ggpab wrote:They do not actually say that they are assuming that the earthquake is causing new fracturing.
I would seriously doubt that earthquakes in the NMFZ are opening new cracks in the limestone of local caves. Any cracking would be localized IMO; small break-down etc. Massive cracking on the scale of jointing observed now, certainly formed over longer periods and under the larger tectonic forces that shaped things like the Illinois basin or the Ozark Plateau. This would have occurred when the limestone was much deeper then at the surface and at the time that the basin formed. Reactivation of dripping with speleothems is not new and several spelothem in the literature (see Jeff Dorales work on paleoclimate records and speleothems from Crevice Cave for instance) display hiatus in formation and not likely from secondary dissolution. New or reactivated speleothems I think can easily be associated with moderate to large size quakes, yet this may pose a problem with the authors attempts to assign localized seismic activity with the speleothem initiation. If you recall, the Sumatra-Andaman earthquake caused fluctuations in water wells worldwide because of compressional effects from seismic wave on aquifers. Similar effects occur in aquifers more local to smaller quakes, those with magnitude suspected of causing speleothem initiation. Waters feeding speleothem growth are generally perched aquifers and seismic actively likely plays a role in changing flow paths within the fractures of these perched aquifers. Massive but distant earthquake may have the same effect. The check wold be to see if speleothems in say FL display similar growth initiation patterns.
Now then, some of the above might be hyperbole, but as one who likes to think himself as a geologist, I hope that there is at least a kernel of truth. That said...
Phil Winkler wrote:The accuracy of radioisotope dating is a hugely controversial topic and pits the evolutionists against the creationists, among others. However, it is clear that saying calcite was deposited in 1811 is simply ridiculous.
Just google "How accurate is radioisotope dating?" and have a look.
As a geologist and one that deals with radiometric dating to some degree I agree there is a controversy between rationalist and those that refuse anything but dogma. Otherwise I find this to be a quite shocking statement if you are implying there is "controversy" in the science community. Creationists seem to have a hard time wrapping their minds around the concepts of science and confuse disagreement between scientist as being on par with disagreeing with dogma. Creationist don't just attack the theory of evolution, they by proxy are attacking science at it core: The scientific principle. Scientist, at least good scientists should be ready to abandon what ever ideas they hold. Theories are not precepts. Scientific theories are dynamic and constantly being strengthened as supporting hypotheses are refuted and replaced with stronger ones. Radiometric dating is rock solid. Scientist view radiometric dating techniques as reliable with increasing accuracy as techniques and equipment become better and better. How it works and why it works is not a debate, but if you decide to toss science (I mean real science that sees challenges in the gaps of knowledge, not some sky genie) out the window then you might want to toss your TV, computer and other gear out too. Because the same concepts of physics are the ones employed in radiometric dating underly why those work too. Good luck with your new Luddite existence; don't take up residence in a cave, TYVM.
If I have an event, such as the 1811-12 quakes of the NMSZ and I have a proxy recorder of said event, sand blows are mentioned. I can use a concept such as optical luminescence dating to determine a chronology of when those sandblows formed. Go look up that phrase, OSL is fascinating and operates on the concept that quartz is a natural dosimeter recording the background ionizing radiation. Everything is radioactive to a degree, even you. The trick is that quartz records the total cumulative amount of radiation received as long as it stays dark. Once light hits it it will fluoresce with an intensity proportional to the dose of radiation received. This technique can be use to determine the time since burial of sands, such as that in a sand blow with decadial resolution on centennial timescales. If my analytically determined date is within the error limits of the target date (1811-12). I can say with confidence that it is correct and expect it to not be greeted as "simply ridiculous. ". I don't get why you would claim that as such, Panno and his co authors likely did their science correct (i.e., reproducible observation of a natural phenomenon) developing new concepts along the way. I would hope that you would have dug further then to simply dismiss something that doesn't jive with your world view. Science advances by challenge.
/rant