLETE PICTURE, WITH REFERENCES.
(2) How the Redwall lithified and dolomitized -- with chert lenses from silicified algal mats. NO GUESSES, DETAILS, baby. WITH references, please.
(3) Karstic erosion surfaces (with sinkhole/caves!) and paleosols (old land surfaces) resulting from multiple "long-time" transgression- regression
sequences. DETAILS
(4) How those fossil crinoid, bryozoan, coral and brachiopod fossils formed at all. DETAILS!! Make sure you include a section on ichnofossil burrows found in the Redwall Members...that don't fit Austin's previous claims. That way, maybe we can get Austin to deal with Glenn Morton in person, here -- something Austin has been avoiding


--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,05:15   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 05 2009,04:16)
Why don't you guys all go research how your little Santa Cruz River got those boulders on top of that  300 foot valley?

I'll be right on that once you give a time period, in units of time, for the formation of the Redwall limestone.

You either know or you don't.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,05:39   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 05 2009,05:16)
Anyway I'll be researching it.

Idiot.

Don't you think you might should have done that before you came in here running your mouth at a bunch of actual real-world scientists?

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,05:55   

Beware, the Scienthuse Synchronized Goalpost Moving Team:



--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,09:57   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 05 2009,04:16)
 Now that you THINK your right and that you THINK you have discounted all my questions-- Why don't you guys all go research how your little Santa Cruz River got those boulders on top of that  300 foot valley?


As I said, already done:


Oh, look -- it's a striated andesitic boulder on the north side of the Santa Cruz River valley, on the San Fernando terrace at an elevation of 40 m above the river valley, 90 km away from the Atlantic Ocean, right about where Darwin recorded similar erratic blocks of similar size.



<sarcasm>Gee, I guess no one but Steve Austin has studied the area at all.</sarcasm>

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
JohnW



Posts: 2226
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,11:29   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,20:02)
My little illustration--Say you were assigned to make  a 2 foot thick wall of wet sand by 8 feet long.  You began to pile it up and shape it.  How high do you think you could get it before it fell.  Just off the top of your head what?  6 feet 8 feet maybe?    Now if you had to make (hypothetically) a 100 foot thick wall by say 1000 feet long.  How high could get it?  Just say 300 feet.   Now if you had packed it good.   Now leave it set for a few months and come back and and start digging a trench through the thickness--for 100 foot. Dig it 50 foot deep--what would happen.  You think it would collapse?  Some of it would some of it wouldn't.  Like your picture.  It would eventually harden and stuff would keep falling  off now and then.

You know, for a small fraction of the cost of that ridiculous "museum", AIG could have bought a few boatloads of sand and given this a try.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,12:31   

hahahahahahahaha

Scienthuse don't take it personally.  It's ok to be wrong, and be corrected.  that's what science does.  hmmm YEC, not so much.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
afarensis



Posts: 1005
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,19:07   

Here is another picture of the Redwall Limestone that clearly demonstrates the staining:



Note the section that says "Naked Redwall" is unstained because the Supai group has either eroded away or is not exposed.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,19:33   

Quote
Oh, look -- it's a striated andesitic boulder on the north side of the Santa Cruz River valley, on the San Fernando terrace at an elevation of 40 m above the river valley, 90 km away from the Atlantic Ocean, right about where Darwin recorded similar erratic blocks of similar size.


Those erratic boulders look pretty dangerous to me!*







*Pratchett's Interesting Times reference inside...**







**I've been waiting decades for someone to use "erratic boulders" on a forum. THAT'S commitment!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
afarensis



Posts: 1005
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,22:23   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 05 2009,09:57)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 05 2009,04:16)
 Now that you THINK your right and that you THINK you have discounted all my questions-- Why don't you guys all go research how your little Santa Cruz River got those boulders on top of that  300 foot valley?


As I said, already done:


Oh, look -- it's a striated andesitic boulder on the north side of the Santa Cruz River valley, on the San Fernando terrace at an elevation of 40 m above the river valley, 90 km away from the Atlantic Ocean, right about where Darwin recorded similar erratic blocks of similar size.



<sarcasm>Gee, I guess no one but Steve Austin has studied the area at all.</sarcasm>

From [URL=http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1661&keywords=south+unstratified+deposits+contemporaneous+boulders+the+on+distribution+erratic+of+americ

a+and&pageseq=1]On the distribution of the erratic boulders and on the contemporaneous unstratified deposits of South America[/URL]:

Quote
The valley in which the Santa Cruz flows, widens as it approaches the Cordillera, into a plain, in form like an estuary, with its mouth (see map, Pl. XL.) directed towards the mountains. This plain is only 440 feet above the level of the sea, and in all probability it was submerged within, or nearly within, the post-pliocene period. I am induced to form this inference from the presence of existing sea shells in the valley, and from the extension far up it of step-like terraces which on the sea-coast, certainly are of recent submarine origin. Round the estuary-like plain, and between it and the great high plain, there is a second plain, about 800 feet above the sea-level, and its surface consists of a bed of shingle with great boulders. In this part of the valley, namely, between thirty or forty miles from the Cordillera, there were, in the bed of the river, boulders* of granite, syenite and conglomerate, varieties of rock which I did not observe on the high plain; and I particularly noticed that there were none of the basaltic lava. From this latter fact and from several other circumstances, more especially from the immense quantity of solid matter which must have been removed in the excavation of the deep and broad valley, we may feel sure that the boulders on the intermediate plain and in the bed of the river, are not the wreck of those originally deposited on the high plain. These boulders, therefore, must have been transported subsequently from the Cordillera, and after an interval during which the land was modelled into the form above described. Those on the lowest plain must have been transported within, or not long before, the period of existing shells.

I have said that the first erratic block which I met with, was sixty-seven miles from the nearest slope of the Cordillera; I must, however, record the case of one solitary rounded fragment of feldspathic rock lying in the bed of the river, at the distance of 110 miles from the mountains. This fragment was seven feet in circumference, and projected eighteen inches above the surface, with apparently a large part buried beneath it. As its dimensions are not very great, we may speculate on some method of transportal different from that, by which the plain near the mountains was strewed with such innumerable boulders; for instance, of its having been imbedded in a cake of river ice. Its solitary position is, however, a singular fact.


The pictures deadman932 posted come from an interesting paper by Strelin and Malagnino that, for the most part confirms what Darwin proposed. One exception being that what Darwin thought was an paleo-estuary was actually a lake created by glacial damming. The article goes on to say:

Quote
Finally, the origin of the erratic blocks (Fig. 2) found in the lower valley of the Río Santa Cruz (Site 1, Fig. 1) has not been elucidated yet. Darwin (1842b) was sensitive to this enigma, which he tried to solve when he suggested that they could have been accumulated after rafting over fluvial ice. At present we consider this feasible and furthermore that it could have been after the catastrophic draining of the ancient Arroyo Verde morainedammed glacier-lake (Strelin and Malagnino 1996).


One interesting fact that the paper brings to light is that Darwin's observations in the area allowed later scientists to map the history and extent of glaciation in the area.
You might also find this article by Strelin et al of interest.

Edit to fix some formatting errors.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,22:41   

*Shakes his fist*
DAMN YOU! Damn you and your inquisitive, always-seeking-knowledge, nosy nature, you bipedal ape!


:angry:
Here's some other cites for ya:

Depetris, P. J. and A. I. Pasquini. (2000) The hydrological signal of the Perito Moreno Glacier damming of Lake Argentino (southern Andean Patagonia): the connection to climate anomalies. Global and Planetary Change 26:367–374. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0921818100000497

Rott, H.; Stuefer, M.; Nagler, T.; Riedl, C. (2005) Recent Fluctuations and Damming of Glaciar Perito Moreno, Patagonia, Observed by Means of ERS and Envisat Imagery. Proceedings of the 2004 Envisat & ERS Symposium (ESA SP-572). 6-10 September 2004, Salzburg, Austria. http://earth.esa.int/symposi....117.pdf

Skvarca, P., and R. Naruse (2006),Correspondence—Overview of the ice-dam formation and collapse of Glaciar Perito Moreno, southern Patagonia, in 2003/2004, J.Glaciol., 52(178),476–478.

Stuefer, M., H. Rott, and P.Skvarca (2007), Glaciar Perito Moreno, Patagonia: Climate sensitivities and glacier characteristics preceeding the 2003/04 and 2005/06 damming events, J.Glaciol., 53(180), 3–16.
         
Quote
The advance of Perito Moreno Glacier, a lacustrine calving glacier in Argentina, has periodically blocked a large tributary arm of the lake with dam failures there producing outburst floods that are reported to have released 3 to 4 km^3 of water http://www.uas.alaska.edu/envs....007.pdf


(the Perito Moreno is the source of the glacier-dam flooding, it does it a LOT, but flooding didn't create the entire friggin' valley -- contrary to Austin's implications, and certainly not in his implied singular megafludde)

An interesting map, by Chucky D:
First Geological Map of Patagonia: http://www.scielo.org.ar/pdf/raga/v64n1/v64n1a07.pdf

Stuff by Jorge Strelin et al,  minus the material which Mr. Nosy afarensis already pointed to:

Strelin, J.A. (1995). New evidences on the relationships between the oldest estra-andean glaciations in the the Santa Cruz River area. A.A. Balkema, Quaternary of South America and Antarctic Peninsula 9: 105-116, Rotterdam.

Strelin, J.A. and Malagnino, E.C. (1996). Glaciaciones Pleistocenas del Lago Argentino y Alto Valle del Río Santa Cruz. 13° Congreso Geológico Argentino, Actas 4: 311-326.

:)
--------------------------------------

ETA: I forgot about this one:
Aguirre-Urreta, Beatriz and Miguel Griffin, Victor A. Ramos (2009) Darwin's geological research in Argentina. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent. v.64 n.1 Buenos Aires ene./mar. 2009 http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.....arttext

In contrast to Austin's petty, propaganda-driven bullshit faulting Darwin for not being right about the erratics (when Darwin couldn't have even known about Agassiz' "glacier theories" at the time), it's interesting to see how much he got right at that distant date, and the sheer breadth & scope of the cross-disciplinary work he did by himself.

This is really important, for people interested in such topics, as opposed to wankers like clownshoes:

http://www.scielo.org.ar/cgi-bin/wxis.exe/iah/

That link gives access to papers like these:

Ramos, Victor A. (2009) Darwin at Puente del Inca: observations on the formation of the Inca's bridge and mountain building. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent., Mar 2009, vol.64, no.1, p.170-179. ISSN 0004-4822

Vizcaíno, Sergio F., Fariña, Richard A. and Fernicola, Juan Carlos (2009) Young Darwin and the ecology and extinction of pleistocene south american fossil mammals. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent., Mar 2009, vol.64, no.1, p.160-169. ISSN 0004-4822

Fernicola, Juan Carlos, Vizcaíno, Sergio F. and De Iuliis, Gerardo (2009) The fossil mammals collected by Charles Darwin in South America during his travels on board the HMS Beagle. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent., Mar 2009, vol.64, no.1, p.147-159.

Iriondo, Martin and Kröhling, Daniela (2009) From Buenos Aires to Santa Fe: Darwin's observations and modern knowledge. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent., Mar 2009, vol.64, no.1, p.109-123.

Martínez, Oscar A., Rabassa, Jorge and Coronato, Andrea (2009) Charles Darwin and the first scientific observations on the patagonian shingle formation (Rodados Patagónicos). Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent., Mar 2009, vol.64, no.1, p.90-100.

Giambiagi, Laura, Tunik, Maisa, Ramos, Victor A. et al. (2009) The High Andean Cordillera of central Argentina and Chile along the Piuquenes Pass-Cordon del Portillo transect: Darwin's pioneering observations compared with modern geology. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent., Mar 2009, vol.64, no.1, p.43-54.

Aguirre-Urreta, Beatriz and Vennari, Verónica (2009) On Darwin's footsteps across the Andes: Tithonian-Neocomian fossil invertebrates from the Piuquenes pass. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent., Mar 2009, vol.64, no.1, p.32-42.

AND 11 OTHER QUALITY PAPERS ON DARWIN'S WORK (just click the "texto en inglés" link next to each title)

Come to think of it, it might be useful for someone to notify the Pharyngula and ERV groups, etc. on these. Alas I don't have an insider pass to those folks. I am sooooo lonely :(

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
  1350 replies since Sep. 08 2009,09:59 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (46) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]