|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Potassium Argon Dating doesnt work at all | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kyle Shockley Inactive Member |
Fastovsky, D.E.; and Dott, Jr., R.H.; 1986. Sedimentology, stratigraphy, and extinctions during the Cretaceous-Paleogene transition at Bug Creek, Montana. Geology, 14:279-282
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kyle Shockley Inactive Member |
MacLeod, K.G.; and Huber, B.T.; 1996. Strontium isotopic evidence for extensive reworking in sediments spanning the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary at ODP Site 738. Geology, 24:463-466
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kyle Shockley Inactive Member |
Ollson and Liu, pp.127-139; cited by Oard, 1995; Polar Dinosaurs and the Genesis Flood. Creation Research Quarterly)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kyle Shockley Inactive Member |
Fastovsky, D.E. and Weishampel, D.B.; 1996, The Evolution and Extinction of the Dinosaurs; Cambridge Univ. Press, London, p.385
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Correct. The rock units at the K/T boundary are stratigraphic. The iridium-enriched layer is a time/stratigraphic horizon. It has always been traditional to designate one unit as Cretaceous and the next as Tertiary, but in reality the units are time-transgressive as per Walther's Law. This is well-understood by geologists but often not quite grasped by laymen. Not a criticism, mind you, just a commentary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kyle Shockley Inactive Member |
References complete for the K/T boundary. Further info was not allowed by the server, as it did not allow the quotes on the subject to go past a certain word limit. Anyhow, the info's there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kyle Shockley Inactive Member |
"Defining the K/T boundary based on the last dinosaur is also a circular definition, since scientists claim that the dinosaurs only lived in the Mesozoic when the presence of a dinosaur AUTOMATICALLY DEFINES the strata as Mesozoic."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kyle Shockley Inactive Member |
"For instance, dinosaur remains from France and India were discovered in what were considered ‘Tertiary’ strata. The strata were subsequently redefined as ‘Cretaceous’." (ref.2,3)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: This often happens before there is any definitive evidence for the age of a certain rock unit. It may be classified in the field with a best estimate of the age and even published as such. However, often there is a disclaimer saying that the actual age is uncertain. THis would, of course, be omitted from your creationist sources. For instance I may see a sandstone cut by Dry Creek that LOOKS like a Cretaceous sand and I may map it as such. But since many units are time-transgressive, it could actually be Tertiary where I view it or it could be that I am simply wrong in my guess based on its appearance and thickness. Later, when I find some fossils, I can say with some certainty what the age is based on comparison with other stratigraphic sections all over the world. Now what radiometric dates were altered or replaced in your example?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kyle Shockley Inactive Member |
Edge, I apologize for the Lysenko remark. "Argue the point, not the person". I think we both could learn a bit from that statement, for the future's sake. Although I think you are in error in your beginning framework, we can both agree to disagree, at least on this point. I think that your latest example only confirms what I was trying to relay to you concerning the fallability of basing strict numbers upon fossil interpretations (as well as letting the fossils do the strata dating, as well as determining the known relative age). The material is there for you to examine, and I feel that, for the limits of this page, I presented the case as thoroughly as possible. Take care.
[This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-26-2003] [This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-26-2003] [This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-26-2003] [This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-26-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Not really. What is really happening is that the fossil assemblage is being compared to a section of known relative age. That section has dinosaur fossils in the Cretaceous but not in the Teriary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Not necessary. I've been called a lot worse.
quote: The thing that you don't have is several decades of learning geology. I have examined numerous YEC tracts looking for something that makes sense. Once in a while I see something new and say "Ah! This sounds interesting!" But, in every case, I have found the reasoning to be inadequate and sometimes deceptive. The Austin dating of recent lavas by K-Ar methods is a prime example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Edge,could you help a layman by translating a bit of that please?
Does time transgressive mean there is some "blur" in the boundary? What is Walther's Law? Thanks. Hang On I'll google it. Ok, it says that different facies(types of rock) may overlap because of transgression and regression(water coming and going). But I don't see how that applies to something laid down all at once.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: This is a problem that I often see. Fossils allow us a relative dating method of some variable precision depending on the number and quality of fossils and the range of ages for a given fossil; but radiometric dating allows absolute knowledge of the age of a rock. After many years of work, the relative age scale is basically confirmed by absolute dating. This is confusing for laymen and I can understand why you do not accept it. However, you must expect firm responses when you make the types of assertions that you have made here. Unfortunately, we have heard this all before and it is really no challenge at all. Also, I suggest losing the K-Ar dating of recent lavas argument immediately. It undermines your credibility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: At any given time there is an lateral zonation of facies. For instance sand near the shoreline and shale in the basin. With time, the shoreline moves (transgression/regression) and the position of sand and shale change. Now imagine looking at the rocks and seeing a continuous shale unit through time. The problem is that the shale is of different age in different places and actually overlies the sand (for instance); and yet it looks like a big contemporaneous unit. There are implications to this reasoning. One is that any two sequential units, unless separated by an unconfommity, will actually be contemporaneous at some points. THis is very confusing even to some geology students. But when looked at logically, it makes sense. It has to do with changing depositional environments over time. Now, when we look at a fossil of short range, an index fossil, we will find that its horizon actually cuts across the rock units. This means that the fossil represents a time horizon that cuts across the depositional environments. There is a famous example in the Grand Canyon that I will look up when I have time. Short duration events, such as an iridium event or a volcanic eruption will do the same thing. YOu can imagine all manner of complications.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024