|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Well, I can say for certain what is motivating Stef Heerema to take Hovland's work and make YEC gospel out of it - there's no need to guess on that one if you read or watch him, but since there's nothing in Hoveland's material anywhere referencing YEC, nor can I find any statements he has made to any YEC site (they would surely promote them), I'm not yet ready to impune Hovland on the basis of any theology. . That of course isn't an endorsement of the quality (or not) of Hovland's work in any way. I ask that question so others with more experience can read and commentWell, I'm getting some conflicting ideas here between the website and the abstract, so I'm going to shut up until I read more and if the discussion goes any further. Just let me say that deposits such as the Afar (modern) and the Green River Basin (ancient), the Luann Salt (ancient) and the Great Salt Lake Basin (modern) do not look like they could be formed in the way that Hovland seems to suggest. But then I'm not sure what he's saying yet, since he also mentions sabkhas, which are a different animal entirely. ETA: And yes, I'm sure that Heerma is using Hovland's work to support the old argument that salt deposits can form in other ways than by evaporation. But he leaves out this statement by Hoveland:
Large, buried salt bodies occur in numerous offshore rift-related sedimentary basins, worldwide. For most practical purposes, the conventional evaporite (solar evaporation of seawater) theory is adequate for explaining these occurrences. Just a moment... The idea is to show that 'evaporites' can form in 'flood' conditions. My counter is that we have a perfectly good explanation that accounts for the actual features of the known deposits and the Hoveland model (which may have some application) is not adequate to explain all deposits. Edited by edge, : Amplify on the arguments
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
I would think that you would find some fairly serious thermal alteration in the rocks near any salt deposits that were from Hoveland's mechanism of deposition. I'm pretty sure there is no evidence of that near the Louann - the Cotton Valley Lime sure doesn't show signs of prolonged baking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2373 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
edge writes: And yes, I'm sure that Heerma is using Hovland's work to support the old argument that salt deposits can form in other ways than by evaporation. But he leaves out this statement by Hoveland: quote: Heerema also conveniently leaves out this statement which I found on Hovland's website which shows Hovland isn't doing YEC any favors:
quote: It still appears to me that this is the rather typical YEC SOP where they take some snippet of knowledge and blow it up into something it's not. Certainly they are not applying it the way Hovland has proposed it even IF Hoveland is onto something - as I read it he's only proposing a narrow application of his idea, not an across the board "Aha! We finally know how these are made and it isn't evaporation." JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2373 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
A question driven by total ignorance on the topic:
I do a Google image search on "salt mine" and in image after image I see visible layers in the walls. Would that not be impurity layers in the salt indicative of the normal open air evaporative process - dust, etc? Would halite deposited by the method proposed by Hovland show these distinct layers? Seems if it's done all underground it would be homogeneous with no orderly layers of impurities (if those layers I see are indeed impurities). Also, can this halite be dated through radiometric/other? If so I would think that would be a way to distinguish between the methods of deposition in any given deposit.
ThanksJB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2373 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
So I've been studying a lot and also learning more about the specific positions that my YEC family are holding and why. (remember, I've been gone and greatly out of touch with them for near 40 years.) I'm starting to get a handle on the sorts of things I need to focus on to both keep their attention and address their concerns and biases.
I've learned is that this younger crowd is somewhat open to the concept of an old earth and old universe — but old life is an issue for them. There are essentially willing to say that Ok, the sun and stars were here for millions, billions, whatever. The earth could have also been here, but as a lifeless blank. This is different from where everyone was when I left which was hard line It all arrived 6,000 years ago. Now, it's more like We'll give you that other stuff, but LIFE started no more than 6,000 (or so) years ago, it was created in 6 literal days and the Noahic flood definitely covered all and killed everything not on the ark around 4,000 years ago. They have also made a little 'progress' on the everything was created just as it is seen now position. As one of them told me a couple days ago I believe in adaptation, but not evolution. (hmmmmm). They did make it clear to me that every bit of life, down to the most basic forms were created all in the 6 days. One thing they are big on is that there was definitely no death before 'the fall' of Adam and Eve. Any fossil found was placed after the fall. Combine this belief with them accepting the possibility of an old universe and a barren 'blank' earth before creation and you have a situation where it's not productive for me to focus on anything in the realm of astronomy (unless it's used to demonstrate the constants). It also won't pay to be trying to date layers below where the lowest fossil life is found. So, my task is to create presentations that can as simply and reliably as possible show two things:1: the evidence is clear that the layers at and above the lowest fossil bearing layers (precambrian?) could not be young. 2: the evidence shows that a Noahic flood didn't happen. That's all. In another later post I'll get into the sorts of things I'm thinking of focusing on and get suggestions. ThanksJB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
A question driven by total ignorance on the topic:
The layering is certainly sedimentary in origin.I do a Google image search on "salt mine" and in image after image I see visible layers in the walls. Would that not be impurity layers in the salt indicative of the normal open air evaporative process - dust, etc? Would halite deposited by the method proposed by Hovland show these distinct layers? Seems if it's done all underground it would be homogeneous with no orderly layers of impurities (if those layers I see are indeed impurities). Now, if one were on the hard-core hydrothermal-replacement bandwagon, one could say that the replacement is so detailed, so precise and so faithful to layering, is a perfect replication of the original sedimentary texture. Over large distances (regional scale), I would say that's never been seen before. Is it recrystallized? Sure, that's the nature of salt deposits. But to present no other metamorphic textures tells us that it is not thermal in origin.
Also, can this halite be dated through radiometric/other? If so I would think that would be a way to distinguish between the methods of deposition in any given deposit.
Radiometrically, no, unless there are volcanic ash layers that could be dated. They could, however, be dated by index fossils, such as pollen grains. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I would think that you would find some fairly serious thermal alteration in the rocks near any salt deposits that were from Hoveland's mechanism of deposition. I'm pretty sure there is no evidence of that near the Louann - the Cotton Valley Lime sure doesn't show signs of prolonged baking.
Absolutely. Even at 800 degrees C, there should be some kind of zonation of thermal metamorphism, especially considering the size of the system we are discussing. Those temperatures are the equivalent of the final solidification of a granitic magma. These things are pretty well-recognizable by mineralogists. Basaltic magmas (which we would expect in a rifting environment such as the Red Sea) would involve even higher temperatures (up to 1100 C) which would have an even more intense thermal aureole. The whole thing just doesn't make much sense, except in some very narrow applications and even then, I've never seen anything like what Hovland is describing. ETA: His schematic diagram of fluid flows is unlike any that I have ever seen before; and again, it doesn't look realistic. I would still like to see the chemical reactions that would lead to salt precipitating (I seriously doubt actual replacement) in a hydrothermal environment. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
So, my task is to create presentations that can as simply and reliably as possible show two things:
If our experience here is any indication, the task is insurmountable. In 99.9% of cases, religious belief trumps scientific evidence and reasoned interpretation.
1: the evidence is clear that the layers at and above the lowest fossil bearing layers (precambrian?) could not be young. 2: the evidence shows that a Noahic flood didn't happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What you'll have there is bands of normal lacustrine or marine sediment, usually mud though of course I can't tell from the photograph. Such layers are associated with seasonal changes, effectively being varves, or larger-scale alternations are associated with transgressions and regressions, as described for example in this paper. Look particularly at the table at the bottom left of page 414. You see how perfectly this fits what we know about the evaporation of seawater, with carbonates and gypsum/anhydrite coming between the ordinary clastic sedimentary rocks (conglomerate, shale, mudrock) and the actual halite?
I should like to hear how these sequences are to be explained by some sort of volcano.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
What you'll have there is bands of normal lacustrine or marine sediment, usually mud though of course I can't tell from the photograph.
These are the Michigan Basin salt deposits with which I have actually done test work on.
They are true evaporite deposits.
Such layers are associated with seasonal changes, effectively being varves, or larger-scale alternations are associated with transgressions and regressions, as described for example in this paper. Look particularly at the table at the bottom left of page 414.
I think the changes you are discussing are at a larger scale in the Zechstein Salt. As you can see these beds are almost pure salt and the muds or clays are simply contamination. The zonation that you refer to is excellent evidence for evaporative origin of the salt deposits that no one here has discussed previously. In a lacustrine environment it is possible to predict the order and distribution of salt minerals. Edited by edge, : No reason given. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I think the changes you are discussing are at a larger scale in the Zechstein Salt. Definitely, yes, both in time and in space. I found a table here giving some thicknesses: the Red Salt Clay they put at 30ft; the Gray Salt Clay at 13-33ft.
The zonation that you refer to is excellent evidence for evaporative origin of the salt deposits that no one here has discussed previously. I notice now that although I explain the order of evaporation in my article on saline giants, I then completely fail to adduce it as evidence at the end of the article ---perhaps because it never crossed my mind that anyone would deny that they were in fact evaporites. I should do something about that. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So, my task is to create presentations that can as simply and reliably as possible show two things: 1: the evidence is clear that the layers at and above the lowest fossil bearing layers (precambrian?) could not be young. 2: the evidence shows that a Noahic flood didn't happen. After tree rings the next layered system I discuss is varve layers, in particular the varves of Lake Suigetsu in Japan. The layers alternate diatoms (spring\summer) and clay (winter) and bedded in the varves are organic fossils -- leaves, twigs, bugs -- that died, sank to the bottom and were buried by subsequent layers. These fossils give us measurements of 14C levels from the time of the deposit, and the layers are annual so we can place these fossils of life in time. These layers take the age counting and 14C content record back to almost 36,000 years ago. See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and Message 5. The Lascaux Cave Paintings were dated to be 17,300 years old by 14C on organic samples left in the cave and charcoal used in some drawings.
quote: http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterOne/LascauxCave.htm
quote: Cave painting - Wikipedia
quote: Note that the caves were formed by water, but water after they have been painted (from human tourist exhalation and from cave drips making stalactites) is damaging the paintings. ie there could be no flood after they were painted. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2373 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: I notice now that although I explain the order of evaporation in my article on saline giants, I then completely fail to adduce it as evidence at the end of the article ---perhaps because it never crossed my mind that anyone would deny that they were in fact evaporites. I should do something about that. I wondered about that when I was reading that section. I was trying to figure out if the supercritical water method would also sort the dissolved content in the same way. Thanks for such a great resource btw. It's been critical to my learning process. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2373 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
RAZD writes: After tree rings the next layered system I discuss is varve layers, in particular the varves of Lake Suigetsu in Japan. Yes. If I can get them across the threshold to understand tree rings and how carbon dating fits in with that, the same principles apply with Suigetsu varves. Ice cores follow the same path. That cave is so cool. JB
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024