Talk:101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe/Archive9

Suggestions
11: There are trees a lot older than 6000 years, With Norwegian Spruce trees being close to 10,000 years old. And if you expand it out to furthur clonal trees and plants there are a few examples around 13,000 years old, 1 estimated to be around 40,000 years old, and 2 examples that could be in the range of 100,000 years + old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_long-living_organisms#Clonal_plant_colonies

14: I think the description quite needlessly overcomplicates the analysis. The Creationist argument is simply built on the strawman argument that 'Layers mean Millions of years' where as in reality layers just mean Layers and time changed depending on context, layers could mean Years, Floods, Tides, Days, whatever. Talk Origins has a good page on this showing that even back in the 1800s geologists were not mystified by polystrate fossils. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

44: It might also be useful to mention the simple fact that the crust of the earth isn't static and plate tectonics provides new pressure.

96: "Creationists, Population Growth, Bunnies, and the Great Pyramid" provides some great examples of the deficiencies in Creationist Population Growth claims http://ncse.com/cej/4/4/creationists-population-growth-bunnies-great-pyramid

BathTub(talk) 02:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Re #11: these are clonal colonies and they are dated using different methods that ring counting. The goal here is to point out a rather obvious realization that you can use multiple trunks to go back further in time.
 * Re #96: I actually used this page when looking for examples of old civilizations, but I had to modify these a little to fit the slightly earlier 2500 BC date in the article.
 * --Tweenk (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Damn fine job
Dudes,

This is one of the founders of RationalWiki (Cabal), since departed. I saw this linked from Pharyngula and had to say... Damn fine job. This sort of article is exactly what I (we?) had in mind when the site began. I'm so, so happy to see it doing so well :).

Godspeed! -166.137.136.205 (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Helpful stuff from a geology student
From a third-year geology student who saw the article and liked it. They emailed me some suggestions, as they haven't time to edit themselves:

6. Very well answered. Instead of “Furthermore, … mineralized.” I’d offer “These hard parts, composed of minerals, have a high chance of preservation in their stable mineralized state. “ You could also mention other hard parts, notably shelly fossils (e.g. corals, brachiopods, pelecipods, trilobites, crinoids, list goes on) which are formed of calcium carbonate (calcite or aragonite) and can be found almost unchanged since deposition as far back as the Cambrian.

9. Leave out “somewhat” and mention it is difficult to judge because they are not well-preserved (extremely rare to find ANY). The coelacanths have indeed changed. Different species, same order.

10. First, there are hardly any index fossils still living. I suspect they don’t know what it means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_fossil To add to the fact that fossilisation is a rare event, it is extremely unlikely to find a species which is not in great abundance (i.e. has had a strong radiation) except few species at sites of exceptional significance (lagerstatten). Not only do we need fossilization, but we need preservation of strata. So we start off by having a relative few depositional environments (land in later times, reefs and continental shelves, etc) and then have the risks of destruction caused by: tectonics, erosion (glaciers, wind, water, etc), weathering (e.g. dissolution of carbonate. Check out karst formation).

To keep going on stratigraphy (dinosaurs are above birds), there are many other examples. A nice one is the evolution of fish, absence of life on land for a large portion of the geological record.

11. Trees don’t pop out of nowhere. Can you find info on the geology where these trees occur? Perhaps they are on fossil beds, not to forget the time required for soil formation.

12. Morrison Fm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrison_Formation#Fossil_finds Find some refs for those plant finds, and you’re golden. The Coconino ss “fact” is suspicious, but I don’t know enough about aeolian deposition and the area to tackle it. http://www.westcarb.org/drilling/pdfs_drilling/coconino.pdf Apparently, there are no fossils whatsoever in it. So why are there tracks but no animal fossils to leave them  haha. Probably has to do with it being a freaking desert. Deserts aren’t great for plant life. Did cacti exist back then?

13. Change to “This is the well-understood phenomenon of ductile rock deformation. What seems like "solid rock" to us is actually "plastic" on geological timescales and at sufficient pressure-temperature conditions (during deep burial) &mdash; under long term stress or strain, these crystalline structures can deform into convoluted shapes. Fold structures can also be observed in metamorphic rocks. Many rocks have multiple stages of folding, which indicates different events. Not only does the creationist fail to suggest a viable mechanism for fold formation on large scales (as observed in the field), he fails to account for the inability of wet sediments to form extremely tight folds (less than 10 degree angle). If the wet sediment mechanism was responsible for fold formation, sediment would slump to the bottom, and so the fold would be thinnest at the peak (crest), with sides (called limbs) increasing in thickness going down to the trough. This is contrary to what is described and explained by structural geology / tectonics / ductile deformation, where the hinges are thickest and the limbs thin.

The young-Earth argument fails to acknowledge the presence of folded chemical and many biochemical sedimentary rocks, which are lithified (made into rock) instantly on the ocean floor, and never consisted of wet sediment. Furthermore, purple slates from North Wales often contain light green discolorations from ferrous reduction spheres which formed around iron nuclei; these are deformed into long thin ovals which are evidence of folding after the sediment has been lithified into rock.

They also fail to explain the presence of strata that have been flipped upside down by tectonic activity (see “way-up structures).” Look at the photos here: http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/~jte2/geosc465/lect26.rtf

14. Modern “polystrate” trees (not fossilized) have been found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil#Deltaic_deposits Delta river systems change course rapidly (geologically speaking) and produce a LOT (!!!!!) of sediment. The perfect place to bury trees upright.

15. Surface conditions do not form coal. Coal may form quickly under the right P-T (pressure-temperature) conditions, but they must get to a point in the crust (i.e. sufficiently deep) for this to occur. This process takes time! In their linked article, they claim that coal forms from peat. Not all true, there are different types of coal: http://geology.com/articles/coal-through-a-microscope.shtml Coal macerals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maceral Their article also goes on to suggest that coal is probably formed after volcanic eruption events. If that were so, all coal deposits (rapidly formed) would be associated with great quantities of volcanoclastic sediments, which they are not. They are actually most commonly associated with sandstones.

16. Similar argument as 15. They need to be transported to proper conditions.

17. Opal actually often forms *after* sediments (relatively short geological time), or in pores in certain volcanic rocks. It is a near-surface low-temperature process. Opal is mainly amorphous silica (no crystalline structure). “this in no way implies they formed recently” Excellent.

18. Great answer on this one, kick ass!

20. I don’t know what to say about this one. Their process goes against so many physical laws, I’m not sure it could get more ridiculous. The basalt intruded horizontally because it is easier for it to go across the bedding plane of the rocks. If the sediments were unconsolidated (‘loose’, not rock), it would NOT have a sill structure. Also, “The top of the sill has a ropy surface and contacts baked and vuggy7 sandstone and mudstone, in places brecciated.”-(their article) The brecciated sediments are very proof that the sediments were lithified, and formed breccia by breaking in pieces.

21. They are called unconformities. In this case, it is a disconformity. I’m not sure why they call it “paraconformity”.

22. Ripple marks are not ephemeral, because the physical conditions present at the place of deposition preserve these (e.g. a river will constantly produce and destroy dunes, but dunes will always be present at one time or another – they move). Wave ripples, current ripples, etc are fairly common. Tracks and raindrops are rare.

Just mention the latter are rare, leave out the lava flows (not necessarily true). The 2nd paragraph (flood geology) is not a great point, I’d opt for its removal, in my opinion.

24. Bullshit (if you don’t mind my saying). There is a lot of stuff wrong with their claim. First, they abuse of the term para[dis]conformity. There are many short-term disconformities that show bioturbation, especially in carbonates where it is easily preserved. These can be seen in cyclical tempestite deposits, where storm events deposit coarse sediments followed by a slow accumulation of mud-sized particles. This mudstone often contains trace fossils. In other reef environments where carbonate sediments are lithified rapidly, periods of non-deposition may be marked by a surface with bore-marks excavated by fauna.

Most large-scale disconformities (many of which occur locally, as other regions may have a more complete stratigraphic column) will not feature bioturbation because they are erosive in nature.

28. To add the points mentioned, these deposits are easily distinguishable in structure from deposits that have formed slowly. The creationists ignore everything about sedimentation that we can observe in present day.

31. So why have so many islands formed over a hotspot while the tectonic plate moved? http://quakeinfo.ucsd.edu/~gabi/erth15-05/lecture09/hawaii-diag.jpeg

35. Not to mention the older mountain ranges that have largely been eroded (e.g. Canadian Shield)

37. The Wisconsinan Glaciation

38. Deltas are just about the largest sediment transporters (which means they fill basins at very high rates). How did carbonate shelf sediments (for which we have millions upon millions of years worth) accumulate so fast? The creationists are “sample mining” – they just choose the single system out of many that happens to support their view (or at least appear to).

40. The oceans probably contained significant amounts of it simply due to the mechanism of planetary accretion (Na, Cl, .. are low density elements). This might be worth looking into, I am not greatly familiar with the very early surficial history of the Earth.

43. Fails to explain the Archean Witwatersrand (Africa) Au-U paleoplacers (lithified) in pyritiferous conglomerate (occurred in an atmosphere devoid of free oxygen. We know this due to the solubility of U when combined with oxygen – U-placers no longer occur).

48. Not to forget that to have voids in carbonate rocks (usually carbonate sedimentary rocks) so that stalactites can form, there needs to be uplift of the lithified marine sediments and subareal erosion (karst formation).

- David Gerard (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

54
Can anyone access this paper? From the abstract, it's about using diamonds to calibrate C14 dating - David Gerard (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * $39.95? Is it about diamonds or frigging decorated with them? Sophie  because liberals  22:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty standard price for a scientific journal article. Academic publishers are a bunch of greedy freeriding leeches. Monbiot said it best. --Tweenk (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's hope that this is the start of a change. 06:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Reason no 102
... otherwise those daft enough to believe certain categories of tosh would have been removed from the meme-pool. ('Tosh' depends upon the point of view - 'The offside rule is a useful thing'; '(Pop group of choice) is brilliant' etc.) 82.198.250.5 (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)