|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You do not explain the even layering.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2402 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
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: =< 1,000,000Rock 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
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.
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.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: =< 1,000,000Rock 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I said : "The diatomite was caused by the deposition of diatoms and the volcanic tuff was caused by the eruption of a volcano."
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). What did you expect it to look like? How does it fall short of your expectations? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024