Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 920 of 1053 (768778)
09-13-2015 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 919 by NoNukes
09-13-2015 10:11 PM


Re: Moderator Provided Information
Yes, of course, there's also supersaturation - salt deposits, for example. But they're not sedimentary. If you think it's relevant to what Faith was trying to say then go ahead and work it into the discussion, but from context it seemed to me that Faith was using the wrong term. What she said was, "...both must have precipitated out of water as all the other sediments did," and the vast majority of sediments in the geological record are not precipitates but just erosion products washed and blown down from higher elevations.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 919 by NoNukes, posted 09-13-2015 10:11 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 921 by petrophysics1, posted 09-14-2015 8:13 AM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 923 of 1053 (768823)
09-14-2015 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 921 by petrophysics1
09-14-2015 8:13 AM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, that's wrong
petrophysics1 writes:
A precipitate is a sediment and as such it is sedimentary.
Yes, of course, but the point I was making to Faith is that the sedimentary layers we're usually discussing (e.g., Grand Canyon layers) did not originate as precipitates, and so did not precipitate out of solution as Faith describes. Layers like the Tapeats and the Muav and the Coconino and so forth are the ones usually being discussed. Can the sediments making up those layers be accurately described as precipitates? I don't think so, and so when Faith in her Message 914 postulated that diatomite and volcanic tuff layers "precipitated out of water as all the other sediments did," I provided correct information. Those layers were not formed (for the most part) from material precipitating out of solution and falling as sediments to the bottom. They were formed (for the most part) by suspended material falling out of suspension.
I appreciate the additional detail, and I understand the desire for accuracy and precision, but the approach I'm trying to take is to coax the other side out of the crawling stage of understanding before asking them to walk or run. I understand there will be other opinions about the best approach, but that's the one I've chosen.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 921 by petrophysics1, posted 09-14-2015 8:13 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 924 by Faith, posted 09-14-2015 10:58 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 930 of 1053 (768855)
09-14-2015 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 928 by NoNukes
09-14-2015 12:24 PM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, that's wrong
The interest in accuracy and precision is laudable but isn't contributing to the discussion and may easily be causing confusion. My comments were made in the context of the discussion, where Dr Adequate asked Faith her reaction to an image that included diatomite and volcanic tuff layers:
In her reply Faith said that "both must have precipitated out of water as all the other sediments did." That is incorrect. It is untrue that all other sediments precipitated out of water. In fact, almost the opposite is true. The vast majority of sedimentary deposits around the world are not precipitates but ordinary sediments. I was only communicating this information to Faith.
If my manner of expression lacked accuracy or precision in the eyes of some, then please while correcting me at least keep one eye on the topic and put the corrective information in context.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 928 by NoNukes, posted 09-14-2015 12:24 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
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

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
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

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 946 of 1053 (769305)
09-19-2015 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 945 by Faith
09-18-2015 3:59 PM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, that's wrong
As I said when you made the same threat to leave in the Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. thread earlier this week, you use this as a debate tactic to bring discussion to a halt when something doesn't go your way, so if you do leave this thread then I will be holding you to it.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 945 by Faith, posted 09-18-2015 3:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 964 of 1053 (772515)
11-15-2015 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 961 by ThinAirDesigns
11-15-2015 6:58 AM


Re: Hugh Miller Debate
ThinAirDesigns writes:
The time isn't set up yet (I asked for a few days to get my stuff together). Anyone else interested in watching or engaging is invited to do so.
Yes, but my time availability is spotty. Will this be available as a link so I can see the recap any time? Is this a text debate? Audio? Video? If audio or video, is this something you're any good at? In a technical discussion, can you choose your words at the rate you talk, or only at the rate you type? Do you make good tactical choices on the fly?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 961 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 11-15-2015 6:58 AM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 965 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 11-15-2015 9:56 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1010 of 1053 (782361)
04-22-2016 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1008 by Faith
04-22-2016 12:30 PM


Re: The geological range of the tapeats / redwall
Hi Faith,
Please support your assertions of "strangeness" and of "neat and tidy layers" and of how "they are a lot more neat and tidy than they should be" with specific descriptions and evidence. What you've provided so far is much too vague.
Please, no replies to this message.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1008 by Faith, posted 04-22-2016 12:30 PM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1015 of 1053 (782377)
04-22-2016 1:58 PM


Moderator Notice
About the last couple posts, that's enough of the off-topic comments. This is how the beginning of a spiraling out of control keeps happening in threads in which Faith participates. Everyone, please stop baiting people, and when baited please don't take it.
Please, no replies to this message.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024