Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9101 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Upcoming Birthdays: AlexCaledin
Post Volume: Total: 904,087 Year: 968/14,231 Month: 968/1,514 Week: 1/234 Day: 1/36 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 470 of 1053 (752275)
03-09-2015 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 461 by ThinAirDesigns
03-09-2015 2:11 PM


Core question: In a general world wide sense, are plants
A: a net user of C02?
B: a net producer of C02?
C: just a reservoir?
I think this image from the Wikipedia site on the Carbon Cycle does a good job of answering that question.
You can see that plants take in 120 billion tons annually (bta) and respirate 60 bta for a net intake of 60 bta, so in that way they are net consumers. However, much of that fixed carbon is eaten by animals or decays through seasonal cycles or sequestered in the soil as root mass (which also becomes food for microorganisms). Microbial respiration and decomposition releases 60bta making the net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by plants pretty much null. There is a net terrestrial uptake of 3bta, which is rather small, but over 1,000s of years it would add up quite significantly.
The number in parenthesis is the estimated carbon sequestered in each carbon sink. Plant biomass is really not very large compared to other carbon sinks - the ocean (in total) contains 80 times the amount of carbon as plant biomass does.
So there should be some more choices to the multiple choice
D: All of the above
E: None of the above
F: D & E
The correct answer is F
If your core question hasn't been answered in a way that allows you to address the issue you are trying to get at, try being a bit more specific and I will try to answer in more detail.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-09-2015 2:11 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 546 of 1053 (753015)
03-15-2015 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 545 by ThinAirDesigns
03-15-2015 7:59 PM


Re: Earth surface area vs unconformities
Perhaps I'm using the term "unconformities" incorrectly in the following question, but as I have just learned the term, please bear with me.
Yea, you're using it wrong
An Unconformity is an erosional surface (it could also simply be a non-depositional period) between two units of significantly different ages. It can be thought of as "missing time."
I think what you are referring to is a Thrust Fault where older rocks are fractured and pushed onto younger rocks. This is often misrepresented by only mentioning the two strata in contact and making the claim that the supposed older rock is above the younger rock. What they fail to mention is that the layers in each block are in the proper order, it is just that older set is on top of the younger. The Lewis Overthrust is one of the more famous of these.
As to how much of the earth's surface is affected by these types of fault's... I could't venture a guess. They are not uncommon in mountain ranges because of the incredible forces involved in plate collisions. However, I don't think there are many places where the order of the strata is really out of place. But, I don't have a good number for you though.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-15-2015 7:59 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 547 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-15-2015 9:29 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 548 of 1053 (753030)
03-15-2015 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 547 by ThinAirDesigns
03-15-2015 9:29 PM


Re: Earth surface area vs unconformities
I'm trying to figure out the sort of oddity this is so I don't get myself into trouble talking about how consistent the layers actually are.
I would say the layers are very consistently ordered. The few examples of strange anomalies such as the Lewis Overthrust are just simply misrepresented by creationists. For example here is a creationist depiction of the Lewis Overthrust:
Notice how they leave out all the layers above and below the thrust fault? I don't know of any good examples of true out-of-order stratographic layers.
One way you could approach this is by talking about index fossils. A common Creationist misconception is that the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks which is circular reasoning. But again, they fail to understand the significance of index fossils and the problem it presents for a global flood and a recent creation.
Index fossils provide a relative date not an absolute date. So a particular fossil species can be related to a particular time period. Some are so constrained in time (appearing for only brief geological times) they can be assigned to very specific time periods. So whether the whole fossil series represents billions of years or 6,000 years, the relative ages would be consistent. Here is a chart of some common index fossils from the USGS
Pecten gibbus will always be found higher in the column than Scaphites hippocrepis and so on. Faunal succession is so consistent, so reliable. How could a flood sort like that?
Here is a game to see how to use indx fossils. It's kinda simple but it gives a good idea of the process. Notice that nothing is said about absolute ages, only the relative ages of the different deposits.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 547 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-15-2015 9:29 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 549 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-16-2015 11:11 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 797 of 1053 (760878)
06-26-2015 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 791 by Faith
06-26-2015 11:12 AM


Re: Ah yes, Rationalization is a Wonderful Scientific Tool
And then those dinosaurs that roamed around on top of the previous slab of rock/ time period, ate what? Something gigantic with deep roots wouldn't you suppose: Deep enough to reach down into, say, the Permian or even deeper than that? Funny we don't find tree roots in those layers though.
I'm just trying to understand how all those time periods supposedly with the same kind iof topography we have today, got compressed into neat flat packages of rock of particular kinds of sediment, and where the stuff needed to form the next landscape with similar topography could come from.
THIS is why you don't have time to continue our discussion of population genetics??? Oh brother
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 791 by Faith, posted 06-26-2015 11:12 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 798 by Faith, posted 06-26-2015 11:30 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 800 of 1053 (760882)
06-26-2015 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 795 by Faith
06-26-2015 11:21 AM


Re: Ah yes, Rationalization is a Wonderful Scientific Tool
The underground canyon needs a special mechanism? How about the same kind of mechanism that carved the Grand Canyon, you know, rushing water that in this case ran between the layers? Rushing water washed away a mile's depth of sediment over the Grand Canyon, scouring its rim down to the Permian. Why should there be a problem with water doing something similar underground, dislodging sediments and\ carving out underground spaces, that even get filled in by more sediment-laden water?
Didn't I show you maps of underground cave systems contrasted with sub-aerial erosional channels? There really is no comparison between the two - except they are both carved by water.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 795 by Faith, posted 06-26-2015 11:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 801 by edge, posted 06-26-2015 11:35 AM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 802 by Faith, posted 06-26-2015 11:36 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023