Printable Version of Topic
-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits ? started by Peter Henderson
Posted by: Peter Henderson on Sep. 08 2009,09:59
I came across this post on Premier Radio's discussion forum. A reply from a question, asking if the poster had any geology qualifications:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- i have studied geology and my daughter has a masters degree in geology and currently doing a PhD in it we have both talked and i have read some of the books and modules. matthew i wasnt interested in ages of rocks at all! i think the structures are very interesting and fascinating.and when you look at metamorphic rocks its fascinating when you think of them being remelted and flowing like toffee. i never thought about faith and geology i suppose i just junk the bits that are opposed to Bible content.i felt sickened though when it came to the evolution parts and could not continue it seemed completely wrong and bad. i could not even do the coursework assignments. how strange now i think about it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and further:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- i also rejected the idea of evolution while a child and abandonded doing a degree because i was so unhappy with the evolution module. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not sure if her daughter junked the "evolution parts" and still ended up with a masters. Is this possible ? I would have thought not since the evolution parts play quite an important part in the subject.
< http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/forum....t234117 >
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 08 2009,11:03
There are people quite able to maintain logic walls between conflicting ideas. They tend to be conflict avoident in their social lives as well.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 08 2009,12:56
that's why it's fun to nail them to a position and flog them with it!
unless they are your cousins in which case the fun diminishes exponentially as a function of the number of times a year you see them at yer granmaws house.
had an interesting conversation, afloat, with a young earther recently. riding over and through and between mississippian and pennsylvanian limestone bluffs, this person simply could not grasp the full import of her acknowledging the rocks as "sedimentary', i.e. that it made nonsense of her bible. she was not a geologist but is smart enough to know better. as gary alludes, the capacity to compartmentalize may well be the most powerful ability of the human species.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Sep. 08 2009,18:27
I don't know one could be a structural geologist or geophysicist without really needing evolutionary theory. Of course there is that whole age of the earth thing, but that is a separate issue.
Posted by: ppb on Sep. 08 2009,18:45
I had a YEC brother-in-law who studied at the ICR under Steve Austin, then went on to get a Masters degree at Penn State in geology. After college he went to work for one of the major oil companies in New Orleans. He seemed able to do the necessary work without believing all the science.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Sep. 08 2009,20:47
I think that you could for almost any subject without compartmentalizing. You just need to remember by rote all of the stuff. I think that knowing how oil formed and why it is found is such and such a strata can certainly help, but a person could just as learn that oil is found in these conditions.
When I did mechanical engineering we had people who just remember the equations but wouldn't have the faintest idea on how to derive the equations which I think is a similar mindset.
What these people will never do is advance knowledge.
Posted by: OWKtree on Sep. 09 2009,10:03
I suspect that a lot would have to do with what the major disconnects were between your religious beliefs and your education on the subject.
If you were a literalist about the earth's creation then I expect geology in general would be an issue. "Deep time" is simply too important in the study of rocks, and especially sedimentary deposits. And more so if you're in the oil industry where you are not only concerned in finding the deposits, but also how long it was buried and at what sort of tempetures.
If you're issue is more of the "I ain't descended from no monkey" mode then I expect you can be much more in synch with the age of the Earth and geology in general while keeping evolution and biology in a separate compartment so to speak.
Or possibly accepting general evolutionary principles and simply holding homo sapiens as a special creation.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Sep. 28 2009,21:12
Quote (ppb @ Sep. 08 2009,18:45) | I had a YEC brother-in-law who studied at the ICR under Steve Austin, then went on to get a Masters degree at Penn State in geology. After college he went to work for one of the major oil companies in New Orleans. He seemed able to do the necessary work without believing all the science. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, I have an acquaintance who worked for an oil company for many years as a geologist. He now holds a government position as he also had a degree in law--but his work still requires geological background. He's YEC and has no problem.
He says it's really no big deal among his peers, because he could do the work. It's mostly knowing the geology and not the debate about the origin or age when it comes to oil.
I guess origins has to do with the past and money has to do with the present! :D
Posted by: Scienthuse on Sep. 28 2009,21:24
Quote (OWKtree @ Sep. 09 2009,10:03) | I suspect that a lot would have to do with what the major disconnects were between your religious beliefs and your education on the subject.
If you were a literalist about the earth's creation then I expect geology in general would be an issue. "Deep time" is simply too important in the study of rocks, and especially sedimentary deposits. And more so if you're in the oil industry where you are not only concerned in finding the deposits, but also how long it was buried and at what sort of tempetures.
If you're issue is more of the "I ain't descended from no monkey" mode then I expect you can be much more in synch with the age of the Earth and geology in general while keeping evolution and biology in a separate compartment so to speak.
Or possibly accepting general evolutionary principles and simply holding homo sapiens as a special creation. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It seems like the major emphasis with my friend/ acquaintance (former) geologist was finding oil, not your personal interpretations. He talks alot about the complexity of underground formations and the forminefera. He had to know the equipment he used of course. Seems like more of a technical job than all the debate. Debate forums tend to have varying degrees of philosophical banter along with the operational science.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Sep. 29 2009,21:39
Quote (ppb @ Sep. 08 2009,18:45) | I had a YEC brother-in-law who studied at the ICR under Steve Austin, then went on to get a Masters degree at Penn State in geology. After college he went to work for one of the major oil companies in New Orleans. He seemed able to do the necessary work without believing all the science. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's because for YECs, money is more important than science. Isn't that obvious? If money could not be made from promoting Creationism, no one would do it.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Sep. 30 2009,19:09
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 29 2009,21:39) | Quote (ppb @ Sep. 08 2009,18:45) | I had a YEC brother-in-law who studied at the ICR under Steve Austin, then went on to get a Masters degree at Penn State in geology. After college he went to work for one of the major oil companies in New Orleans. He seemed able to do the necessary work without believing all the science. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's because for YECs, money is more important than science. Isn't that obvious? If money could not be made from promoting Creationism, no one would do it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What a prejudice statement. That's like saying all evolutionists are liberal tree hugging socialists.
I thought this was a science forum!
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 30 2009,19:16
Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 30 2009,20:09) | Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 29 2009,21:39) | Quote (ppb @ Sep. 08 2009,18:45) | I had a YEC brother-in-law who studied at the ICR under Steve Austin, then went on to get a Masters degree at Penn State in geology. After college he went to work for one of the major oil companies in New Orleans. He seemed able to do the necessary work without believing all the science. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's because for YECs, money is more important than science. Isn't that obvious? If money could not be made from promoting Creationism, no one would do it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What a prejudice statement. That's like saying all evolutionists are liberal tree hugging socialists.
I thought this was a science forum! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, you could offer some science to discuss instead of Creationism.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Sep. 30 2009,22:36
Or perhaps we might talk a bit about your presumptive philosophy which thinks it lays claim to all operational science, by assuming that all lead 206 in the entire world is a complete result of the U 238 decay chain. This is entirely presumptive on your part. And you ignore at the same time the helium inside, which most of it should have long dissipated if the earth is 4.6 billion. So far I have heard alot of sarcasm and insults, making me wonder if this place is worth the headache.
Where are the searchers for truth. All I see is a bunch of closed minded vultures swooning in the thought of a potential kill. You'll not find me so green and tender.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Sep. 30 2009,22:52
I came on here and offered personal experience of knowing a geologist, in response to someone stating that there b-in-law was YEC for an oil company, so that's why I said what I said. But if you think for one minute that I'll waste my time being insulted or that I'll overlook your inferences--then your wrong. There are other debate sites.
I read one post where the person was whining how no YEC had come along who knew anything. Well I do know a bit--not just the Bible--but why should I debate people who want to express their disdain towards YECs on me? i don't have time for that!!!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 30 2009,23:00
hey scienthuse you seem to be a friendly chap. i hope ya stick around
i don't know anything about lead isotopes etc etc etc. there are entire libraries full of things that i don't know.
but i do know enough about the distribution of plants and animals to know that the bible story about the flood never happened.
but i sure hope you get this thing about lead off of your chest (i hear it's heavy, for one thing). i know there are folks around here that know much more about that sort of thing than the rest of us. i wanna hear what you have to say.
if you have paid any attention to the antics of Floyd Lee perhaps you will understand why "innocent until proven guilty" is a difficult standard to live up to? we've had some doozies drop by over the years, and some have stuck around (see that fellow Chatfield over there in the corner, wearing the latex penguin suit, shhh he's looking, anyway, just don't ask him why he's wearing a postit note mustachioe)
don't run off now, heeah?
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 30 2009,23:09
---------------------QUOTE------------------- So far I have heard alot of sarcasm and insults, making me wonder if this place is worth the headache. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- by assuming that all lead 206 in the entire world is a complete result of the U 238 decay chain. This is entirely presumptive on your part. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, how is "This is entirely presumptive on your part" not sarcasm and insult?
Henry
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 01 2009,04:26
I was being rather blunt and reactionary as a result of other posts and the comment made earlier that YECs are just about money. I'm not here to make trouble--but I would ask that we be civil. Just because you don't agree with someone is no reason to get sarcastic.
What does the dispersion of plants and animals have to do with the impossibility of a worldwide deluge?
By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating. How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay?
No one knows how much of either the parent or daughter element was there to start with, or how much parent/daughter element have come in/left the rock through ground water.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 01 2009,04:34
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,04:26) | By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating. How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are *any* radiometric dating methods, in your opinion, reliable then?
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 01 2009,05:07
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 01 2009,04:34) | Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,04:26) | By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating. How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are *any* radiometric dating methods, in your opinion, reliable then? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Given the questions I posed I don't see how they could be. If there were no doubts raised and there was a method that was as good as empirical, I would be forced to be an old earth creationist.
This is the entire problem with being dogmatic on many points in origins--it is historical science, and not completely empirical.
Posted by: faded_Glory on Oct. 01 2009,06:20
First of all, hello, I'm a long time lurker here. I've contributed to other boards in the past, such as ARN, IIDB and even have a couple of posts on UncommonDescent, but I have never posted here before.
Just to let you know where I'm coming from, I have an Msc in geology and have worked for nearly 30 years in the oil industry. Here are some of my thoughts on the OP.
As narrow and specialised it may appear to outsiders, geology is actually quite a broad discipline that covers a wide field of natural phenomena and meshes with numerous other sciences, such as physics, chemistry, astronomy and of course biology. There are actually specialisms in geology that don't relate much to the age of the earth and the geological time scale, and I think it would be possible to be for instance a geochemist or geophysicist and strictly stick to the chemical and physical aspects of rocks and their development without worrying about evolution etc. at all. There are many questions worth investigating in those fields that are time-independent to a large degree.
However, the lingo and thinking of geology as a whole is permeated by the concept of deep time, and it would be very hard indeed to converse with peers without at least silently going along with the default position of an old earth and processes playing out over millions of years. The science of geology has over its lifetime of several hundreds of years managed to construct an amazing narrative of the planet's history, on scales ranging from the epic billion-year time line, to highly detailed fine-grained models of microscale processes. This narrative is the paradigm in which we work, the canvas on which we paint, the reality that makes sense of our observations and theories. For a professional like myself working with sedimentary rocks and models of their evolution over time, it is virtually unthinkable to have to cram all observations and thinking into a mere 6000 year window - almost nothing would make sense anymore. We would have lost the paradigm that allows us to place individual observations in a wider context, apply our familiar and well understood processes and ultimately make useful predictions.
I have had conversations with someone who claimed to be a YEC and take decisions on where to drill oil wells. It turned out that all he did was following existing trends without worrying too much about why the trend was there in the first place. This may work, sometimes and within limits, in established production areas but he would be incapable of proposing an exploration campaign in a new area justified by a sound, holistic model of the petroleum potential. I have never come across an oil or gas company that would accept investment proposals without the technical staff being able to present such a comprehensive view based on the accepted tenets of modern geological science.
Bottom line - in certain highly specialist and technical specialisms of geology one might get away with it, but nowhere else without completely losing one's professional foothold.
fG
Posted by: ppb on Oct. 01 2009,08:25
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,05:26) | By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating. How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay?
No one knows how much of either the parent or daughter element was there to start with, or how much parent/daughter element have come in/left the rock through ground water. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not a geologist, but I do know that with radiometric dating they try to use multiple methods whenever possible to verify their data. If they get consistent results from two different methods it is hard to see how the contamination would also be consistent. You shouldn't presume that the experts in the field don't consider such questions. They do.
As far as my YEC brother-in-law, he was married to the sister of my ex-wife, and I haven't kept close touch with him. I do know he is no longer working for the oil company, but I'm not sure if he is still using his geology degree.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 01 2009,09:37
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,02:26) | By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating. How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay?
No one knows how much of either the parent or daughter element was there to start with, or how much parent/daughter element have come in/left the rock through ground water. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, I am always surprised when a YEC assumes that we have not already grappled with, and resolved the problems regarding radiometric dates they find so difficult. Their false satisfaction relies on two assumptions; we scientists are dumb, and that their misinterpretation of the Bible is itself infallible.
But don't take my word for anything. I am tired of explaining this to creationists.
Here is an article on radiometric dating written by a Christian for other Christians hosted on a Christian website: < Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective > by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
Posted by: OWKtree on Oct. 01 2009,10:31
I also believe from my limited layman reading on the subject, plus the osmosis of concepts and data I pick up from my brother (A geosciences professor in the New York SUNY system) that radiometric measurments are simply one arrow in the quiver used by the geology establishment in their determination that the Earth is old. So even if a flaw was found in one, or more, of the radiometric methods there are other avenues of evidence pointing to concept of deep time being correct.
The ediface does not hang by a single strand, but is connected to a web of supporting evidence that often reinforces each other. Plate tectonics, stratifigraphy, indicator fossils, etc.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 01 2009,10:40
Quote (OWKtree @ Oct. 01 2009,08:31) | I also believe from my limited layman reading on the subject, plus the osmosis of concepts and data I pick up from my brother (A geosciences professor in the New York SUNY system) that radiometric measurments are simply one arrow in the quiver used by the geology establishment in their determination that the Earth is old. So even if a flaw was found in one, or more, of the radiometric methods there are other avenues of evidence pointing to concept of deep time being correct.
The ediface does not hang by a single strand, but is connected to a web of supporting evidence that often reinforces each other. Plate tectonics, stratifigraphy, indicator fossils, etc. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Exactly. The popularity of young earth arguments is always proportional to the obscurity of the argument. Most people know little to nothing about isotope measurement, or geochemistry. But, if they read some YEC website they can pick-up some terminology which they can toss around as if they understand it.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 01 2009,11:01
so it might help if scienthuse is going to address a specific claim, rather than "radiometric dating" in general.
perhaps he is not green and tender. who knows, who cares.
if there are particulars to address then it's easy to focus on the topic. otherwise, we have a vast repository of experience and observation from which to make hasty generalizations.
i hold that it may, indeed, be possible to be intellectually honest and remain a YEC. but i have not observed such a beast, yet.
but i'd rather not focus on my opinion, but on what it is exactly that Scienthuse is claiming that refutes radiometric dating estimates of the age of the earth.
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 01 2009,11:50
When I worked as an exploration geologist in the 70s and 80s, we never had these discussions. I just assumed all my peers believed in deep time and evolution just as I do, but now I'm curious.
Of course where we were working makes it hard to be a YEC. I can't see 50000 feet of Stanley shale being deposited, lithified and then overthrust more than 100 miles in less than 5000 years without someone noticing.
Posted by: ppb on Oct. 01 2009,12:25
Deep time is also an integral part of astronomy. Because light has a fixed, measurable speed, we know that the further out in the universe we look, the further back in time we are seeing. Just to see across our own galaxy is looking back 100,000 years. The universe itself is billions of lightyears in size. We can look back and see the history of the entire universe, almost to the Big Bang itself. Astronomy is another science that corroborates deep time and shows a literal reading of Genesis to be indefensible.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 01 2009,12:52
There's also SN1987a, which allows measurement of interstellar distance by trigonometry, independent of the speed of light.
< http://www.evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm >
Posted by: khan on Oct. 01 2009,13:05
And all these many methods agree: conspiracy!
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 01 2009,13:14
Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 30 2009,23:36) | Or perhaps we might talk a bit about your presumptive philosophy which thinks it lays claim to all operational science, by assuming that all lead 206 in the entire world is a complete result of the U 238 decay chain. This is entirely presumptive on your part. And you ignore at the same time the helium inside, which most of it should have long dissipated if the earth is 4.6 billion ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Looks as if you don't know much about radiometric dating.
No real geologist presumes that all the 206Pb that we see is the result of the decay of 238U, at least after the solar system formed. Lead in troilite in the Canyon Diablo meteorite is thought to contain the primordial proportion of lead isotopes (and is thought to be so for good reason). The isotope relevant isotope ratios for this material are:
206Pb/204Pb 207Pb/204Pb 208Pb/204Pb 238U/204Pb 9.46 10.34 29.44 0.025
(Patterson, C., H. Brown, G. Tilton, and M. Inghram, 1953, Phys. Rev., v. 92, p. 1234; and Patterson, C., 1955, Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 7, p. 151.)
I'm sure you can see the significance of these ratios, being such an expert and all that.
There are actually quite a few studies of dating using helium daughter product, starting with the first radiometric date by Rutherford in 1905. For example, < http://www.geotrack.com.au/uthhe/u-th-he-flier.htm, > < http://bgc.org/facilities/u_th_he_lab.html, > and < http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;196/4287/291. >
I suppose that by "you ignore at the same time the helium inside" you are referring to the RATE group's study of zircons. That's been extensively discussed. My conclusion is that they may possibly have found an interesting anomaly, but they are far from having enough data to establish the validity of their methods and claims. They need to study a much wider variety of zircons, especially some with a simpler thermal history and no possible exposure to helium compared to the few zircon studies they published. They also need to justify their large extrapolations of diffusion data.
Since they have not published anything on this subject since 2004, and there's not even a hint of any further work going on, it looks to me as if they gathered enough data to provide a sciency-sounding reference for the sheeple and don't intend to go any further.
If you have any actual, you know, evidence that you know what you're talking about and you're not so "green and tender", especially any evidence that scientists assume that "all lead 206 in the entire world is a complete result of the U 238 decay chain" or any evidence that the RATE group's claims are worth further investigation, trot it out.
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 01 2009,13:30
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,04:26) | By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating. How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh boy, you're just another ignorant creo. No fun at all.
FYI, there are radiometric dating methods which produce the original parent/daughter ratio as a side effect of the dating analysis. There are also lots of methods based on the physical impossibility of there being any significant amount of daughter product present when the sample formed, such as U-Th disequilibrium dating and U-Pb concordia-discordia dating. U-Pb concordia-discordia dating is by far the most widely used dating technique, and those few creationists (the RATE group) who have some idea of how it works acknowledge the fact that essentially all of the lead in a zircon must be the result of radioactive decay after solidification:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth — at today’s rates — of nuclear decay occurred. Supporting that, sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Humphreys, D.R.; S.A. Austin; J.R. Baumgardner and A.A. Snelling, 2003a, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay," Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey (ed.), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. < http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf. > Emphasis in original.)
There are also many methods that indicate when the system has not been closed. Not all of them indicate how much relevant material has been lost or gained; but many of them, including the Ar-Ar method and the aforementioned and widely used U-Pb concordia-discordia method, often produce a valid age even when the system has been opened.
< Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective > is a good resource for learning the basics and some of the subtleties. I heartily recommend it to you if yuo hope to discuss the subject.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 01 2009,13:35
I suppose it's been mentioned that the only way the RATE project found to rescue a young earth interpretation was to assume variable rates of decay (without any of the annoying side effects caused by the energy released).
In other words, Last Thursdayism.
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 01 2009,14:09
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2009,14:35) | I suppose it's been mentioned that the only way the RATE project found to rescue a young earth interpretation was to assume variable rates of decay (without any of the annoying side effects caused by the energy released). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hasn't been mentioned here, but it sure has been mentioned. They did off-handedly acknowledge that accelerated decay rates had a few minor problems such as releasing enough heat to melt the Earth, releasing enough radiation to sterilize the Earth, and being incompatible with astronomical observations of stars obstinately shining.
Personally, since they seem to be presuming multiple miracles to implement their accelerated decay, they didn't just tell God to majick away the heat and radiation, and fake the starlight. What's a few more miracles among friends?
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 01 2009,19:51
First, I don't think any scientist is stupid or dumb, just because I don't accept an old earth or believe evolution. They are more highly educated than myself. However there are credentialed scientists--not just Austin--who would and could disagree with you much better than I.
I am aware of potassium/argon, strontium/rhubidium, the Uranium 238/lead 206 decay process, and I believe there are a couple of newer radioisotope methods that they use to date rocks. My statement about lead 206 presumption is simply an attention getter. I don't actually believe scientists think that all lead 206 is from decay--but why then do they treat all dated rocks as such??
If you date a rock, by obtaining the ratio of potassium to argon then you are assuming that all the argon is a result of nuclear decay. However is there anyone here who could prove how much argon was in the rock to begin with? Or how much potassium was in the rock to begin with? Or how much left or entered into the rocks through means such as ground water?
AND I'm fully aware that argon is supposed to dissipate when rock is molten. This is questioned by RATE in the dating of the lava dome at ST HELENS.
The assumption that argon should not be in molten lava is put in doubt by this data. < Argon in lava dome >
I already know you'll rebut with contamination claims, and that the lab can't date rocks under a certain age. My question is why did they then?? Why would they send the data back to the group if they knew it could be contaminated, or that they couldn't do it. Sounds a bit political to me.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 01 2009,20:08
You think Austin is a reliable source?
Then explain why he deliberately sent the wrong sorts of rocks to the laboratories specifically in order to get inaccurate readings. If Austin is correct about his claims, then why did he have to resort to using underhanded methods to support himself?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 01 2009,20:53
I feel a bit slighted that you've taken the time to respond to Jon without addressing the questions I posed < here > twice already, Scienthuse. I'm sure you're a busy person and all, but responses of "yes," "no" or "I don't know" would have sufficed.
As for "other experts" that agree with the likes of Austin , you may want to read John Baumgardner attempting to respond to criticisms of his claims during a < Theology Web discussion >. Eventually, Baumgardner is reduced to inane "threats" like :
---------------------QUOTE------------------- " they face a judgment before a terrible Judge who will not look upon their mockings and blasphemies lightly [on p.10 of the "discussion"] ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Merely because people disagreed wth Baumgardner and spelled out his errors, Baumgardner chose to issue statements like that and then cut and run. Rather than address the scientific questions.
P.S. Have fun, Jon! Bwahaha.
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 01 2009,20:59
Ya know, your unthinkingly repetition of creofraud lies is really boring. Don't you guys ever think?
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,20:51) | My statement about lead 206 presumption is simply an attention getter. I don't actually believe scientists think that all lead 206 is from decay--but why then do they treat all dated rocks as such?? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They don't. Of course, in zircons essentially all the 206Pb is from decay after solidification, as the RATE group acknowledged in the quote I posted above. That's the way the world works, because lead is too big to fit in the crystal lattice and has a totally unsuitable valence. But you've never heard of common lead correction, of course.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- If you date a rock, by obtaining the ratio of potassium to argon then you are assuming that all the argon is a result of nuclear decay. However is there anyone here who could prove how much argon was in the rock to begin with? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes. Using Ar-Ar.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Or how much potassium was in the rock to begin with? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Doesn't matter.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Or how much left or entered into the rocks through means such as ground water? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
See my previous reply. Ar-Ar dating can (and does) often produce a valid date even if the system has not been closed.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- AND I'm fully aware that argon is supposed to dissipate when rock is molten. This is questioned by RATE in the dating of the lava dome at ST HELENS. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That was long before RATE.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The assumption that argon should not be in molten lava is put in doubt by this data. < Argon in lava dome > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But the fact that argon is seldom found in molten lava was confirmed by Dalrymple's study of 26 recent lava flows. See < Ar-Ar Dating Assumes There Is No Excess Argon? >. Bet it never occurred to you that creationists always cite "studies" of single samples whereas real scientists work with studies of as many samples as possible, which is the only valid way to assess the validity and limitations of a technique.
Like the RATE group tested so many different zircons form different sits . Oh, wait ...
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I already know you'll rebut with contamination claims, and that the lab can't date rocks under a certain age. My question is why did they then?? Why would they send the data back to the group if they knew it could be contaminated, or that they couldn't do it. Sounds a bit political to me. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dating labs get paid to run stuff through the equipment. You send 'em stuff, they run it through the equipment, they send you the results, they get paid. They don't care whether or not the results mean anything. They're not in business to second-guess the customers. That's about as far from being "political" as you can get.
Austin deliberately chose samples that would give the results he wanted because they were a mixture of old and new material. That's not contamination, that's fraud.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 01 2009,21:24
Quote (JonF @ Oct. 01 2009,13:30) | Oh boy, you're just another ignorant creo. No fun at all. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't worry it'll get better--but be patient.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- JonF...there are radiometric dating methods which produce the original parent/daughter ratio as a side effect of the dating analysis. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can you elaborate? I would hesitate to seriously believe this. Just like isochron dating, which attempts to remove assumption by making a distinction between the parent, the daughter (radiogenic) and the daughter (non-radiogenic) which in plain English means they (admittedly--they have to) assume that at crystallization there was originally the parent, the daughter element which was not a product of decay, and some daughter that was a product of decay. How do you distinguish the difference between daughter isotopes that are products of decay and those that are not?
Now you've not only got two original unknowns but three. Perhaps there was no radiogenic daughter in the first place. Just because you can do equations does not give you a true answer if you don't have the correct original variables.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- JonF...There are also lots of methods based on the physical impossibility of there being any significant amount of daughter product present when the sample formed, such as U-Th disequilibrium dating and U-Pb concordia-discordia dating. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And there is argon in the lava dome at St Helens. That's not supposed to be there. What are the so-called physical impossibilities and how are they proved?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- JonF...and those few creationists (the RATE group) who have some idea of how it works acknowledge the fact that essentially all of the lead in a zircon must be the result of radioactive decay after solidification: ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes and they also acknowledge the huge amount of helium that is retained within--this simply should not be in an ancient rock. So it is a stand-off--you have no more weight of argument than I do. Thanks for leaving us the quote so I did not have to do a search.
"sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead."(Humphreys, D.R.; S.A. Austin; J.R. Baumgardner and A.A. Snelling, 2003a, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay," Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey (ed.)
Science says helium should have escaped with an atomic weight of 4.00260. Perhaps you should give us a lesson on how over half the helium does not escape a rock after 1.5 billion of years of decay.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 01 2009,21:40
Why would we except helium to escape from a type of rock that is nonporous?
And why would we expect your arguments to get better when you insist on repeating lies and distortions from known liars?
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 01 2009,22:16
JonF, Don't forget to read the previous post I wrote to you. I won't fail to mention that you are rather arrogant. Why don't you shut down the rhetoric and just stick to the facts. Read this:
"Relative dating only
The 40Ar/39Ar method only measures relative dates. In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must determined by irradiating the unknown sample along with a sample of known age for a standard. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique.[1]" Wikipedia
Do you see what this is saying? They have to have a another sample of "known age"--and they are going to use a traditional K-Ar as the standard. Well how do they know the age? They know there can be argon in the rocks when they form--but they don't know how much. But they use it as a standard for something that is supposed to remove assumption!!
"There's a problem with argon being in the lava guys--we aren't sure of the K-Ar. Lets use Ar-Ar--it's more accurate and removes assumption--but we have to use a K-Ar sample as a standard because we know the age."
Is anyone getting dizzy?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 01 2009,22:21
---------------------QUOTE------------------- If you date a rock, by obtaining the ratio of potassium to argon then you are assuming that all the argon is a result of nuclear decay. However is there anyone here who could prove how much argon was in the rock to begin with? Or how much potassium was in the rock to begin with? Or how much left or entered into the rocks through means such as ground water? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Um, the < isochron method was developed to address that problem >
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 01 2009,22:28
---------------------QUOTE------------------- What does the dispersion of plants and animals have to do with the impossibility of a worldwide deluge? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Such a deluge would have killed the vast majority of the species previously alive, and left the survivors with a severe genetic bottleneck (i.e., very little variety would be left in the surviving species). Both of these situations are contrary to what is in the world today.
Henry
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 01 2009,22:29
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 01 2009,23:28) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- What does the dispersion of plants and animals have to do with the impossibility of a worldwide deluge? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Such a deluge would have killed the vast majority of the species previously alive, and left the survivors with a severe genetic bottleneck (i.e., very little variety would be left in the surviving species). Both of these situations are contrary to what is in the world today.
Henry ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
oh henry, gods can do anything
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 01 2009,22:32
Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 01 2009,21:40) | Why would we except helium to escape from a type of rock that is nonporous? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nonporous to you Stanton--you are not a helium atom. Helium is so small it will dissipate into the atmosphere.
This is from talkorigins:"Helium is a very light atom...When ion outflow is considered, the escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements"< talk > "radioactive elements" would be radioactive decay--particularly uranium decay. It produces helium.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- And why would we expect your arguments to get better when you insist on repeating lies and distortions from known liars? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Common debate technique on this forum in particular--slander. Its easy to accuse someone you don't know. It's called hearsay.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 01 2009,22:45
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,22:32) | Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 01 2009,21:40) | Why would we except helium to escape from a type of rock that is nonporous? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nonporous to you Stanton--you are not a helium atom. Helium is so small it will dissipate into the atmosphere.
This is from talkorigins:"Helium is a very light atom...When ion outflow is considered, the escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements"< talk > "radioactive elements" would be radioactive decay--particularly uranium decay. It produces helium. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You fail refuse to realize that helium can not traverse substances like rubber, ceramic, metal, or the rocks that they are trapped in. If helium escapes from the radioactive rocks that form them as soon as they are formed, then how would anyone expect to know that they are formed from radioactive decay in the first place?
If helium atoms are so small that they can pass through any substance, how come we have helium-filled balloons (not to mention the tanks of helium that are used to fill them in the first place)? I mean, are you that stupid to assume that I'm that stupid to not know what helium-filled balloons are filled with?
That, and if all the helium that's produced on Earth automatically escapes into the atmosphere upon creation, then how come we have a relatively burgeoning helium gas industry?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- And why would we expect your arguments to get better when you insist on repeating lies and distortions from known liars? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Common debate technique on this forum in particular--slander. Its easy to accuse someone you don't know. It's called hearsay. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm slandering: I'm stating the obvious. So, explain to me why I should not point out that Austin isn't a liar if he had to resort to blatant manipulation to support his claims, and explain to me why I should not call you a liar because you not only insist on claiming that Austin is a reliable source, but resort to distortion, and repeating Creationist lies?
I mean, if anything, according to your moronic attempt at snarky smarminess with your comments about helium, I would suspect that you're not only extraordinarily dishonest, but rather dim and an incompetent judge of intelligence, too.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 01 2009,22:47
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 01 2009,22:28) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- What does the dispersion of plants and animals have to do with the impossibility of a worldwide deluge? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Such a deluge would have killed the vast majority of the species previously alive, and left the survivors with a severe genetic bottleneck (i.e., very little variety would be left in the surviving species). Both of these situations are contrary to what is in the world today.
Henry ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not to mention that biogeography would point to all terrestrial life originating from Mount Ararat. Of course, creationists routinely [fail to bother to explain why biogeography actually does not suggest that all terrestrial life originated from Mount Ararat.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 02 2009,03:51
Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 01 2009,22:47) | Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 01 2009,22:28) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- What does the dispersion of plants and animals have to do with the impossibility of a worldwide deluge? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Such a deluge would have killed the vast majority of the species previously alive, and left the survivors with a severe genetic bottleneck (i.e., very little variety would be left in the surviving species). Both of these situations are contrary to what is in the world today.
Henry ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not to mention that biogeography would point to all terrestrial life originating from Mount Ararat. Of course, creationists routinely [fail to bother to explain why biogeography actually does not suggest that all terrestrial life originated from Mount Ararat. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I have more time--I heard bottlenecks. Been a while since I debated that one, but I got something for you. Remember it's like 5 against one here. You'll have to be patient--sorry. Gotta busy life too. Off to work.
Posted by: snorkild on Oct. 02 2009,06:09
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,22:32) | Nonporous to you Stanton--you are not a helium atom. Helium is so small it will dissipate into the atmosphere. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From Wikipedia's entry on Helium:
"[H]elium is trapped in a similar way by non-permeable layer of rock like natural gas the greatest concentrations on the planet are found in natural gas, from which most commercial helium is derived."
Just because some helium escapes to the atmosphere doesn't mean nothing is retained in minerals.
Posted by: 1of63 on Oct. 02 2009,06:38
Quote (snorkild @ Oct. 02 2009,06:09) | Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,22:32) | Nonporous to you Stanton--you are not a helium atom. Helium is so small it will dissipate into the atmosphere. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From Wikipedia's entry on Helium:
"[H]elium is trapped in a similar way by non-permeable layer of rock like natural gas the greatest concentrations on the planet are found in natural gas, from which most commercial helium is derived."
Just because some helium escapes to the atmosphere doesn't mean nothing is retained in minerals. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To put it even more simply, in terms even IDiots can understand.
We are made up of atoms like everything else. Atoms are mostly empty space
So how come my hand doesn't just slide through this keyboard?
D'uh?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 02 2009,07:50
yah but have you ever really LOOKED at your hand?
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 02 2009,08:13
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,22:24) | Quote (JonF @ Oct. 01 2009,13:30) | Oh boy, you're just another ignorant creo. No fun at all. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't worry it'll get better--but be patient.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- JonF...there are radiometric dating methods which produce the original parent/daughter ratio as a side effect of the dating analysis. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can you elaborate? I would hesitate to seriously believe this. Just like isochron dating, which attempts to remove assumption by making a distinction between the parent, the daughter (radiogenic) and the daughter (non-radiogenic) which in plain English means they (admittedly--they have to) assume that at crystallization there was originally the parent, the daughter element which was not a product of decay, and some daughter that was a product of decay. How do you distinguish the difference between daughter isotopes that are products of decay and those that are not?
Now you've not only got two original unknowns but three. Perhaps there was no radiogenic daughter in the first place. Just because you can do equations does not give you a true answer if you don't have the correct original variables.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- JonF...There are also lots of methods based on the physical impossibility of there being any significant amount of daughter product present when the sample formed, such as U-Th disequilibrium dating and U-Pb concordia-discordia dating. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And there is argon in the lava dome at St Helens. That's not supposed to be there. What are the so-called physical impossibilities and how are they proved?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- JonF...and those few creationists (the RATE group) who have some idea of how it works acknowledge the fact that essentially all of the lead in a zircon must be the result of radioactive decay after solidification: ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes and they also acknowledge the huge amount of helium that is retained within--this simply should not be in an ancient rock. So it is a stand-off--you have no more weight of argument than I do. Thanks for leaving us the quote so I did not have to do a search.
"sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead."(Humphreys, D.R.; S.A. Austin; J.R. Baumgardner and A.A. Snelling, 2003a, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay," Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey (ed.)
Science says helium should have escaped with an atomic weight of 4.00260. Perhaps you should give us a lesson on how over half the helium does not escape a rock after 1.5 billion of years of decay. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can explain all that. (I've already briefly explained the Mt. St Helens results and the impossibility of significant initial lead in zircons, and listed some of the problems with the RATE helium-in-zircons results). I won't. I tire of explaining simple physics to ignoramuses in fora that are not designed for writing a textbook, when there are exquisitely written, researched, and illustrated essays free on the Internet for the price of one click. You claim you're not "green and tender". Well, you obviously are. Read the links I already provided, study them until you understand them, and then maybe you'll be qualified to offer an opinion on radiometric dating and discuss it. Unless and until you do that, you're just another green, tender, and ignorant creationist who's unquestionably swallowed the crap on creo websites and hasn't had a thought of your own.
A question on your last line. How do you distinguish the difference between daughter isotopes that are products of decay and those that are not?
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 02 2009,08:17
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,23:16) | JonF, Don't forget to read the previous post I wrote to you. I won't fail to mention that you are rather arrogant. Why don't you shut down the rhetoric and just stick to the facts. Read this:
"Relative dating only
The 40Ar/39Ar method only measures relative dates. In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must determined by irradiating the unknown sample along with a sample of known age for a standard. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique.[1]" Wikipedia
Do you see what this is saying? They have to have a another sample of "known age"--and they are going to use a traditional K-Ar as the standard. Well how do they know the age? They know there can be argon in the rocks when they form--but they don't know how much. But they use it as a standard for something that is supposed to remove assumption!!
"There's a problem with argon being in the lava guys--we aren't sure of the K-Ar. Lets use Ar-Ar--it's more accurate and removes assumption--but we have to use a K-Ar sample as a standard because we know the age."
Is anyone getting dizzy? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes. I'm arrogant. I've been following and studying and participating in discussions like this fort many a moon, and I've proved that my arrogance is justified.
Read the links, especially "Excess argon and excess lies".
Ponder the phrase "most commonly" in your Wikipedia article.
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 02 2009,08:31
Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 01 2009,22:40) | Why would we except helium to escape from a type of rock that is nonporous? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Helium is a small molecule, and diffuses relatively easily through "solid" rock. We definitely do expect helium loss over geologic time.
But calculating how much should diffuse requires detailed knowledge of the thermal history of the rock and the difference in concentration between helium in the interior and the exterior of the rock over the time between formation and measurement, plus detailed knowledge of how helium diffuses in the relevant material at the temperatures and pressures the rock experienced. The few zircons that the RATE group measured come from a borehole in Fenton Hill, an area with a long and complex thermal history, and an area near which high concentrations of helium have been found (raising the possibility that helium may have actually diffused into the zircons). The model they used to calculate the expected diffusion requires extrapolating measurements made in vacuum to real-world conditions.
There are other problems with the "study", but in my mind those are the major ones. The only way to address them is to study far more zircons, from several places, with simpler thermal histories, and with no reasonable possibility of being in an area of high helium concentration, and couple this with further (perhaps long-term) diffusion studies.
Humphreys has "responded" to criticisms, and I'll bet Scienthuse has the link close by. I've got links too. But the only way to establish the validity of their claims and method is lots more and better data.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Oct. 02 2009,09:15
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,23:16) | JonF, Don't forget to read the previous post I wrote to you. I won't fail to mention that you are rather arrogant. Why don't you shut down the rhetoric and just stick to the facts. Read this:
"Relative dating only
The 40Ar/39Ar method only measures relative dates. In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must determined by irradiating the unknown sample along with a sample of known age for a standard. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique.[1]" Wikipedia
Do you see what this is saying? They have to have a another sample of "known age"--and they are going to use a traditional K-Ar as the standard. Well how do they know the age? They know there can be argon in the rocks when they form--but they don't know how much. But they use it as a standard for something that is supposed to remove assumption!!
"There's a problem with argon being in the lava guys--we aren't sure of the K-Ar. Lets use Ar-Ar--it's more accurate and removes assumption--but we have to use a K-Ar sample as a standard because we know the age."
Is anyone getting dizzy? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why is it that the sum total of IDCers' interest in science manifests itself in strenuous attempts to throw doubt on the research and conclusions of science, and absolutely no interest is ever shown in performing any of their own research to support their own hypotheses (which as far as I've seen do not exist)? Rhetorical question.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 02 2009,09:21
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Oct. 02 2009,09:15) | Why is it that the sum total of IDCers' interest in science manifests itself in strenuous attempts to throw doubt on the research and conclusions of science, and absolutely no interest is ever shown in performing any of their own research to support their own hypotheses (which as far as I've seen do not exist)? Rhetorical question. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's because the ultimate purpose of Intelligent Design is a convoluted plot to illegitimately obtain a veneer of scientific legitimacy for the Bible, so it can become and remain the science textbook, as well as the law and history textbook of the land, forever and ever, until Judgment Day.
You'd know that if you read the Wedge Document.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 02 2009,09:57
This new friend is a GoP style "creationist"*, not an AFDave style creationist.
Claims like "it's going to get more interesting", whines about slander (and it's libel, not slander. Slander is spoken, libel is written. It's also libel/slander ONLY if it's untrue), and making claims "just to get attention" (notice they are just to get attention after they've been exposed as simplistic crap) are dead giveaways.
When the best this new friend has is "responding to tone", with maybe a touch of "contradiction", then he/she can be written off as being not worth the effort of serious response.**
Louis
* I.e. He/she is here to troll.
** Mind you I currently feel this way about the vast majority of internet "arguments", so bear that bias in mind. The bulk of internet argument, in my experience, has been reduced to wiki-link trading gainsaying ego-fests as protagonists desperately struggle not to be wrong. I see no great utility/pleasure in engaging in such time wasting with obviously deluded/dishonest individuals. Infantile dick jokes and pointless banter are, amazingly, an intellectual step up.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2009,11:41
Ah, Fenton Hill. Valles Caldera, with lots of helium moving through fractures with a complex hydro-therm history. None of which the RATE group was capable of handling very well at all.
See, AFDave was good for some things. There's still a lot of the Fenton Hill posts here that could be used
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2009,11:58
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 01 2009,20:53) | I feel a bit slighted that you've taken the time to respond to Jon without addressing the questions I posed < here > twice already, Scienthuse. I'm sure you're a busy person and all, but responses of "yes," "no" or "I don't know" would have sufficed. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, just to remind you, Scienthuse.
Of course, you can also try to arrive at some conclusions regarding the Fenton Hill zircons (or apatite or titanite crystals, which show the same kind of permeability to helium moving in and out ). But RATE never followed up with their "studies" that were intended merely to have a talking point casting doubt on radiometrics.
What you'll find today is that geologists continued to do the work that the RATE group should have done and DID claim to want to do, but never does -- despite having lots of money available for other things.
I'd suggest you look at helium isotope ratios and what it means for the RATE claims, scienthuse...and how the RATE group never even bothered (to this day) to do a proper analysis of that in the Fenton Hill materials.
Hell, in the years since the RATE group, Ken Farley at Caltech has published more papers by himself on the subject(s) than the entire RATE group combined, and he has a tiny budget by comparison: http://www.gps.caltech.edu/people/farley/publications
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 02 2009,15:43
Hey, Dead, wasn't there a discussion of Austin and Santa Cruz somewhere? I thought yo might be interested in < http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=977. >
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2009,15:54
Quote (JonF @ Oct. 02 2009,15:43) | Hey, Dead, wasn't there a discussion of Austin and Santa Cruz somewhere? I thought yo might be interested in < http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=977. > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There WAS a discussion that Scienthuse seems to have abandoned, leaving me feeling all lonely and sad, so I came here to say hi!! Thanx for teh linkys!!!
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 02 2009,20:22
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 02 2009,09:57) | This new friend is a GoP style "creationist"*, not an AFDave style creationist.
Claims like "it's going to get more interesting", whines about slander (and it's libel, not slander. Slander is spoken, libel is written. It's also libel/slander ONLY if it's untrue), and making claims "just to get attention" (notice they are just to get attention after they've been exposed as simplistic crap) are dead giveaways.
When the best this new friend has is "responding to tone", with maybe a touch of "contradiction", then he/she can be written off as being not worth the effort of serious response.**
Louis
* I.e. He/she is here to troll.
** Mind you I currently feel this way about the vast majority of internet "arguments", so bear that bias in mind. The bulk of internet argument, in my experience, has been reduced to wiki-link trading gainsaying ego-fests as protagonists desperately struggle not to be wrong. I see no great utility/pleasure in engaging in such time wasting with obviously deluded/dishonest individuals. Infantile dick jokes and pointless banter are, amazingly, an intellectual step up. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm deluded? And what do you do Louis besides believe heme can last 68 million years? Think there was some rocks by that T-Rex bone? Because the C-14 was supposed to be gone with a half life of 5730 years. So they had to use rocks. Bet they could have found some C-14 if they tried, since there was organic material still inside.
Yes Mr. Louis the C-14 question that you will undoubtedly gloss over as you relentlessly search for dishonesty, delusion, contradiction, and lack of knowledge. Or maybe they didn't even date the leg since the geologic timescale could never be wrong.
< Ms. Schweitzer--Get in line! >
Louis, that article is the real "dead giveaway."
Oh and by the way, you've ignored the facts 1) about the Santa Cruz valley--which WAS a water catastrophe--Darwin was wrong--who, whether or not he was a geologist--read Lyell--and needed Lyell's time to make his presumptive theory work. 2)Also you ignored the facts about relative dating between K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating.
If you really knew me--and you don't have a clue--you would know that I learn from debating. The things I know you have NOT refuted, but only in YOUR mind.
If you think I'm a troll, I'll go elsewhere and leave you all to your little room. But I WAS invited to stay. Just let me know, because there are much more tolerable forums than this one!
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2009,20:37
If you wanted to discuss Darwin, Austin and the Santa Cruz...you had the ability to do so in a thread involving that, Scienthuse.
The problem is that even if I keep reminding you of the existence of that thread and the questions waiting there for you, you keep ignoring it.
Keep this thread for your claims on radiometrics and the other for the Santa Cruz/Austin claims.
No need to try to keep introducing other irrelevant creationist claims about T-Rex heme at this point -- when you haven't actually responded to comments on radiometrics and Austin yet. Surely, you wouldn't want people to think you're merely running a < Gish Gallop >, would you?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2009,20:42
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 02 2009,20:22) | Oh and by the way, you've ignored the facts 1) about the Santa Cruz valley--which WAS a water catastrophe--Darwin was wrong--who, whether or not he was a geologist--read Lyell--and needed Lyell's time to make his presumptive theory work. 2)Also you ignored the facts about relative dating between K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating.
If you really knew me--and you don't have a clue--you would know that I learn from debating. The things I know you have NOT refuted, but only in YOUR mind.
If you think I'm a troll, I'll go elsewhere and leave you all to your little room. But I WAS invited to stay. Just let me know, because there are much more tolerable forums than this one! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1. So what if Darwin was wrong about the origins of a "boulder bank" on the Santa Cruz...are you arguing that you think the entire valley was created by a single catastrophic flood? If not, then you're wrong about Darwin being entirely wrong. Go back to the Austin thread and address my questions there -- as I have patiently asked you many (four or five) times. < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....4;st=30 >
2. "Relative dating between K-Ar and Ar-Ar" ??? Uh, those aren't relative dating methods, nor is it appropriate to use that term in that manner. They are both absolute dating methods.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 02 2009,21:33
I did the Schweitzer v creatocrap articles years ago.
< Dino Blood and the Young Earth >, and
< Dino Blood Redux >
I suppose a new article is due.
Shit, creationists are stupid.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 02 2009,21:42
Quote (JonF @ Oct. 02 2009,15:43) | Hey, Dead, wasn't there a discussion of Austin and Santa Cruz somewhere? I thought yo might be interested in < http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=977. > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes you are right.
1)The valley is 6 miles wide by 200 miles long. Austin states that the "valley is much smaller than the present river system requires." It is 1/10 as wide.
2) It is full of "depositional features" --"large boulder ridges and bars" throughout.
3)The present river is moving sand and pebbles. Yet there are cobbles and boulders sometimes to the top of the valley.
4) Austin states that some of the rocks are from the "core of the Andes Mountains 150 miles away. This would be a significant discovery if this could be confirmed by peer review.
4) Again Darwin recorded a 15 foot boulder somewhere in the valley.
Austin claims a "glacial outburst flood" in the "upper drainage of the Santa Cruz River" as a source of the flood in the SC valley, which was responsible for depositing the cobbles and boulders.
Austin claims that the water was moving at freeway speed at 400 feet deep in order to drag the boulders up the slope. I do not know where he got these exact figures He worked with Dr. Henry Morris before the latter's decease--Dr. Morris was a PhD in hydraulic engineering.
"Hydraulic engineering is a sub-discipline of civil engineering concerned with the flow and conveyance of fluids, principally water." Wikipedia
The fact that the cobbles extend to the top of the valley suggests that moving water once filled or overflowed the valley--and probably re-formed the valley. The boulders suggest that the water was moving at a significant rate.
What are your thoughts?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2009,00:10
My thoughts are that I find it funny that you seem to have a real aversion towards dealing with any of my posts at all, Scienthuse. Even when (and perhaps especially because) I was relatively civil and courteous.
I politely asked you a goodly number of times to address the points I'd made and you then deliberately avoid doing so. I find that revealing and amusing. If I were a cynical man (and I am towards yecreationists), why, I might think that you're looking for a martyr's exit, so you can pretend to have "won" something.
Gallop on, though, right past this for the fifth or sixth time:
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 02 2009,20:42) | 1. So what if Darwin was wrong about the origins of a "boulder bank" on the Santa Cruz...are you arguing that you think the entire valley was created by a single catastrophic flood? If not, then you're wrong about Darwin being entirely wrong. Go back to the Austin thread and address my questions there -- as I have patiently asked you many (four or five) times. < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....4;st=30 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2009,00:29
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 02 2009,21:42) | Austin claims a "glacial outburst flood" in the "upper drainage of the Santa Cruz River" as a source of the flood in the SC valley, which was responsible for depositing the cobbles and boulders.
Austin claims that the water was moving at freeway speed at 400 feet deep in order to drag the boulders up the slope. I do not know where he got these exact figures He worked with Dr. Henry Morris before the latter's decease--Dr. Morris was a PhD in hydraulic engineering.
"Hydraulic engineering is a sub-discipline of civil engineering concerned with the flow and conveyance of fluids, principally water." Wikipedia
The fact that the cobbles extend to the top of the valley suggests that moving water once filled or overflowed the valley--and probably re-formed the valley. The boulders suggest that the water was moving at a significant rate.
What are your thoughts? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My thoughts are also that Austin could have -- in the many years since he's been pushing his "Santa Cruz catastrophe" claims -- published a peer-reviewed paper on the subject. But he hasn't. Yet he has a video to sway the sheep!! But he won't entertain actual, ongoing scientific debate of his claims! But he'll cherry-pick stuff to "respond" to at various creationist sites! But he won't entertain actual, ongoing scientific debate of his claims in the peer-reviewed journals!
My thoughts are that Austin's (and your above) "take" on the Santa Cruz...is wrong. Your use of the singular "flood," and Austin's use of the same, implies you believe, or wish to deceptively imply, that it was a single flood that created the Santa Cruz valley features.
My thoughts are that this notion of a singular flood creating the Santa Cruz is ...how shall I say it... ah, yes -- bullshit. Demonstrable bullshit.
My thoughts are also that Henry Morris was a crank and a failure at hydraulic engineering and just about every science he set his fanatic eyes on (yes, I have read his nonsense).
A minor "for instance" of Henry Morris' hydrologic incompetence is his failure to recognize that vertical walls on the scale of the Grand Canyon's, cut in wet or damp strata, tend to (and will) slump and collapse -- even though Morris believed that the Grand Canyon was cut while still soft and unconsolidated (see "The Genesis Flood" pp. 151-153). Having a PhD means damn little when your "science" is that laughably bad and contrary to all physical data and reality.
That's what I think, Scienthuse...what do you think about that?
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 03 2009,05:39
Scienthuse,
1) It's Dr Louis, thanks.
2) I'm well beyond being reeled in by trolls/fools. I'll let others waste their time with you. Your schtick is old, I've seen it before.
Whether or not other people think you are a troll is up to them. AtBC is not homogeneous, there are a variety of disagreements about a number of things. As far as I'm concerned you have all the hallmarks so far of a specific type of creationist/troll. Either that or despite your claim to not being "green" you've learned nothing in discussions with others. Neither option inspires me to waste my time with you.
Now I'll admit, I could be very wrong about that. You could be some spectacularly lovely creationist, sincere in all his/her beliefs and genuinely interested in discussion. But leaping into any conversation/discussion/site and whining about tone, playing asinine games with "attention getters", making claims about "it'll get better later" like you've got some ace up your sleeve are dead giveaways. You are pulling the same creationist nonsense of old: attempt to knock down current science as if that will some how lend support to your creationist crapola, all the while flailing your hands and chucking as much irrelevant smoke around as possible to disguise the fact that you've got nothing.
Even if you do manage to knock some aspect of current science down, and let's be blunt you haven't a chance especially using standard creationist talking points that have been long refuted, what positive evidence have you presented in favour of your own claims? That's right, none.
Like I said, trying to play "gotcha", infantile attempts to gainsay others, rehashing the same drivel time after time, playing the martyr (undoubtedly next in your play book, you've already shown the beginnings), claims of "warring equal worldviews", and other such classic hallmarks of the creationist clown or troll, really fail to inspire dialogue.
If you, unlike most creationists in my experience, can get past your offence at the fact that reality doesn't agree with the bullshit chanted by the bunnies in your head you might be worth some effort.
3) Did I say anything about the geologic column, C-14 dating, T-Rex or anything else? No. Gish Gallop much? Do I want to waste my time in "discussion" with someone like you? No. I'll let you know if I change my mind. Touchy little troll ain'tcha?
4) Stay around as long as you like, I have neither the power to change your presence here, nor any interest in changing it. I seem to remember it was you who came stampeding in, swinging comments about tone around. If someone invited you, more fool you for accepting, chew toys are fun for a while but they rarely grab the attention for long. I doubt you have the capacity to break the endless cycle of dumb that surrounds discussions on this issue.
5) Creationism is not even wrong. In all its various strains and species (unless of course it gets watered down to the vague creative deism it usually does when confronted) it is at best a parody of science. It's an attempt to gull the gullible into believing a specific set of religious claims has some veneer of scientific credibility. It has always failed to date and will always continue to. You can misrepresent that as some scientific/atheist dogma if you wish, you'd be wrong, and wrong in ways I'd guess you can't even begin to understand.
I know you don't understand that but try to let the possibility percolate into your cranium, it will make for more interesting discussion. By the way, before you bother, science is provisional. The idea that a specific set of scientific ideas is potentially wrong is enshrined in the process from the get go. You are not dealing with an opposed dogma. Perhaps that is something you might attempt to understand.
6) Show me something new. I have little need or interest in rehashing GCSE chemistry every day of my life as if it were cutting edge, the same applies to creationist claims. Show me something new and interesting. Stop wasting my time with long refuted nonsense and bog standard misunderstandings of science.
7) And no, I'm not very nice. Denialists, antiscience woo peddlers, wind up merchants and the wilfully ignorant and actively stupid bring out the intolerant prick in me. {Shrug} We all have our crosses to bear.
That's about all the time I'm willing to waste being nice. LOL
Louis
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 03 2009,07:37
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 03 2009,00:29) | My thoughts are also that Austin could have -- in the many years since he's been pushing his "Santa Cruz catastrophe" claims -- published a peer-reviewed paper on the subject. But he hasn't. Yet he has a video to sway the sheep!! But he won't entertain actual, ongoing scientific debate of his claims! But he'll cherry-pick stuff to "respond" to at various creationist sites! But he won't entertain actual, ongoing scientific debate of his claims in the peer-reviewed journals!
My thoughts are that Austin's (and your above) "take" on the Santa Cruz...is wrong. Your use of the singular "flood," and Austin's use of the same, implies you believe, or wish to deceptively imply, that it was a single flood that created the Santa Cruz valley features.
My thoughts are that this notion of a singular flood creating the Santa Cruz is ...how shall I say it... ah, yes -- bullshit. Demonstrable bullshit.
My thoughts are also that Henry Morris was a crank and a failure at hydraulic engineering and just about every science he set his fanatic eyes on (yes, I have read his nonsense).
Having a PhD means damn little when your "science" is that laughably bad and contrary to all physical data and reality.A minor "for instance" of Henry Morris' hydrologic incompetence is his failure to recognize that vertical walls on the scale of the Grand Canyon's, cut in wet or damp strata, tend to (and will) slump and collapse -- even though Morris believed that the Grand Canyon was cut while still soft and unconsolidated (see "The Genesis Flood" pp. 151-153).
That's what I think, Scienthuse...what do you think about that? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've decided I'll ignore DOCTOR Louis--I like your quote deadman. This applies to Louis in regards to the article I gave him and that's all I'll say to him from now on.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Having a PhD means...little when your "science" is that laughably bad and contrary to...physical data.... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman--
Ausin and DarwinI'm not understanding something here. Darwin was wrong about the Santa Cruz valley but Morris and Austin are cranks. Now I understand anyone can pose a hypothesis that can be later falsified--so I would never call Darwin a crank. Even ifI disagree with him scientifically, or philosophically, OR BECAUSE HE WAS WRONG ABOUT THE SCV.
I think "attacking the messenger" is a cheap shell game ploy.
Peer ReviewLet's be real--is any evolutionary journal going to let a creationist in and sully their prestigious reputation? That's like saying Richard Dawkins is going to Glen Rose, Texas.
As far as peer review--there is peer review among creationists, which contrary to your likely guess, is not so few.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- A minor "for instance" of Henry Morris' hydrologic incompetence is his failure to recognize that vertical walls on the scale of the Grand Canyon's, cut in wet or damp strata, tend to (and will) slump and collapse -- even though Morris believed that the Grand Canyon was cut while still soft and unconsolidated (see "The Genesis Flood" pp. 151-153). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2009,07:45
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 03 2009,07:37) | I've decided I'll ignore DOCTOR Louis--I like your quote deadman. This applies to Louis in regards to the article I gave him and that's all I'll say to him from now on.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Having a PhD means...little when your "science" is that laughably bad and contrary to...physical data.... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman--
Ausin and DarwinI'm not understanding something here. Darwin was wrong about the Santa Cruz valley but Morris and Austin are cranks. Now I understand anyone can pose a hypothesis that can be later falsified--so I would never call Darwin a crank. Even ifI disagree with him scientifically, or philosophically, OR BECAUSE HE WAS WRONG ABOUT THE SCV.
I think "attacking the messenger" is a cheap shell game ploy.
Peer ReviewLet's be real--is any evolutionary journal going to let a creationist in and sully their prestigious reputation? That's like saying Richard Dawkins is going to Glen Rose, Texas.
As far as peer review--there is peer review among creationists, which contrary to your likely guess, is not so few.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- A minor "for instance" of Henry Morris' hydrologic incompetence is his failure to recognize that vertical walls on the scale of the Grand Canyon's, cut in wet or damp strata, tend to (and will) slump and collapse -- even though Morris believed that the Grand Canyon was cut while still soft and unconsolidated (see "The Genesis Flood" pp. 151-153). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(1) I said Morris was a crank and Austin was wrong, Scienthuse. Try reading for accuracy. Also, YOU haven't shown that Darwin was wrong at all. Nor has Austin, in ANY valid scientific way -- hint: propaganda videos are not acceptable substitutes for peer-reviewed papers, which Austin COULD have published, IF he had any valid evidence.
(2) Creationists don't peer-review their own papers, they check them for adherence to their Biblical presuppositions. Don't believe me? Try actually learning about the various topics written about in "creationist" papers and then we can discuss the myriad errors in each one. Oh, and if they DO peer-review them, why can't anyone find out about their peer-review processes and reviewers for the many, many papers that are shown to be wrong?
(3) Uh, the Grand Canyon is not "composed of silicated clays." It has hundreds of meters of limestones, sandstones and conglomerates, none of which is termed clay. "Clay" has a meaning, scienthuse. You should be able to look it up in a dictionary of geological terms. You simply don't know what you're talking about. You're also ignoring the gneiss and schist I mentioned in another post. Among MANY other things.
(4) Henry Morris claimed the Canyon was cut in one fell swoop in his "genesis flood" and HE said it was in SOFT, unconsolidated materials...which not only would make the hundreds of meters of verticals (wth billions of tons of overlying materials) impossible, IF it were laid in the manner and timespans that Morris yaps stupidly about -- it also goes directly against basic physics of deposition -- like LIMESTONE (which precipitates agonizingly slowly) overlain by heavier materials like sandstones and conglomerates. In that brief span of Morris' "Genesis Flood", this is physically impossible.
You don't know what you are talking about in the least, scienthuse:
See anything there that says "clay strata?" No? How about you try to learn about the topics BEFORE arguing creationist talking points that are obviously false?
ETA: This is Redwall Limestone. Do you know how limestone is formed? How fast it's measured to precipitate on average? How it is dolomitized?
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 do you think of all that, "Scienthuse?"
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 03 2009,09:22
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 02 2009,21:22) | 2)Also you ignored the facts about relative dating between K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I see you haven't figured out what "most commonly" means. Nor do you understand what is being calibrated by the known-age sample in Ar-Ar dating.
Just for grins, let's see what of mine you haven't addressed:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- If you have any actual, you know, evidence that you know what you're talking about and you're not so "green and tender", especially any evidence that scientists assume that "all lead 206 in the entire world is a complete result of the U 238 decay chain" or any evidence that the RATE group's claims are worth further investigation, trot it out. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- ...essentially all of the lead in a zircon must be the result of radioactive decay after solidification:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Hasn't been mentioned here, but it sure has been mentioned. They did off-handedly acknowledge that accelerated decay rates had a few minor problems such as releasing enough heat to melt the Earth, releasing enough radiation to sterilize the Earth, and being incompatible with astronomical observations of stars obstinately shining. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Of course, in zircons essentially all the 206Pb is from decay after solidification, as the RATE group acknowledged in the quote I posted above. That's the way the world works, because lead is too big to fit in the crystal lattice and has a totally unsuitable valence. But you've never heard of common lead correction, of course. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Or how much left or entered into the rocks through means such as ground water? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
See my previous reply. Ar-Ar dating can (and does) often produce a valid date even if the system has not been closed. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- But the fact that argon is seldom found in molten lava was confirmed by Dalrymple's study of 26 recent lava flows. See < Ar-Ar Dating Assumes There Is No Excess Argon? >. Bet it never occurred to you that creationists always cite "studies" of single samples whereas real scientists work with studies of as many samples as possible, which is the only valid way to assess the validity and limitations of a technique. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I already know you'll rebut with contamination claims, and that the lab can't date rocks under a certain age. My question is why did they then?? Why would they send the data back to the group if they knew it could be contaminated, or that they couldn't do it. Sounds a bit political to me. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dating labs get paid to run stuff through the equipment. You send 'em stuff, they run it through the equipment, they send you the results, they get paid. They don't care whether or not the results mean anything. They're not in business to second-guess the customers. That's about as far from being "political" as you can get.
Austin deliberately chose samples that would give the results he wanted because they were a mixture of old and new material. That's not contamination, that's fraud. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Science says helium should have escaped with an atomic weight of 4.00260. Perhaps you should give us a lesson on how over half the helium does not escape a rock after 1.5 billion of years of decay. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A question on your last line. How do you distinguish the difference between daughter isotopes that are products of decay and those that are not? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You got a lot to address before we get into 14C dating and we rip you a new one there too. The Gish Gallop may go over big at the church socials, but nobody here is impressed.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- If you think I'm a troll, I'll go elsewhere and leave you all to your little room. But I WAS invited to stay. Just let me know, because there are much more tolerable forums than this one! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yup, they'd just love you at one of those creo forums that doesn't allow dissent.
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 03 2009,09:28
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 02 2009,21:42) | 2. "Relative dating between K-Ar and Ar-Ar" ??? Uh, those aren't relative dating methods, nor is it appropriate to use that term in that manner. They are both absolute dating methods. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's not surprising that he can't get the terminology correct, all he's got he picked up from creo websites. He's talking about the fact that in Ar-Ar dating the irradiation equipment is calibrated using a sample of known age, and this sample's age is often (but not always) known because it's been dated with K-Ar. This has him all a-twitter and somewhere in the cavernous and empty recesses of what we might call (for lack of a better term) his mind he seems to think that this has some impact on the validity of Ar-Ar dating. What trail of "logic" he followed to get this conclusion I don't know; I presume it's the ol' AfDDave "some = all" fallacy applied multiple times.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Oct. 03 2009,10:13
I think Scienthuse belongs in the Tonto Group.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 03 2009,10:19
LOL Whatever Scienthuse Clownshoes. Naught but piss and wind as usual.
Enjoy this one fellas, it's melting down early. I predict a flounce out will be soon forthcoming.
Louis
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 03 2009,12:00
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 03 2009,07:37) | I think "attacking the messenger" is a cheap shell game ploy.
Peer ReviewLet's be real--is any evolutionary journal going to let a creationist in and sully their prestigious reputation? That's like saying Richard Dawkins is going to Glen Rose, Texas.
As far as peer review--there is peer review among creationists, which contrary to your likely guess, is not so few.
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
guys, I think we've got one dumber than FL or ray-ray.
"attacking the messenger is a cheap shell game ploy" Attacking the messenger('s idiotic posts) is what this forum is about. Go home if you don't want to play.
"That's like saying Richard Dawkins is going to Glen Rose, Texas" I suspect that if you paid his fee, Dawkins would be on the next plane. He would probably love to thump those thumpers.
Peer Review: Poor IDiots. they want to be accepted as true scientists, but only if we change the rules.WHIIIINNNNNNNE.
" I hike through a canyon . . ."
This is so funny in so many ways its just sad. I know most of you understand geology 101, but obviously someone needs a lesson. CLAY is a mineral found in many sedimentary rocks. It is not a rock. Is your rock shale, siltstone, sandstone? Enquiring minds want to know! If only gravity was it work, wouldn't all the material that has fallen off the walls still be there somewhere? What force carried it away? You say canyon walls cannot overhang: ever been in a slot canyon in Arizona or Utah? Ever seen pictures of a slot canyon? Again geology 101: limestone is not silicate based.
If you are the IDiots next great white intellect, the movement is definitely doomed.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 03 2009,13:20
Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 03 2009,12:00) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Clay is not a mineral: it is a kind of sediment formed from fine grains of various different minerals, very water-absorbent, and showing a huge range of plasticity (malleableness) depending on the moisture content.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2009,15:19
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 03 2009,10:19) | LOL Whatever Scienthuse Clownshoes. Naught but piss and wind as usual.
Enjoy this one fellas, it's melting down early. I predict a flounce out will be soon forthcoming.
Louis ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Should "Scienthuse" continue along the same vein and keep avoiding answering the points directed at him, MY nickname for him is going to be much more earthy: it begins with a familiar Anglo-Saxonism and ends with "house"
Then I'll do a parody of an old 70's Commodores disco tune ... "Well, he's a ___ house He's mighty flighty, Just lettin' that methane out."
Note how totally groovy I'll be. Sputter in your envious frustration.
P.S. Scienthuse -- feel free to pretend my mild humor incredibly insulting and proceed to step three: Operation Flounce.
But keep in mind that I've been asking you NICELY, politely to respond directly to my two questions on Steve Austin - Santa Cruz River many, many times now, and you've instead opted to be snarky and disrespectful first.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 03 2009,19:47
Deadman,
I have a life. I do not sit in front of my comp all day as it seems perhaps you do. You should go get some exercise. Maybe some field study instead of basking in your own surmisings, based on long dead men's model that is faithfully defended by their disciples.
You have said many things, and so has everybody else. Am I supposed sit and answer everyone's questions? I said what I said.
I will get back to you on your comments about limestone and Morris' comments about the GC. If your in such a hurry to see what creationists are putting forth you know you can go to AiG for journal answers.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 03 2009,20:27
The fact of the matter stands, Scienthuse, is that you made fallacious statements, and what little efforts you made to support these fallacious statements were to appeal to the authority of known liars, or accuse us of slander when we pointed out that you and your authorities were lying.
Claiming that the duties of real life preclude and or prevent you from answering our questions and rebuttals to your fallacious claims will not win any sympathy from us, especially since you obviously appear to have more than enough time to whine about our tone, as well as accuse us of slander when we dissect your claims for bullshit content.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2009,20:59
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 03 2009,19:47) | Deadman,
I have a life. I do not sit in front of my comp all day as it seems perhaps you do. You should go get some exercise. Maybe some field study instead of basking in your own surmisings, based on long dead men's model that is faithfully defended by their disciples.
You have said many things, and so has everybody else. Am I supposed sit and answer everyone's questions? I said what I said.
I will get back to you on your comments about limestone and Morris' comments about the GC. If your in such a hurry to see what creationists are putting forth you know you can go to AiG for journal answers. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Project much, Scienthuse?
So...because you "have a life" that's the ONLY reason you have failed to answer my questions. Yet, you've managed to make 21 posts during your stay here.
Here's the first time I asked you to answer my two simple questions, Scienthuse: Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,20:40) | I have two questions for you.
(1) You (and Austin, repeatedly, in that video) use the term "flood," singular...giving the impression that he and you believe that it was a singular flood event that created those formations and features. Do you believe that to be the case?
(2) In the video Austin mentions "his view" of the valley and "his view" of the boulder bar deposition. This left me with the impression that Austin was presenting an hypothesis original to Austin. Do you believe that to be the case -- that the catastrophic flooding hypothesis for the Santa Cruz valley and relevant features is original to Austin ? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< You ignored them, so I asked again, the second time > < I asked you to answer my original questions again (3rd time) >< I ask you to answer my original questions for the fourth time here: >< I ask you to answer my questions for the fifth time here: >< I ask you to answer my questions for the sixth time here: > ----------------
Let me remind you of a few things, Scienthuse
first, your claims to desire civil scientific-based discussions First, my willingness to be civil: Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,04:31) |
I'll continue this friendly-style discussion as long as you wish to remain civil and address MY points as well. You can start with my question above. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your response, Scienthuse: Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 30 2009,19:38) | I would like to be civil and I will also ignore uncalled-for sarcastic slams (not from you deadman). We are all human beings who breathe the same air, even if we don't agree. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Apparently, your "interpretation" of civil discussions means ignoring a series of civil requests 6 times -- while you first avoid, THEN post well over a dozen times, then insult me by claiming I'd said things I had not.
---------------------------------
The real reason you chose to behave that way was because you'd been corrected on your false, bullshit-laden "Answers in Genesis" and "ICR" talking points MANY times:
< Your false claim on Darwin's "Son" and Darwin's "atheism" >
< False claim about Harlan Bretz being "ignored by science" > (A standard AIG/ICR talking point)
< False claims on Mt. Saint Helens, corrected > (another AIG/ICR talking point)
< Jon corrects you on radiometric dating > (another AIG/ICR talking point)
< Jon corrects you again, on parent/daughter ratios >
< Jon corrects you on radiometrics, RATE, and Mt. Saint Helens >
< You are corrected on helium and container rocks >
< You are corrected on your false claims regarding K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating >
< You get corrected on Henry Morris here: >
< You get corrected on vertical Grand Canyon walls here, and I correct you on your claim that I called Austin a crank, then I correct you on "silicate clay" strata in the Grand Canyon: > --------------
This has nothing to do with you "having a life" and being unable to post -- you ignored my questions MANY times, yet posted continuously during that time.
It has nothing to do with ME "being online all day" -- some people have desk computers, blackberrys and laptops that allow quick answers whenever I happen to pop in...it took me all of 8 minutes to respond to your last "TEH Grand Canyon is made of CLAY> ZOMG!!!" bullshit, scienthuse
Considering the insults you tossed at me first, your claim to desire civil discourse is bullshit
Considering your inability to answer even basic questions on relevant topics, your claim < Here > to "know" about subjects here is bullshit.
Considering how many times you had to be corrected on even ridiculously stupid shit like "TEH Grand Canyon iz CLAY, ZOMG and teh Mt. St. Helens 'canyon' is like it!!!!" ... your claim < here > to NOT be "green and tender" is bullshit.
You've been around here an AWFUL lot during the past four days for someone who "doesn't have the time" to answer basic questions politely (at first) asked.
I have no reason at all to be polite to you at all again, and I can assure you I won't get tired of making you look even more stupid than you already do So ... do your flounce-out, punkin'. It's not as if everyone here hasn't seen this act many times before -- The only thing that makes you "unique" is the particular depth of YEC intellectual dishonesty that you descend to.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 03 2009,21:22
awwww, you killed it!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 03 2009,21:23
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 03 2009,21:59) | Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 03 2009,19:47) | Deadman,
I have a life. I do not sit in front of my comp all day as it seems perhaps you do. You should go get some exercise. Maybe some field study instead of basking in your own surmisings, based on long dead men's model that is faithfully defended by their disciples.
You have said many things, and so has everybody else. Am I supposed sit and answer everyone's questions? I said what I said.
I will get back to you on your comments about limestone and Morris' comments about the GC. If your in such a hurry to see what creationists are putting forth you know you can go to AiG for journal answers. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So...because you "have a life" that's the ONLY reason you have failed to answer my questions. Yet, you've managed to make 21 posts during your stay here.
Here's the first time I asked you to answer my two simple questions, Scienthuse: Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,20:40) | I have two questions for you.
(1) You (and Austin, repeatedly, in that video) use the term "flood," singular...giving the impression that he and you believe that it was a singular flood event that created those formations and features. Do you believe that to be the case?
(2) In the video Austin mentions "his view" of the valley and "his view" of the boulder bar deposition. This left me with the impression that Austin was presenting an hypothesis original to Austin. Do you believe that to be the case -- that the catastrophic flooding hypothesis for the Santa Cruz valley and relevant features is original to Austin ? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< You ignored them, so I asked again, the second time > < I asked you to answer my original questions again (3rd time) >< I ask you to answer my original questions for the fourth time here: >< I ask you to answer my questions for the fifth time here: >< I ask you to answer my questions for the sixth time here: > ----------------
Let me remind you of a few things, Scienthuse
first, your claims to desire civil scientific-based discussions First, my willingness to be civil: Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,04:31) |
I'll continue this friendly-style discussion as long as you wish to remain civil and address MY points as well. You can start with my question above. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your response, Scienthuse: Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 30 2009,19:38) | I would like to be civil and I will also ignore uncalled-for sarcastic slams (not from you deadman). We are all human beings who breathe the same air, even if we don't agree. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Apparently, your "interpretation" of civil discussions means ignoring a series of civil requests 6 times -- while you first avoid, THEN post well over a dozen times, then insult me by claiming I'd said things I had not.
---------------------------------
The real reason you chose to behave that way was because you'd been corrected on your false "Answers in Genesis" and "ICR" talking points ...well, MANY times:
< Your false claim on Darwin's "Son" and Darwin's "atheism" >
< False claim about Harlan Bretz being "ignored by science" > (A standard AIG/ICR talking point)
< False claims on Mt. Saint Helens, corrected > (another AIG/ICR talking point)
< Jon corrects you on radiometric dating > (another AIG/ICR talking point)
< Jon corrects you again, on parent/daughter ratios >
< Jon corrects you on radiometrics, RATE, and Mt. Saint Helens >
< You are corrected on helium and container rocks >
< You are corrected on your false claims regarding K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating >
< You get corrected on Henry Morris here: >
< You get corrected on vertical Grand Canyon walls here, and I correct you on your claim that I called Austin a crank, then I correct you on "silicate clay" strata in the Grand Canyon: > --------------
This has nothing to do with you "having a life" and being unable to post -- you ignored my qustions MANY times, yet posted continuously during that time.
It has nothing to do with ME "being online all day" -- some people have computers, blackberrys and laptops that allow quick answers whenever I happen to pop in...it took me all of 8 minutes to respond to your last "TEH Grand Canyon is made of CLAY> ZOMG!!!" bullshit, scienthuse
Considering the insults you tossed at me first, your claim to desire civil discourse is bullshit
Considering your inability to answer even basic questions on relevant topics, your claim < Here > to "know" about subjects here is bullshit.
Considering how many times you had to be corrercted on even ridiculously stupid shit like "TEH Grand Canyon iz CLAY, ZOMG and teh Mt. St. Helens 'canyon' is like it!!!!" ... your claim < here > to NOT be "green and tender" is bullshit.
Suck on that, Scienthuse...oh, and you've been around here an AWFUL lot during the past four days for someone who "doesn't have the time" to answer basic questions politely (at first) asked.
I have no reason at all to be polite to you at all again, and I can assure you I won't get tired of making you look even more stupid than you already do So ... do your flounce-out, ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
See people THAT is the sorta thing that gets you awards
kiss up teachers pet suck up grrrrr damn deadman always pwns the hardest
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2009,21:29
---------------------QUOTE------------------- See people THAT is the sorta thing that gets you awards ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And if not, you can award them to yourself! &%#@ da man! Anarchy now! Power to teh pipples!
Posted by: Scienthuse on 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.
1) Redwall Limestone and modern lime muds are different in their biologically produced material. GC--calcite / modern lime muds--aragonite.
2)RL contains "clay sized" (smaller) calcite 4 microns. Lime muds contain "silt sized" aragonite 20 microns.
3)Much evidence of transport and rapid water deposition in Redwall Limestone.
a)Chert--Chert resulted from diagenesis, which is chemical change after initial deposition and lithification. Lithification is the process of water expulsion caused by pressure (which is evident in many limestone deposits). I did not get this from AiG--this is from personal study--okay! You guys think I'm stupid.
WHAT CAUSED the pressurized drainage which is evident in the chert???? If you counter with tectonic uplift from the ocean bottom, then you must explain the shale that is both below and above the limestone. It also forms under water.
b)McKee and Ghutschick (1969) admit lack of coral reefs,(hello WHERE ARE THEY?????) and stromalites "which might form slowly in tidal flat environments...." Laminated algal masses show "concentric structure" (very significant evidence) and "and are best interpreted as algal masses which have been transported by rolling." Austin
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 >
Fossils do not form by laying in shallow oxygenated waters. Organisms will decay.
Some may suggest anoxic waters but this is not indicative of mud limes or coral reefs, neither forminafera or other phytoplankton.
Therefore the only logical empirical deduction in light of this evidence is rapid transport and deposition of the Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon.
Uniformintarian interpretation is bogus in that it ignores obvious evidence and instead inserts and deletes certain evidences and or hypotheses where needed. 1)Because the mindset has been formed by indoctrination from grade school on--2) and because the careers and reputation of uniforms are paramount for continuance of such--there is much ignoring and "spinning" of the evidence. All for the sake of the "grand geologic timescale model."
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 04 2009,09:44
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,09:03) | Therefore the only logical empirical deduction in light of this evidence is rapid transport and deposition of the Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When you say "rapid" how long are you talking about?
1 day? 1 year?
?
And did the Redwall Limestone form at a faster rate, the same rate or a slower rate then a comparable body of Limestone elsewhere? Or did *all* Limestone form at the same speed "rapidly"?
Define "rapid" please.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 04 2009,10:35
I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to find yet another creobot is both willfully ignorant in the extreme and a liar for Jesus to boot.
Fucktard #eleventybillion
I think all we're waiting on is the homoerotic photos of professional "wrestlers" and an altar call.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 04 2009,11:33
So what personal studies lead you to assume that chert can be "rapidly" deposited from 40 days and 40 nights of magic rain?
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 04 2009,11:47
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 04 2009,09:44) | Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,09:03) | Therefore the only logical empirical deduction in light of this evidence is rapid transport and deposition of the Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When you say "rapid" how long are you talking about?
1 day? 1 year?
?
And did the Redwall Limestone form at a faster rate, the same rate or a slower rate then a comparable body of Limestone elsewhere? Or did *all* Limestone form at the same speed "rapidly"?
Define "rapid" please. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Rapid" would be defined by the evidence as follows:
1)Rapid enough for broken up crinoid to be "fresh." In other words they were not decomposed at the time of burial--because they are detailed--not a partially decomposed mess. The fact that they are broken up but in "living detail" suggests transport and not decomposition.
2)I might add that this the case with many partial fossils. They are broken but not decomposed.
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!
And if you think I'm a liar, I gave a link to the McKee and Gutschick research in the Redwall Formation. It is uniformintarian in interpretation--but it will confirm that many detailed fossils exist in the RL.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 04 2009,11:54
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,11:47) | Rapid enough for broken up crinoid to be "fresh." In other words they were not decomposed at the time of burial ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are circumstances where decomposition is not an accurate indication of time since death.
E.G. Peat Bogs.
And I saw no other indication of a time period in your comment.
Please put a figure, in time, on the formation of the Redwall Limestone. Hours, days, years. Whatever.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 04 2009,12:04
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 04 2009,11:54) | Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,11:47) | Rapid enough for broken up crinoid to be "fresh." In other words they were not decomposed at the time of burial ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are circumstances where decomposition is not an accurate indication of time since death.
E.G. Peat Bogs.
And I saw no other indication of a time period in your comment.
Please put a figure, in time, on the formation of the Redwall Limestone. Hours, days, years. Whatever. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. But that they are in association with coral and algae in the limestone--this would suggest they came from similar habitat.
Why is it necessary for you to have an exact time?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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?
Posted by: deadman_932 on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"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." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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
Posted by: Dr.GH on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: deadman_932 on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Henry J on 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?? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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
Posted by: Louis on 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
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 04 2009,19:09
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Someone please think of the children. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, ap-parent-ly you just did, so that request is already satisfied.
Henry
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 04 2009,19:15
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 05 2009,01:09) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Someone please think of the children. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, ap-parent-ly you just did, so that request is already satisfied. :p
Henry ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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
Posted by: deadman_932 on 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?? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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...." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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!!!"
Posted by: Lou FCD on 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! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Idiot.
Posted by: Scienthuse on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Scienthuse on 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.
Posted by: midwifetoad on 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 >
Posted by: nmgirl on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Stanton on 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.
Posted by: deadman_932 on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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) .
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Coward.
Posted by: deadman_932 on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Scienthuse on 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?
Posted by: deadman_932 on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 05 2009,05:15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|