Talk:Creation geology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page was voted on for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Creation geology. There was no consensus. dbenbenn | talk 18:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 please dont use technical jargon without a definition 2 speedy deletion 3 Geological Question 4 Notes 5 Process of cleanup 5.1 Removed paragraph 5.2 Rationale 6 Redirect rationale

[edit] please dont use technical jargon without a definition

what is "YEC" "TH" (Th for Thorium?) and there are several other measuring units not described. I like to read a well written controversial article but this need to be better written with the technical jargon described much much better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• For goodness sake man, have you never left the shift key on? Never typed "THe" or "THere"? Is this the best you can do as a diatribe? 138.130.194.229 12:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] speedy deletion

Please do not delete this page. it is not a repost. it is fundamentally different than the views compared page, contains material not on them, contains info not on them, and is a totally different format. joshuashroeder, who moved for speedy deletion, is doing this because it pleases him to see creationists silenced instead of corrected by the overwhelming evidence for mainstream views of geology, which could easily show the flaws in creationist pseudoscience. Ungtss 01:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If someone wants to compare the histories between the page removed and this page they will see that most of the material was from that page. If User:Ungtss wants to make a page based on Creation geology, let him, but to import POV material (that page was designed to present POV material in a side-by-side comparison) and pass it off as an article worthy of inclusion especially after said article was deleted is strictly against Wikipedia policy. Joshuaschroeder 06:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geological Question

Arguments about the time required to generate rock folds have been brought up. A possibility that I have not seen discussed is solid rock bending in a less than aeons timeframe. In the report by Hidebumi Itō and Naoiti Kumagai, "On a New Creep Experiment of Large Granite Beam Started in 1980" and Kumagai’s “Two Findings in Long-Term On-Going Laboratory Experiments on Creep of Granite Beams by Bending”¹ the creep of a granite bar 2150 mm long under small (2 MPa maximum pressure) loads show a deflection rate of 0.005 mm/year for 30 years and an associated viscosity (μ) of 5.3X10¹⁹ Pa-s for a sample kept near 23.9C . At that rate, it would take ~100000 years to deform to a 1m radius. If we take granite viscosity at higher temperature² we get μ =10¹² at 1075.7 – 1124.8 K. Using the earth conditions at ~1.7km depth³ we have a differential stress of 40 MPa and an ambient temperature of 40C (317.05 K). Assuming an Arrhenius equation for the thermal dependency of granite viscosity these values and temperatures give μ = 9.2X10¹⁸-1.4X10¹⁹ Pa-s at 317.05K. Since viscosity is defined as stress/(strain rate), the viscous deflection rate is linear in both stress and viscosity, giving us a time of ~1000-1500 years to get the same 1m radius. This amount of time appears to be short enough to fit into anybody’s geological time frame.

So, is this approach wrong (and, if it is, how so)?

i'm not an expert on geology by any means, but i think what you're describing sounds fantastic -- would you be willing to edit it and put it on the page? Ungtss 14:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite unsure about my ability to put this information into a proper format (and how to define a section for it), but I have absolutely no objections to this information being put on the page. Wdanwatts 15:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

Note 1:Khan, Akhtar, and Tokuda, Masataka (eds.) (1989). 1989 Advances in Plasticity. Pergamon Press: Printing Press. ISBN 0080401821. 

Note 2:Viscosities of granitic (sensu lato) melts: Influence of the anorthite component. Retrieved on February 2, 2005.

Note 3:Rheology. Retrieved on February 2, 2005.

[edit] Process of cleanup

Since there was no consensus on the VfD, I will try to clean-up the article. This entire paragraph had to be removed because it is wrong:

Was your point on apparent typos causing the entire data to be brought into question associated with the spelling style used in discussing these points? Wdanwatts

The listing of concerns with radiometric dating techniques (and your rebuttals) certainly SEEMED somewhat encyclopedic. What was unencyclopedic about it? Wdanwatts

[edit] Removed paragraph

In radiometric dating, a sample of igneous mineral is taken, and the ratio of two radioactive isotopes in the rock is measured. Geologists then make an assumption as to the original isotope ratio when the rock was formed, which cannot be observed, and calculate how long (according to the observable decay rates of those isotopes) it would take for the unobserved ratio to decay to the present-day ratio. Therefore, the "age" calculated is only as accurate as the scientist's assumption of the ratio when the mineral was originally formed, which by its very nature cannot be observed, but only inferred. Creationists challenge the validity and reliability of those assumptions.

[edit] Rationale

In radiomateric dating, the ratio isn't taken of two radioactive isotopes necessarily, but rather of isotopes that are connected in a radioactivity chain. Furthermore, geologists don't necessarily make an assumption about the original isotope ratios. In fact, what's more often done is to take a wide range of the decay curves and do a parameter fitting analysis. One doesn't use a single isochron to come up with a date. What is obtained can then be backtracked to determine the original ratio of the isotopes, but this isn't assumed --it's fitted. Once you understand this, the rest of the paragraph makes little sense. Now, if someone wants to include that creationists believe that parameter fitting analysis is impossible to do with a variety of radioactivity decay chains, be my guest. Joshuaschroeder 05:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect rationale

Having done some more research on the whole creationist take on geology, I've now merged this article with flood geology. Here are a few reasons:

1. Creation geology as a concept is mostly about the flood. It is admitted that most of the geology claimed to be explained by "creation geology" is explained by the flood.
2. Geology is the study of the earth. To claim that there is a different geology associated with the flood is a misuse of the term "geology".
3. There were parts of the flood geology article that dealt with things beyond the flood. Similarly there were parts of the creation geology article that dealt with the flood.