Geologists (HALP)

[AintNoMonkey]

Hey guys! Now I know that none of you are petrologists (other than BobByers ), but I'm writing a paper on granitic continental crust differentiation (focusing on the arguments of the two main camps, the steady-staters and those that believe the evidence supports a progressive increase in total continental crust, and deciding which one I think is more viable). I've had a little trouble finding sources, and I was wondering if any of you knew any good articles off-hand that you could provide me links to, or maybe journal volumes that would contain an article.

I'm not asking you to do any research, just wondering if you had anything readily at hand that might help me out. So far all i've got is the two special volumes that Tectonophysics did on the subject, and I'll be scouring the Eos database tomorrow.

Thanks for the help, guys.

 

[NailsII]

My advice?
Pray brother, pray.


[BIBLE]Luke 11:9-10[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Matthew 17:20[/BIBLE]

 

[thaumaturgy]

Hey guys! Now I know that none of you are petrologists (other than BobByers ), but I'm writing a paper on granitic continental crust differentiation (focusing on the arguments of the two main camps, the steady-staters and those that believe the evidence supports a progressive increase in total continental crust, and deciding which one I think is more viable). I've had a little trouble finding sources, and I was wondering if any of you knew any good articles off-hand that you could provide me links to, or maybe journal volumes that would contain an article.

I'm not asking you to do any research, just wondering if you had anything readily at hand that might help me out. So far all i've got is the two special volumes that Tectonophysics did on the subject, and I'll be scouring the Eos database tomorrow.

Thanks for the help, guys.

This is not an area I was involved in, but it looks like this might have some promise:


The development of Contintental Crust through geological time - The South African case

Or this:

Heterogeneous Hadean Hafnium: Evidence of Continental Crust at 4.4 to 4.5 Ga


Hope they at least have some references that might lead you to a more comprehensive discussion.

Post anything you find out! It sounds pretty interesting overall.

 

[juvenissun]

two main camps, the steady-staters and those that believe the evidence supports a progressive increase in total continental crust,

If you can tell me what is the theme of the "steady-state"? Does that say the continents are fixed in total volume? I have never heard of that.

I have no problem with the latter. And there are A LOT of references. However, I don't know if there were ONE article that gave a review on the issue.

I don't know your level in geology study. But if you are in graduate school, this one has some good information in it:

Maruyama, S., Liou, J.G. (1998) Initiation of ultrahigh-pressure metamorphism and its significance on the Proterozoic-Phanerozoic boundary. The Island Arc 7, 6-35

Another possible one:

Rudnick, R.L., Fountain, D.M. (1995) Nature and composition of the continental crust: a lower crustal perspective. Rev. Geophys. 33, 267-309

If these are too deep, then you may simply google something on the Internet.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

My advice?
Pray brother, pray.

Yeah, I tried that whole 'God and Jesus' thing on a test once, and I still failed.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

The development of Contintental Crust through geological time - The South African case

This one requires a subscription, and I do not have one.


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1117926v1

Heterogeneous Hadean Hafnium: Evidence of Continental Crust at 4.4 to 4.5 Ga http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1117926v1http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1117926v1

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1117926v1

This one may be useful, not sure yet. THanks for the help, I appreciate it.

Post anything you find out! It sounds pretty interesting overall.

I'll post my abstract or something when it's done. Lots of work still to do.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

If you can tell me what is the theme of the "steady-state"? Does that say the continents are fixed in total volume? I have never heard of that.

I guess I phrased it poorly. What I was talking about is the theory that most of the continental crust (90%) was formed by the early Proterozoic and that it's remained at about the same volume since, with an equilibrium between erosion/subduction of continental mass and differentiation of new continental mass.

I have no problem with the latter. And there are A LOT of references. However, I don't know if there were ONE article that gave a review on the issue.

There are a lot of references, just not many concise ones that don't take the geochemistry too far over my head.

I don't know your level in geology study.

I'm a senior (this is my last required geology class, WOO! Only two more electives and I'm done), and I'll be graduating in December. I plan on going to grad school and working on either basin analysis or possibly something with shales. Structure is an outside thought as well, just have to see where I can go and what kind of money I can get for which and go from there. I'm sure you can imagine though that petrology is not exactly my thing. I'm more of a sed/strat guy.

But if you are in graduate school, this one has some good information in it:

Maruyama, S., Liou, J.G. (1998) Initiation of ultrahigh-pressure metamorphism and its significance on the Proterozoic-Phanerozoic boundary. The Island Arc 7, 6-35

Another possible one:

Rudnick, R.L., Fountain, D.M. (1995) Nature and composition of the continental crust: a lower crustal perspective. Rev. Geophys. 33, 267-309

If these are too deep, then you may simply google something on the Internet.

I'll check these out if I have time and if I can find them. I know we've got the second journal in our library, so I'll definitely take a look at it. Thanks.

 

[juvenissun]

I guess I phrased it poorly. What I was talking about is the theory that most of the continental crust (90%) was formed by the early Proterozoic and that it's remained at about the same volume since, with an equilibrium between erosion/subduction of continental mass and differentiation of new continental mass.

In general, continent grew in size through time. The problem is whether at a constant rate or not. The abst found by thaumaturgy suggested it was not. The first article I gave you also suggested a similar (via a different approach). Two rapid stages of continent growth seems to be at the Archean and the late Proterozoic. However, the rate in time periods in between them and in the Phanerozoic seems to be pretty low and steady.

However, if you reviewed the assumed history of the early earth (in particular, if we consider the origin of the moon) the rapid Archean continental growth does not really make sense. But I guess you do not have to be bothered by this complications in your report.

 

[Baggins]

However, if you reviewed the assumed history of the early earth (in particular, if we consider the origin of the moon) the rapid Archean continental growth does not really make sense. .

Why not, I am intrigued.

AintnoMonkey

The book I used at University was:

The Evolving Continents by Windley.

It was very well written, an interesting book to read inspite of its content unlike many academic texts.

But that was 25 years ago.

If he has kept republishing that with updates that is a good general read

I see it is now in its third edition, But that that was published in 1995, so hardly bang up to date.

 

[juvenissun]

Why not, I am intrigued.

AintnoMonkey

The book I used at University was:

The Evolving Continents by Windley.

It was very well written, an interesting book to read inspite of its content unlike many academic texts.

But that was 25 years ago.

If he has kept republishing that with updates that is a good general read

I see it is now in its third edition, But that that was published in 1995, so hardly bang up to date.

Just think about the collision model on the origin of the moon, the timing just do not match. I don't think any 4 Ga zircon could survive the collision. Of course, this issue opens the can of "zirconology".

 

[RobertByers]

I'm not a geologist but the best reference is Genesis. It shows clearly the limits of time on all earth history.
Since, strangely, geology is premised on biology for much conclusions and since death only came with Adam which was a few thousand years ago then earth history is recent and episodic.
So continents could not be growing in any way relative to their past historyt.

The bible and common sense teaches to see anything in geology as having been the result of a powerful cause and so quickly concluded.
Remember nothing is witnessed but only interpretated from rocks in the fields.
Don't accept previous ideas unless their is solid evidence behind them.
Do something cool and progressive and don't just repeat what you read and think what was thought.

One of the posters here admitted that time matters in geology books. I notice geology book authors always redo previous geology as they sincerely believe there is error and otherwise they don't matter.
Bible first and then intelligent analysis.
Its not open to testing so its not a scientific subject but does require a schoarly (sp) mind.
Robert Byers
Toronto,ontario

 

[flatworm]

I'm not a geologist but the best reference is Genesis. It shows clearly the limits of time on all earth history.

And several independent dating methods show that those limits are wrong.

Since, strangely, geology is premised on biology for much conclusions

Which ones?

and since death only came with Adam which was a few thousand years ago then earth history is recent and episodic.

Prove that death did not predate humanity. No, the Bible is not scientific evidence.

So continents could not be growing in any way relative to their past historyt.

The bible and common sense teaches to see anything in geology as having been the result of a powerful cause and so quickly concluded.

Common sense shows no such thing. The Bible can teach whatever it wants, but it quickly becomes irrelevant to geology as its teaching diverge from the evidence.

Remember nothing is witnessed but only interpretated from rocks in the fields.
Don't accept previous ideas unless their is solid evidence behind them.

There is. Very solid evidence indeed. Now, can you show how the physical evidence is consonant with your Biblical interpretation? In detail, if you please, not a few sweeping vague statements.

Do something cool and progressive and don't just repeat what you read and think what was thought.

The height of hypocrisy from a person who believes a particular ancient book contains all the literal truth of geology and more.

One of the posters here admitted that time matters in geology books. I notice geology book authors always redo previous geology as they sincerely believe there is error and otherwise they don't matter.
Bible first and then intelligent analysis.

Intelligent analysis shows the Bible is not an accurate science reference.

Its not open to testing so its not a scientific subject

Great. Now that you admit that, stop contradicting geological experts based on the Bible. Thank you and have a good night.

 

[Baggins]

Just think about the collision model on the origin of the moon, the timing just do not match. I don't think any 4 Ga zircon could survive the collision. Of course, this issue opens the can of "zirconology".

Open the can. I am intrigued by why you think the collision theory of moon/eartrh creation negates zircon ages of 4.5Ba

 

[Baggins]

I'm not a geologist

You have shown no signs of it I'll agree.

but the best reference is Genesis. It shows clearly the limits of time on all earth history.

Could you point me to the parts of genesis that explain the growth of continental shield areas and the mechanism that produced them, that is what the OP is after and I don't remember seeing that in Genesis.

As Loudmouth has already pointed out multiple dating methods prove the earth is far greater than 6,000 years old.

Since, strangely, geology is premised on biology

It would be strange if it was, but I can think of no way whatsoever that geology is premised on biology, I can think of a few reasons for the reverse being true if we stretch the point.

for much conclusions and since death only came with Adam which was a few thousand years ago then earth history is recent and episodic.

Which, yet again, you will provide no evidence for.

So continents could not be growing in any way relative to their past historyt.

I don't think coming to a thread about continental accretion mechanism and saying they don't occur is particularly useful; do you?

The bible and common sense teaches to see anything in geology as having been the result of a powerful cause and so quickly concluded.

The Bible and common sense also tell us that that the earth is stable and the sun revolves around us.

It is amaziing how often the Bible and common sense are wrong. That is why we have the scientific method it relies on neither nad has given us hundreds of years of progress because of that. Using the Bible and common sense lead to stagnation and the Dark Ages.

Remember nothing is witnessed but only interpretated from rocks in the fields.

You don't witness the occurences in the Bible yet you believe them, why the double standard?

Don't accept previous ideas unless their is solid evidence behind them.

I totally agree, but you never provide any evidence for your flights of fantasy let alone solid evidence.

Do something cool and progressive and don't just repeat what you read and think what was thought.

That is what he is doing. He is researching continental growth. He is not sitting at a computer releasing ad hoc arguments onto the internet like some.

One of the posters here admitted that time matters in geology books.

I did, new evidence is always becoming available, new interpretations will often ride on its back.

I notice geology book authors always redo previous geology as they sincerely believe there is error and otherwise they don't matter.

All scientists try tolook for better ways of explaining the evidence. that is why flood geology was abandoned 200 years ago, a better way was found to explain the evidence.

Bible first and then intelligent analysis.

Oooooooh, and oxymoron, excellent, a new oxymoron.

 

[juvenissun]

Open the can. I am intrigued by why you think the collision theory of moon/eartrh creation negates zircon ages of 4.5Ba

Since this hypothesis (on the origin of moon) is vague, different person may have different understanding. So, in order to give you my reason, may be you can tell me first that according to you, at what time did this collision take place. Then we can go from there.

 

[Baggins]

Since this hypothesis (on the origin of moon) is vague, different person may have different understanding. So, in order to give you my reason, may be you can tell me first that according to you, at what time did this collision take place. Then we can go from there.

The giant impact hypothesis generally postulates a collision at 4.533Ga from the dating of moon rock.

 

[juvenissun]

The giant impact hypothesis generally postulates a collision at 4.533Ga from the dating of moon rock.

If so, what then is the model age of the earth?

Consider the process:

Earth > collision > gathering of dust > hot moon > cold moon > rock gives age.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

I'm not a geologist but the best reference is Genesis. It shows clearly the limits of time on all earth history.
Since, strangely, geology is premised on biology for much conclusions and since death only came with Adam which was a few thousand years ago then earth history is recent and episodic.
So continents could not be growing in any way relative to their past historyt.

The bible and common sense teaches to see anything in geology as having been the result of a powerful cause and so quickly concluded.
Remember nothing is witnessed but only interpretated from rocks in the fields.
Don't accept previous ideas unless their is solid evidence behind them.
Do something cool and progressive and don't just repeat what you read and think what was thought.

One of the posters here admitted that time matters in geology books. I notice geology book authors always redo previous geology as they sincerely believe there is error and otherwise they don't matter.
Bible first and then intelligent analysis.
Its not open to testing so its not a scientific subject but does require a schoarly (sp) mind.
Robert Byers
Toronto,ontario

I'm sure this will help me pass my petrology course.

In fact, that's why I took the course to begin with: to deny all of the teachings within it and convince all the other students that all we need is Genesis and BobByers

In honor of this post, here is an equally useful (and equally FUN) montage of smilies!

 

[AintNoMonkey]

 

[AintNoMonkey]