Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(3)
Message 931 of 1053 (768857)
09-14-2015 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 929 by Faith
09-14-2015 1:02 PM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, that's wrong
So how do you explain the layering of the diatomite and tuff? The layers look like all the other layers which were deposited from water.
There are two distinct types of alternating layers (I'm not going to say 'sediments' even though the environment is sedimentary and I could do that. I'd like to keep the distinction between sedimentary and volcanic deposition if possible, even though they overlap).
Based on past experience, I'd say it was playa lake without a lot of clastic (sand, etc.) input, but a constant rain of diatom tests and intermittent volcanic eruptions.
Disclaimer: I am not on site nor familiar with this location. Just going by what's been said here.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 929 by Faith, posted 09-14-2015 1:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 932 of 1053 (768865)
09-14-2015 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 929 by Faith
09-14-2015 1:02 PM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, that's wrong
So how do you explain the layering of the diatomite and tuff? The layers look like all the other layers which were deposited from water.
I should say that the diatomite was caused by the deposition of diatoms and the volcanic tuff was caused by the eruption of a volcano. Are we in agreement so far? And I would say that the reason for the alternation between the two is that the two causes alternated.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 929 by Faith, posted 09-14-2015 1:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 933 by Faith, posted 09-14-2015 3:44 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 933 of 1053 (768866)
09-14-2015 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 932 by Dr Adequate
09-14-2015 3:42 PM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, that's wrong
You do not explain the even layering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 932 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-14-2015 3:42 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 934 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-14-2015 3:53 PM Faith has replied
 Message 938 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-14-2015 5:49 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 934 of 1053 (768869)
09-14-2015 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 933 by Faith
09-14-2015 3:44 PM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, that's wrong
Faith writes:
You do not explain the even layering.
You call this even layering? If so, I have to wonder what you would call uneven layering?

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 933 by Faith, posted 09-14-2015 3:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 935 by Faith, posted 09-14-2015 4:01 PM Tanypteryx has replied
 Message 940 by edge, posted 09-18-2015 10:05 AM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 935 of 1053 (768873)
09-14-2015 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 934 by Tanypteryx
09-14-2015 3:53 PM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, that's wrong
Yes, it's been tectonically jostled but the layers were clearly originally laid down flat and of a pretty even thickness. Much like any other tectonically jostled series of sedimentary layers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 934 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-14-2015 3:53 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 936 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-14-2015 4:24 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 937 by Admin, posted 09-14-2015 4:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 936 of 1053 (768879)
09-14-2015 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 935 by Faith
09-14-2015 4:01 PM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, that's wrong
Faith writes:
Yes, it's been tectonically jostled but the layers were clearly originally laid down flat and of a pretty even thickness.
I don't know what kind of clues you see in the photo that tells you they were clearly originally laid down flat.
I guess you mean equal thickness when you say even thickness. They do not look equal in thickness to me, but if they were, why is that significant?
Is there some principle of geology that they should or should not be of equal thickness?
I'm curious, how many layers do you see in the photo?

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 935 by Faith, posted 09-14-2015 4:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 937 of 1053 (768883)
09-14-2015 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 935 by Faith
09-14-2015 4:01 PM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, that's wrong
Faith writes:
Yes, it's been tectonically jostled but the layers were clearly originally laid down flat and of a pretty even thickness.
Your view that layers are always laid down flat was proven wrong in the Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it thread. Please drop this line of argument.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 935 by Faith, posted 09-14-2015 4:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 938 of 1053 (768888)
09-14-2015 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 933 by Faith
09-14-2015 3:44 PM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, that's wrong
You do not explain the even layering.
I said : "The diatomite was caused by the deposition of diatoms and the volcanic tuff was caused by the eruption of a volcano."
What did you expect it to look like? How does it fall short of your expectations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 933 by Faith, posted 09-14-2015 3:44 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 942 by edge, posted 09-18-2015 10:36 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2373 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 939 of 1053 (769243)
09-18-2015 9:59 AM


Dating lab returns
I apologize in advance for this question because i know I've seen it answered multiple times on this forum but I just can't think of a search term that would return what I need.
Let's suppose the viable dating range of a given RID method is 1 million years to 1 billion years.
Let's suppose I send in a rock #1 that is a half a million years old.
Let's suppose I also send in a rock #2 that is 2 billion years old.
My recollection is that the lab will NOT send you a results saying that the first rock is 1 million years old (even though that may be what their equipment returned) but rather a return saying something like "Less than a million"? Same with the other rock ... "More than a billion".
Would it be something like
Rock 1: =< 1,000,000
Rock 2: => 1,000,000,000
Is there some additional language a lab would put with this to note that the date range is outside the normal range return of their equipment/method.
Thanks so much.
JB

Replies to this message:
 Message 941 by edge, posted 09-18-2015 10:20 AM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 940 of 1053 (769245)
09-18-2015 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 934 by Tanypteryx
09-14-2015 3:53 PM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, that's wrong
You call this even layering?
I might generalize them as 'thinly bedded', but then, I'm not sure what Faith means by 'even layering'.
You will notice that she never does answer your question.
I wonder what she thinks of varves.
If so, I have to wonder what you would call uneven layering?
Again, not answered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 934 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-14-2015 3:53 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 943 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-18-2015 2:01 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 941 of 1053 (769246)
09-18-2015 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 939 by ThinAirDesigns
09-18-2015 9:59 AM


Re: Dating lab returns
I apologize in advance for this question because i know I've seen it answered multiple times on this forum but I just can't think of a search term that would return what I need.
Let's suppose the viable dating range of a given RID method is 1 million years to 1 billion years.
Let's suppose I send in a rock #1 that is a half a million years old.
Let's suppose I also send in a rock #2 that is 2 billion years old.
My recollection is that the lab will NOT send you a results saying that the first rock is 1 million years old (even though that may be what their equipment returned) but rather a return saying something like "Less than a million"? Same with the other rock ... "More than a billion".
Would it be something like
Rock 1: =< 1,000,000
Rock 2: => 1,000,000,000
Is there some additional language a lab would put with this to note that the date range is outside the normal range return of their equipment/method.
Thanks so much.
If the lab knows nothing about the rock, they cannot tell if the sample is beyond the useful range or not by radiomtric analysis. All they can tell is that it is near the upper or lower detection limit.
Personally, I've never had this happen, so I can't say, but this is one of the flags for an inappropriate application of technique.
I'm thinking that you'd end up with erratic results due to measurement of very small quantities of parent and daughter isotopes. Then you get into the statistics of very small numbers and the effects of background quantities.
I'm also guessing that the result will be reported with a larger than usual error estimate. Someone here else might have more experience with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 939 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 09-18-2015 9:59 AM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 942 of 1053 (769247)
09-18-2015 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 938 by Dr Adequate
09-14-2015 5:49 PM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, that's wrong
I said : "The diatomite was caused by the deposition of diatoms and the volcanic tuff was caused by the eruption of a volcano."
What did you expect it to look like? How does it fall short of your expectations?
I doubt that you will get an answer here. Faith is simply trying to ask questions until she finds one that you can't answer (or give up due to boredom).
By the way, for those who dig a little more deeply into sources, one of the sources for this picture misidentifies the material being imaged. It says:
"Diatomite and volcanic tufa layers.jpg"
The actual material is 'tuff' which has nothing to do with 'tufa'. Be careful of geological jargon...
Category - Wikimedia Commonsiatomite?uselang=itWikimedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 938 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-14-2015 5:49 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(2)
Message 943 of 1053 (769264)
09-18-2015 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 940 by edge
09-18-2015 10:05 AM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, that's wrong
You will notice that she never does answer your question.
Looking back over the past couple of years we get a lot of that from Faith. She makes an initial comment that really does not make sense and never clarifies or explains what she meant, when asked.
Now that Percy has ruled that she cannot use arguments that were refuted in past threads, I guess we will not be hearing much from her in geology or biology/evolution discussions.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 940 by edge, posted 09-18-2015 10:05 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 944 by Admin, posted 09-18-2015 2:32 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 944 of 1053 (769268)
09-18-2015 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 943 by Tanypteryx
09-18-2015 2:01 PM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, that's wrong
Tanypteryx writes:
Now that Percy has ruled that she cannot use arguments that were refuted in past threads, I guess we will not be hearing much from her in geology or biology/evolution discussions.
There's a couple specific things I'll be trying to guide discussion away from. I have nothing against already refuted arguments since there's really no such thing as a final refutation and many arguments can be approached from endless angles. I'm only trying to discourage ridiculous already refuted arguments, such as that sedimentary layers always deposit horizontally regardless of the slope of the surface they're deposited upon.
Looking back over the past couple of years we get a lot of that from Faith. She makes an initial comment that really does not make sense and never clarifies or explains what she meant, when asked.
I'll also be requesting that unclear arguments be abandoned or made clear.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 943 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-18-2015 2:01 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 945 by Faith, posted 09-18-2015 3:59 PM Admin has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 945 of 1053 (769277)
09-18-2015 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 944 by Admin
09-18-2015 2:32 PM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, that's wrong
I'm only trying to discourage ridiculous already refuted arguments, such as that sedimentary layers always deposit horizontally regardless of the slope of the surface they're deposited upon.
Since this has become a rule, I will not be back. It was proved that a layer can be deposited on a slope, at least in a small tank, but there is no way the strata of the Geologic Column anywhere deposited except horizontally, according to Steno's Law, and I will not be forced to deny this by that little experiment.
Thank you and good bye.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 944 by Admin, posted 09-18-2015 2:32 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 946 by Admin, posted 09-19-2015 7:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024