Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 1173 of 1257 (791545)
09-16-2016 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1172 by Faith
09-16-2016 12:55 PM


Re: The Great Martian Flood
Faith writes:
First I wouldn't say that "floods," plural, lay down flat strata, just THE worldwide Flood of Noah.
If these strata do not require a worldwide flood, then they aren't evidence for a worldwide flood, contrary to your claims.
I didn't see Glowby's post until now. Answer is Yes I think I could easily distinguish the strata of Mars from yhose of Earth, given a good selection of examples.
The main differences seem to be that the Martian strata seem to be all of one size and shape, and all of one sediment, not extensive thick layers such as we see on Earth, of different sediments.
Where is your evidence for this claim?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1172 by Faith, posted 09-16-2016 12:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1174 by Faith, posted 09-16-2016 2:53 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 1175 of 1257 (791551)
09-16-2016 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1174 by Faith
09-16-2016 2:53 PM


Re: The Great Martian Flood
The evidence is in the posted pictures. I described how they look to me. If you disagree I'm not going to argue with you.
The posted pictures hardly cover 100 yards of view. How did you deduce from those photos that there all the sedimentary rocks on Mars are the same? How did you deduce that there are no thick sedimentary layers on Mars from those pictures? Look at this picture:
That looks pretty darn thick to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1174 by Faith, posted 09-16-2016 2:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1176 by Faith, posted 09-16-2016 3:06 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 1177 of 1257 (791554)
09-16-2016 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1176 by Faith
09-16-2016 3:06 PM


Re: The Great Martian Flood
Faith writes:
You must not be talking about the strata in that pictur3e, which are almost completely buried in eroded sediment: They look like all the strata in those Martian pictures, all the same thickness, and not very thick.
We already know that there are basalt and ash layers, so that falsifies your claims right away.
Second, those hills are hundreds of feet high. How is that not thick?
You said something in the other post I forgot to answer about it being worldwide? Didn't I say I thought the Martian flood may also have been worldwide? Or am I not getting what you meant?
We have sediments being formed over vast areas right now, right here on Earth. For example, there are vast limestone deposits being formed in the Caribbean right now. No global flood. How do you explain that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1176 by Faith, posted 09-16-2016 3:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1178 by Faith, posted 09-16-2016 6:39 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 1204 of 1257 (791735)
09-20-2016 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1201 by Admin
09-20-2016 12:32 PM


Re: One date
If most of the daughter element dissipates, won't samples date much older than they should?
Shouldn't they date much younger than they actually are? Daughter isotopes build up over time. If they dissipate, then this would result in an underestimate of age.
And even if that problem were solved, if decay rates were greater in the past, won't samples again date much older than they should? And isn't it impossible to know past decay rates?
As mentioned above, we have direct observations of past decay rates in cosmological events. The decay rates are governed by the fundamental nuclear forces (weak and strong). Changes in these fundamental forces would have far ranging consequences, including fusion rates in stars, power output from stars, changes in the ratio of ring radii within uranium radiohalos, changes in the ratio of products in naturally occurring nuclear reactors (e.g. Oklo), differences in dates using different types of decay and different isotope pairs, and a whole host of other easily observable and testable consequences.
As it is, we can find thousands and thousands of observations supporting constant decay rates in the past. For example, we can consistently get the same date for the same geologic feature using K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dating, even though all three use different types of decay mechanisms. Such a thing wouldn't be possible if decay rates were different in the past because they would alter rates different for different types of decay and isotopes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1201 by Admin, posted 09-20-2016 12:32 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1205 by Pollux, posted 09-20-2016 7:18 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 1217 of 1257 (791767)
09-21-2016 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1209 by Pressie
09-21-2016 5:26 AM


Re: One date
Pressie writes:
You should also add that we have evidence for the assumptions used.
Unlike what happens in Creationism, those assumptions in science are not wild guesses being pulled out of some random anus.
Or to put it another way, the types of assumptions used in radiometric dating are on par with the assumptions we use to weigh salt on a balance, measure the speed of wind with an anemometer, or measure the absorbance of a solution using a spectrophotometer. All measurements in science use assumptions, even the ones that creationists use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1209 by Pressie, posted 09-21-2016 5:26 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 1228 of 1257 (791907)
09-26-2016 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1226 by Admin
09-23-2016 9:25 AM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
Admin writes:
How do you get the ages of all these things? By "age of your oil source" I assume you mean the age of the original material from which the oil was cooked - how do you get that age? How do you determine "the timing of oil formation," by which I assume you mean when the original material was cooked into oil? How do you determine "the timing of migration"? And how do you determine "the age of the trap", and does that mean the age of the material forming the trap, or when the oil itself was trapped?
I am far from an expert, but from what I can tell you need to look for when marine deposits would form. For North America and regions like Texas, that would be the Cretaceous and also in the Paleogene. During these time periods there was an inland sea running north and south that split North America. This is when you would see deposition of photosynthesizers and other marine microorganisms that serve as a source for oil.
Western Interior Seaway - Wikipedia
Of course, these deposits would take time to bury, and then cook. However, what intrigues me as a non-expert is the geologic history that produces the organic material to start with.
I would also suspect that the Persian Gulf was once covered in an inland sea.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1226 by Admin, posted 09-23-2016 9:25 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1230 by edge, posted 09-26-2016 4:27 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 1232 of 1257 (791912)
09-26-2016 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1230 by edge
09-26-2016 4:27 PM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
edge writes:
This is an interesting question. Here is an article that determines the Gulf of Mexico oil to be derived from specific Jurassic, Cretaceous and Eocene source beds.
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/...ts/hood/images/hood.pdf
The source rocks are mostly organic rich sediments, some very organic carbonates, and are associated with what they call 'second order transgressions' of the Mesozoic seas.
There are some interesting diagrams in this article.
Looking back at the picture of the Cretaceous inland sea, it also maps to the other oil rich regions in North America. The sea covered the Alberta oil sands, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Where are they finding oil? Exactly in those places.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1230 by edge, posted 09-26-2016 4:27 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1233 by jar, posted 09-26-2016 5:53 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 1234 by edge, posted 09-26-2016 6:36 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 1237 of 1257 (792008)
09-30-2016 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1236 by vimesey
09-30-2016 8:30 AM


vimesey writes:
Didn't we already refer to this as "the industrial age" ?
Mind you, you need a bit of ancient Greek to make it more sciencey :-)
Many have argued that the Antropocene should start with the Stone Age, which would include the extinction of megafauna at the beginning of the current interglacial cycle.
But you are right, scientists are fond of the Latin/Greek traditions within biology and geology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1236 by vimesey, posted 09-30-2016 8:30 AM vimesey 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