ONLY AFTER THE WHOLE STACK WAS IN PLACE, from Precambrian to quaternary, do we then see EROSION of the stack.
Me in response: "Of course if that were true, there wouldn't be unconformities throughout the stack."
Faith #2
Faith writes:
None of the internal erosion or unconformities are anywhere near the scale of things hundreds of millions of years should be expected to produce.
Faith, this is why exchanges with you are essentially pointless. First you say that erosion only happened after the stack was in place and then when called on that you change your position to "well yes, but that doesn't matter because they aren't big enough". You aren't even consistent among your own positions.
Appreciate that link. Had already found that link and have been totally unable to get anything remotely like what I'm looking for. I'm a reasonably smart guy, but that interface is just unusable for someone like me. I have drilled down on that site for more than an hour and several hundred click. Nothing.
There is nothing even remotely like the extent of this erosion within the strata.
You saying this doesn't make it true - and in fact it's not true as has been demonstrated over and over.
But I'm not going round and round with you on this. You present opinion, not scientific evidence and I'm not creating a curriculum called "Faith's opinion for wavering fundamentalists".
ETA: If Percy feels that we are getting off topic I am not going to pursue this any further.
I realize that I'm not Percy and I don't intend to spend much time myself with Faith's amazing nonsense, but I will say that if her nonsense motivates people to post educational things about Tennessee Geology as is currently happening (I'm in Tennessee), then I'm getting my moneys worth.
I have come to see Faith for what she is here -- a way to bring reliable knowledge from the background to the foreground and a way to highlight during my education the thought processes of my intended targets.
It's a lot like and related to the moon BS that they throw around. The way the the tides impact the transfer of energy from earth to moon is so freakin' cool. Understanding the part continental drift has played in it all is a really fun part of it all and something I want to touch on in my segments. This will fit in with that.
Yeah, so you all believe, without knowing it IS just a belief, a prejudice. Sigh.
I have a nice hunch that the thousands of geologists and thousands upon thousands of man years of time spend digging, drilling, exploring, mapping, mining and testing the geologic structures here in Tennessee alone trumps mere belief by a good margin.
Are you experienced with any hands-on geology here in Tennessee? Any? Any at all?
The difference between prejudice and knowledge is experience.
So this guy (SDA Evangelist Doug Batchelor) is a primary focus of the 'debunking' portions of my program as my family thinks he's just the Bomb. He essentially tries to "out Hovind" Hovind in his talks. I've actually made good progress with my family regarding his credibility by showing just how bad his crap is.
Here is a 25 second clip where he makes an amazing claim regarding saline and carbon dating. Normally I can find stuff like this floating around and figure out where it came from, but I'm coming up blank in this regard on this topic. Any suggestions?
Though I shortened the clip for brevity, he IS talking C14 dating here, even though he's talking fossil dating. This claim follow the usual Hovind style Clam and Woolly Mammoth claims.
So I've searched high and low and using search terms like "C14 saline leach[ing]" and all I get are references to that one site and dead end from there.
At first I suspected that he was just confusing the reservoir effect and thinking it was a salt water issue, but now I'm guessing that it has to do with the claims of this website.
A total draft first attempt at a video put together for a family member who is trying to understand dating methods. It's not public on YouTube nor will this one ever be.
I'm putting together three of these for her -- meant to be in the order of how the age of the earth was figured out. First through relative dating (this video) then later through the observation of geologic processes such as deposition and erosion (next video) and then finally through RM dating (final video).
Just posting it up to show what I've been up to (and to say thanks to the many who have been helping educate me). I truly don't expect folk to sit through a 30 minute vid of such basics.
Here is what I emailed her with the video:
quote:Besides the nonsensical and just plain made up circular dating system that Doug Batchelor presents, there are two sorts of dating systems you will hear about — real ones... relative and absolute Sometimes the term numerical dating will be used instead of absolute dating and I prefer it because people get too confused by the term absolute and it's usage in science. People tend to think that when science refers to absolute dating, it is insisting it's "absolutely right" or "exactly perfect" — that's not how it's being used. Rather absolute in this case means it's referenced to a number (along with its inherent experimental error) rather than referenced to another object. Let me explain:
If I say a Honda Civic costs $23,000 and a Ferrari costs $230,000, I have used an absolute system to express that pricing (you can call the associated rebates, taxes, licenses, etc. the 'error rates' if you like). If I merely state that the Ferrari costs more than the Civic, I have used a relative system to express that pricing. In other words, in the second case I have stated the value of the Ferrari RELATIVE to the Honda. I could even state that the Honda costs $207,000 less than the Ferrari or that the Ferrari costs 10 times the Honda and I would still be using a relative pricing system overall.
Similarly, if I tell you that the trilobite fossil is around 500 millions years old and the dinosaur tooth fossil is around 100 million years old, those are absolute dates. If I merely tell you that the trilobite is much older than the dinosaur, that would be expressed using a relative scheme.
Later in the series we'll get into how science has developed absolute dating methods for rock layers and fossils, but for now I'm only going to focus on the older (but still just as valid) 'geological sequencing' or 'geologic succession' method of relative dating. As we learned in the last installment, consilience from completely different lines of evidence are a powerful way to confirm and strengthen a conclusions. Since absolute and relative dating methods are based on completely independent principles, the fact that they agree is strong evidence for the validity of each.
The principles of relative geological dating were developed (or at least formalized) beginning in the 17th century by the early geologists such as Nicholas Steno. The stratigraphic scheme is based on simple, logical, easy to understand geological principles that are for the most part observable and have easily stood the test of investigation, confirmation and time. The relative dating of fossils, or biostratigraphy is based substantively on those same principles with additions developed by William Smith in the 1800s (read the excellent book The Map that Changed the World to learn of Smith's work).
When biostratigraphy arrived on the scientific scene, the addition of the added and independent biological principles of faunal succession to the established principles of geological succession strengthened both disciplines through the consilience of the evidence. Through methods we will explore in future installments (such as the Index Fossils so undeservedly mocked by Batchelor), geologists were able to put a much finer point on their knowledge of geological history. The understanding of biological history of course benefited as well in a time a full generation before Darwin and Wallace would put forth their independently conceived Theory of Evolution (ToE).
But enough with history for now, let's get on with some basic geological principles of stratigraphy.
I've put together a short (as possible) video. It's not possible to squeeze a freshman geology course into a 30 minute video (if they could, they would), but it's also not possible to understand geology based dating systems without putting in a bit of time and learning effort. If you want to understand how reliable the radiometric dating systems are (we will deal with them in a later installment), you have to start with the basics of geology — there's just no shortcut.
I've included some images that came from Google image searches using terms such as road cut geology etc. (you can find many more interesting images through your own searches). I also included a few diagrams and animations from a Mr. Sammartano, a science teacher at Hommocks Middle School in Larchmont, New York. This guy does some great public domain work on science topics all around (look him up on the web).
If you slogged through that, congrats. In order to squeeze that much material into such a short video, compromises and generalizations were made — but I did my best to note when they occurred. When we get to the validity of radiometric dating we will be coming back to these simple relative dating methods to test how well the other methods work.
Questions, and comments are welcome and if I don't have an answer straight up I know where to get it for you.
While SO may people contributed and continue to contribute to my knowledge regarding the basics of geology, I want to especially thank Dr. Adequate and Edge for their patience and sharing. The online ebook from Dr. Adequate was a particularly valuable resource.
The interesting thing I'm encountering with my intended audience (family and friends at the moment), is that my credibility skyrockets with them every time I spend the time to research and debunk the lies. The more blatant the lie, the more they keep thinking "hmmm ... perhaps we've been bamboozled".
Here was my latest, (though it's all stuff that you guys have seen forever so I'm not trying to claim originality)
Hovind slide: (their guy Batchelor steals from Hovind a lot)
I had to dig for the original article (and then reformat the totally screwed up txt formatting), but as I expected from the date of the article, there was not the word "radio" nor "carbon" in the entire article, let alone "radiocarbon". The article was published 3 months BEFORE Libby published his first results (curve of the knowns) and so of course it had to not be true.
When I show them that Hovind and Batchelor just make shit up, it helps my case a LOT.
Had this exact conversation with one of them just a few days ago. Scott (brother in law) is of course very worried at the impact I'm having on the family and he was saying "Well, the difference is that you believe 'your guy' and I believe mine". Of course I responded with "I don't believe ANY ONE GUY on matters of importance"
It's hard for them to fathom that we don't make decisions the same way they do.
™ Version 4.2
