|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0
|
So when a shale layer is great in extent it implies an underlying wide continental shelf, such as the one off our east coast? Remember this wonderful diagram you posted here:
Now consider that the upper-left to lower-right dimension may be (say) 1000 miles, while the vertical dimension might be (say) 1000 feet. You're getting substantial areas of sands, muds, and carbonates - But at any time, the depositional areas of each are considerably smaller. The sands at the lower-right were deposited much (maybe many millions of years) earlier than the sands of the uppper-left. Note the difference between the chronostratigraphic correlation and the lithostratigraphic correlation in the rock columns at the lower-left. Having a huge area of sandstone does not necessarily mean that you had a huge simultaneous area of sand deposition. On the other hand, you might have a huge area of sand that indeed was a huge simultaneous area of aeolian sand deposition, as discussed by roxrkool here. And remember, the above is a diagram that approximates reality. Beware of taking it too literally. Moose
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi Moose,
That's a good diagram to return to. What I was originally wondering when I replied to Edge was how a shale layer of great extent could result from transgressing/regressing seas. I was imagining that that would produce a shale layer pattern like this (showing just the shale layer):
‾ — _ ‾ — _ ‾ — _ — _ _ — ‾ _ — ‾ _ — ‾ — ‾ ‾ — _ ‾ — _ ‾ — _ — _ _ — ‾ _ — ‾ _ — ‾ _ — ‾ But Edge pointed out that shale deposits can occur hundreds of miles from shore so that not only do you get the pattern above, you also get a thick shale layer of great extent, as shown in this diagram with the tongues of shale and sandstone intertwined at the left margin of the Marcos Shale:
Edited by Admin, : Make image larger.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Answering this "chicken or the egg" questions is virtually impossible to answer when it comes to creationist claims. So many of them spread like urban legends and get picked up by creationist writers and speakers, most of whom do not disclose their actual creationist sources but rather claim an original scientific source, one which they have themselves never even tried to find and read themselves (definitely what happened with the moon dust claim; see my MOON DUST page). The leap-second claim is the only exception I know of, since its origin was so recent and creationist sources were cited.
For example, Batchelor is cited as claiming mis-dating of live seals and living molluscs. The very first creationist claim I ever heard was in 1970 and that was the mis-dating of living molluscs. It wasn't until the 1980's when I finally found a citation for the source, the reading of which refuted the claim. The second claim I ever heard was at the same time: a NASA computer found Joshua's "Lost Day" -- that one claimed to have been from around 1965, but it actually dates back to the 1880's. I was suspicious of the first claim and recognized the second one as completely bogus, so I rejected creationism on the spot, 45 years ago.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2401 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
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. JB
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
An issue you must address is that the audience has been trained to believe SOURCE over CONTENT. Things are true because ...
God saidPaul said Pastor said father said Brother said Changing that process does not happen quickly or without pain.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2401 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
YES!!
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. Yes, slow and painful JB Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2401 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
So, in the continuing saga of tracking down my families favorite Evangelist's (Doug Batchelor) YEC sources, I've reached another dead end and hope you folk aren't tired of my requests for help. Batchelor quotes (or claims to quote) from the 1981 article "Radiocarbon: Ages in error" by Robert Lee in the Anthropological Journal of Canada.
Here is the supposed quote (used by Hovind as well):
quote: A few month ago (and for other but similar reasons), Coyote kindly sent me a copy of the Lee article so when I saw the quote I of course went straight to the source material. Turns out the quote exists in the article (sort of). Here is an image of the header from the article, placed directly over the quote in question followed by the relevant "References" section.
So as you can see, there is an extra set of quotes in there that have been left out by Hovind and Batchelor. These quote denote the words of "Robert Stuckenrath" from 1977. His quote goes:
quote: So of course I went looking for this quote from Stuckenrath. Low and behold (but as already know here likely), Stuckenrath was the Director of the radiocarbon lab for the Smithsonian and widely considered to be a proponent of high quality radiocarbon work. This makes me think that the context of that quote might somehow be much different than the context it is being used (surprise!). Once again here I am -- when I try to find the article (Radiocarbon: Some notes from Merlin's Diary), I'm at a dead end (or at paywall). Anyone have better searching skills than I do or have one laying around? So appreciated. JB
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I found a paywalled copy, but you can read the first page here
However, even ignoring the suspicious lack of any substantive criticism in the quote, the fact that the article is nearly 40 years old makes it of very questionable relevance. Edited by PaulK, : fixed URL tag
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I found a copy, but it's blurry as all get out: Radiocarbon: Some notes from Merlin's Diary. Here's my best take on it:
Stuckenrath writes: But it is ?? to the same degree in the same ?? to another ?? where the sample appears, as from which laboratory. Your 5,000-year date is just as valid as a ??, and just as ??. They map all the cells by 300 years... After that I couldn't make anything out, but it doesn't look like your quote. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2401 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Yeah, I found that one as well but thanks for the efforts. That's a paywall that intentionally blurs everything but the first page. I'm some distance from a public library so I'll try that next and then I'll pay the money if I have to.
Thanks again. JB
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Ask and ye shall receive.
It's obvious that the guy has a sense of humor, and it's also obvious that he's discussing the need for better 14C calibration, which was still in its infancy at that time, and he's not talking about the validity of the overall method.
quote: If I had an email address for you I could send you the whole thing. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
But Edge pointed out that shale deposits can occur hundreds of miles from shore so that not only do you get the pattern above, you also get a thick shale layer of great extent, as shown in this diagram with the tongues of shale and sandstone intertwined at the left margin of the Marcos Shale:
The jagged edges of the shale environment in the schematic cross section can represent two things: -- transgression-regression-- a transitional boundary too detailed to show on the diagram In this case the major departures are certainly related to transgression and regression of the basin. In fact, you can see that one of the major transgressions resulted in the Fort Hayes Limestone out in the middle of the basin. But yes, the thicker shale systems are long-lived and more stable than, say, the cyclical transgressions that gave us the Carboniferous coal sequences on the east coast.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2401 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
And that is both exactly what I was looking for AND the exact context I was expecting.
Thanks a TON. PM sent with email address. JB
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2401 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Hello again.
I'm again up against paywalls for two old (1963-4) papers related to carbon dating mollusks. The two papers are both Keith and Anderson: "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells"and "Radiocarbon Dating of Mollusk Shells: A Reply" If anyone has these and is willing to share it's appreciated. I'll try public library next otherwise. Thanks againJB
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Hello again. I'm again up against paywalls for two old (1963-4) papers related to carbon dating mollusks. The two papers are both Keith and Anderson: "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells"and "Radiocarbon Dating of Mollusk Shells: A Reply" If anyone has these and is willing to share it's appreciated. I'll try public library next otherwise. Thanks againJB Sorry, but I don't have easy access to these, either. If you want or need other references on mollusk shell dating, you might look at papers by Glenn Goodfriend. He's an interesting character who has specialized in the radiocarbon dating of terrestrial snail shells. Here's one of his papers: Radiocarbon"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024