Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potassium Argon Dating doesnt work at all
Kyle Shockley
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 133 (41384)
05-26-2003 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Kyle Shockley
05-26-2003 3:43 PM


Re: Edge=Lysenko?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-26-2003 3:43 PM Kyle Shockley has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-26-2003 3:44 PM Kyle Shockley has replied

  
Kyle Shockley
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 133 (41385)
05-26-2003 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Kyle Shockley
05-26-2003 3:43 PM


Re: Edge=Lysenko?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-26-2003 3:43 PM Kyle Shockley has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-26-2003 3:44 PM Kyle Shockley has replied

  
Kyle Shockley
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 133 (41386)
05-26-2003 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Kyle Shockley
05-26-2003 3:44 PM


Re: Edge=Lysenko?
Ollson and Liu, pp.127-139; cited by Oard, 1995; Polar Dinosaurs and the Genesis Flood. Creation Research Quarterly)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-26-2003 3:44 PM Kyle Shockley has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-26-2003 3:44 PM Kyle Shockley has replied

  
Kyle Shockley
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 133 (41387)
05-26-2003 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Kyle Shockley
05-26-2003 3:44 PM


Re: Edge=Lysenko?
Fastovsky, D.E. and Weishampel, D.B.; 1996, The Evolution and Extinction of the Dinosaurs; Cambridge Univ. Press, London, p.385

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-26-2003 3:44 PM Kyle Shockley has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-26-2003 3:47 PM Kyle Shockley has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 96 of 133 (41388)
05-26-2003 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Kyle Shockley
05-26-2003 3:37 PM


Re: Appeal to the Ref :-)
quote:
Examination of recently reported K/P [K/T] boundary sections indicates that the placement of the K/P boundary is based on unequivocal criteria and that the boundary as placed is not synchronous."
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-26-2003 3:37 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by NosyNed, posted 05-26-2003 4:14 PM edge has replied

  
Kyle Shockley
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 133 (41390)
05-26-2003 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Kyle Shockley
05-26-2003 3:44 PM


Re: Edge=Lysenko?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-26-2003 3:44 PM Kyle Shockley has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-26-2003 3:49 PM Kyle Shockley has replied
 Message 107 by Admin, posted 05-26-2003 7:28 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

  
Kyle Shockley
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 133 (41391)
05-26-2003 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Kyle Shockley
05-26-2003 3:47 PM


Re: Edge=Lysenko?
"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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-26-2003 3:47 PM Kyle Shockley has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-26-2003 3:50 PM Kyle Shockley has replied
 Message 102 by edge, posted 05-26-2003 4:04 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

  
Kyle Shockley
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 133 (41393)
05-26-2003 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Kyle Shockley
05-26-2003 3:49 PM


Re: Edge=Lysenko?
"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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-26-2003 3:49 PM Kyle Shockley has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by edge, posted 05-26-2003 4:01 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied
 Message 101 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-26-2003 4:01 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 100 of 133 (41397)
05-26-2003 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Kyle Shockley
05-26-2003 3:50 PM


Re: Edge=Lysenko?
quote:
"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)
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-26-2003 3:50 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

  
Kyle Shockley
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 133 (41398)
05-26-2003 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Kyle Shockley
05-26-2003 3:50 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-26-2003 3:50 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by edge, posted 05-26-2003 4:08 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied
 Message 105 by edge, posted 05-26-2003 4:15 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied
 Message 108 by mark24, posted 05-26-2003 7:34 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 102 of 133 (41400)
05-26-2003 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Kyle Shockley
05-26-2003 3:49 PM


Re: Edge=Lysenko?
quote:
"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."
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-26-2003 3:49 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 103 of 133 (41401)
05-26-2003 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Kyle Shockley
05-26-2003 4:01 PM


No worries...
quote:
Edge, I apologize for the Lysenko remark.
Not necessary. I've been called a lot worse.
quote:
"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. 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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-26-2003 4:01 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 104 of 133 (41402)
05-26-2003 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by edge
05-26-2003 3:45 PM


Re: Appeal to the Ref :-)
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by edge, posted 05-26-2003 3:45 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by edge, posted 05-26-2003 4:27 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 105 of 133 (41404)
05-26-2003 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Kyle Shockley
05-26-2003 4:01 PM


Addressing your edit...
quote:
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).
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-26-2003 4:01 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 106 of 133 (41409)
05-26-2003 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by NosyNed
05-26-2003 4:14 PM


Re: Appeal to the Ref :-)
quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by NosyNed, posted 05-26-2003 4:14 PM NosyNed 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