|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9079 total) |
| |
Test Moose | |
Total: 895,221 Year: 6,333/6,534 Month: 526/650 Week: 64/232 Day: 3/38 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1025 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Just in case anyone is interested, here is a spectacular photo of tar 'volcano' on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico:
https://ww2.kqed.org/...olcanic-tar-lilies-in-gulf-of-mexico This is a case where hydrocarbons are flowing (migrating) without encountering a trap. Where oil vents to the bottom of the sea, we can actually find natural oil slicks floating on the surface of the water.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 8525 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33957 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 2.0 |
And if you look at other maps from the same periods you find fast marshes extending up through Oklahoma to Pennsylvania.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1025 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Actually, there are two major hydrocarbon eras. Most of the western coal regions are in the late Cretaceous to Eocene. Evidently some of the oil actually sourced in older rocks (Jurassic and even Triassic) as the previous posts showed. The Appalachian basins formed during the earlier era. The coal occurs mostly in the Carboniferous. However, it appears that oil might source from earlier rocks in the Devonian (such as the Marcellus Shale). It is interesting that with modern drilling and fracking methods we are actually starting to produce oil from what look to be source rocks. The point is that while they are the source of oil, the oil cannot freely migrate because the permeability of shale formations (such as the Marcellus) is simply too low to allow all of the hydrocarbons to migrate; that is, until we came along. Thanks for the interesting discussion. Here is some information on the Appalachian oil fields currently occurring in the Marcellus (and other) shales. http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/...ents/document/dcnr_007593.pdf
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2102 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
The Geological Timescale is starting to grow again to include the Anthropocene as proposed at the latest International Geological Congress. No "stacks of rock" involved.
Linky at http://phys.org/news/2016-08-anthropocene-scientists.html Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member Posts: 1331 From: Birmingham, England Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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 :-) Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 8525 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2102 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Another word for creationists to find their "alternative" meanings for and pretend that their meanings are "scientific"!
My bet is that creationists will pretend that the Anthropocene epoch is supposed to be another "stack of rocks" stacked one upon another from oldest to youngest, all over the surface of the world...then they will pretend that their straw-man is what geologists mean when they talk about the Anthropocene. I'm a Prophet!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member Posts: 1331 From: Birmingham, England Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Very true :-)
I will admit to being a little irked by this sort of thing though. If scientists say that the industrial age has seen some unusual impacts on various eco and environmental systems, I can draw some inferences from that, and as an intelligent non-scientist, ask questions about pollution, deforestation etc. If scientists say that about the Anthropocene, however, I need to go look it up, before I can engage with the science. I'm not being completely excluded from the conversation, I grant you - but barriers to understanding are being erected (and that's fertile territory for the snake oil salesmen you refer to). Science isn't going to win many hearts and minds, if it behaves like a closed shop. Edited by vimesey, : Typo Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 3437 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
I think it makes a bit of sense to note that human activities are affecting the whole planet and to mark it at the point when it will show up in the geological record in the future.
The radionuclides and daughters will appear in the sediments that have been deposited since we started detonating thermonuclear devices. Plastics are being deposited in sediments around the globe. I have thought that an hypothetical intelligent species millions of years from now might suspect that some sort of plastic asteroid struck the earth during this period and caused a major extinction event. Human also have refined vast amounts of metals that may survive without oxidation or corrosion for many millions of years. Zirconium, titanium, hafnium, niobium, tantalum are just a few of these metals that can only be dissolved in certain acids and can only be oxidized by burning at high temperatures. There will also be an odd bio-geographical redistribution of species around the globe, that will not fit the patterns we have seen in the past that are explained by plate tectonics. 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
So, perhaps we're in the Early Plasticine era... Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2102 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
To me the way for science to win hearts and minds has been to demonstrate results. In America atomic theory only won the hearts and minds of the populace after a bad bomb or two dropped somewhere else. Same with climate change now. The hearts and minds of the general populace would only be won after a huge, big disaster flattening Manhattan or London or wherever. I mean, a quarter of Americans still don't even care much about the reasons they experience seasons...there's no way for science to win their hearts and minds anyway. Doesn't matter what's done by scientists to win their hearts and minds.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33957 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 2.0
|
Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Benjamin: Yes, sir. Mr. McGuire: Are you listening? Benjamin: Yes, I am. Mr. McGuire: Plastics.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2102 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
No, stacks of rocks made from plastics. All deposited during a magic fluddie!
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5198 Joined: Member Rating: 3.0
|
Science isn't in the business of winning hearts and minds. It is in the business of discovering and understanding how the universe works. Part of that business is communicating with other scientists using clear and concise language, which outsiders call "jargon". Using "non-jargon" in those communications would result in confusion -- witness Faith's wasting and causing the waste of several thousands of messages resulting in ever increasing levels of confusion. In general, scientists don't care about communicating with the general public. Most scientists couldn't be bothered about "creation science". The closest they come to having to care is when they write their proposals for grants in order to do their research. Rather, it is the educators and science popularizers who do care and have to care about communicating with the general public, about winning hearts and minds. But there again, in their efforts to make science more accessible, they have to loosen the language and use "non-jargon" and analogies to explain those concepts. And again, that generates some confusion and misconceptions. Unfortunate, but an occupational hazard that cannot be fully eliminated. They have to offer the public a "royal road" to understanding science where no actual "royal road" exists (borrowed from the famous statement about teaching mathematics to royalty). It should be noted that many creationist claims, especially the 1980 classics, rely on the popular science literature as their "scientific" sources; eg, Walter Brown's leap-second claim literally used articles in Popular Science and Readers Digest as its sources.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022