The Williston Basin and the Geological Column.

Hello and welcome! Today we're going to take a closer look at the Williston Basin.

The Williston Basin is situated in northern United States and southern Canada. It lies under over half of North Dakota, and can also be found in South Dakota, Montana, and Saskatchewan. It is composed of sedimentary rock.



Petroleum, potash, and coal reserves have brought the Williston Basin fame in the past. The basin extends about 475 miles (764 km) north-south and 300 miles (480 km) east-west. It lies above the Trans-Hudson Orogenic Belt, a Precambrian geologic basement feature which runs west from Hudson Bay then south to the American Mid-West.

In geology, the terms basement and crystalline basement are used to define the rocks below a sedimentary platform or cover, or more generally any rock below sedimentary rocks or sedimentary basins that are metamorphic or igneous in origin. In the same way the sediments and/or sedimentary rocks on top of the basement can be called a "cover" or "sedimentary cover".

The Williston Basin shows evidence of sediment deposition throughout the ages of history, and as a result, it's geological column is quite interesting. Cores taken from North Dakota appear to have the entire geological column, based on fossils found within, ranging from the Precambrian to present day. The Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian Periods are when the deposition was most intense, with activity petering off by Pennsylvanian time, Carboniferous Period.

This method of age verification, admittedly, is not acceptable to some. Some would argue that hypothesizing the age of rock from fossils results in circular reasoning, as some fossils are aged based on what rock they are found in. Fear not! Other tests have been taken which also provide interesting results, such as dating via potassium to argon ratios. Igneous rock, such as "granite and basalt", found throughout the core sample, were especially good for this type of dating.

Igneous rocks like granite and basalt are particularly good for age determination. Any radioactive potassium (K40) that they contain will decay at the standard half-life of this radioactive element. K40 decays to non-radioactive Ar40. Argon is a gas, and escapes into the atmosphere as soon as it is formed, unless it is trapped in solid rock. Igneous rock formed from magma; argon escapes from magma. Therefore, any Ar40 trapped in such rocks has accumulated since the rock solidified. By careful measurement of the amounts of K40 and Ar40 in igneous rock, therefore, it is possible to determine how long it has been since that rock formed.

Below is the core from which scientists used. From the surface, it measures about 10,000 feet deep into the ground. The arrows indicate the locations of samples that were taken for analysis.



Below is a table that provides the raw data (the ratio of argon to potassium) and the age that has been calculated from this ratio:



Edit: As alfa1 pointed out, and I forgot to mention, the age of the rock correlates directly to it's position in the core, as one would expect from sedimentation over a long period of time.

As the Indiana University site says: "These are the data. What should we make of them?"

Indiana University data on Williston Basin

Absolutely fascinating

Originally posted by ParaZep
As the Indiana University site says: "These are the data. What should we make of them?"

At a first glance it looks like the older ones are at the bottom and the younger ones are at the top.

Are we supposed to read more into this than the obvious?

Are creationists supposed to belive the satan worshipping lies spread by those evil god-denying scientists who obviously conspired to hide the truth in within their global secret network?

reply to post by alfa1


Haha! Yes, I think one who doesn't take this at face value is in denial. The purpose of me posting this though was to bring together a few separate threads of investigation I had been following, into one place.

Edit: The purpose of me quoting that line was to pose the question to someone who I would class as being in denial. There's only so much one can dismiss as fraudulent and inaccurate.

Originally posted by alfa1

At a first glance it looks like the older ones are at the bottom and the younger ones are at the top.

I added in your observation about the age correlating to the position in the core, thanks for pointing that out!

Not that I want to cause problems but do the ratios match the age position.
The ratios look all over the place or is that too obvious or is that what the
piece was all about and I didn't read it.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
The ratios look all over the place

Unfortunatly that table is not listed in order of depth, so you have to double check back to the column to see where it fits.

Flaxville Formation on top = 11 Million years.
...
...
...
...
Deadwood formation at the bottom = 533 Million years

"Igneous rocks like granite and basalt are particularly good for age determination. Any radioactive potassium (K40) that they contain will decay at the standard half-life of this radioactive element. K40 decays to non-radioactive Ar40. Argon is a gas, and escapes into the atmosphere as soon as it is formed, unless it is trapped in solid rock. Igneous rock formed from magma; argon escapes from magma. Therefore, any Ar40 trapped in such rocks has accumulated since the rock solidified. By careful measurement of the amounts of K40 and Ar40 in igneous rock, therefore, it is possible to determine how long it has been since that rock formed."

With the correct equipment a person could easily repeat these findings.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Not that I want to cause problems but do the ratios match the age position.
The ratios look all over the place or is that too obvious or is that what the
piece was all about and I didn't read it.

If you scroll the picture over, the ages in MYA are listed. I'm not sure why they didn't put them in either order of depth or order of age, but if you check back using the names you can see that the ages given by the ratios correlate with the depth into the core.

Originally posted by Kashai

With the correct equipment a person could easily repeat these findings.

Any thoughts?

edit on 30-5-2013 by Kashai because: modifed content

I'm not sure I understand the question.. Certainly I would assume the results would come back the same from more independent testing.

Do you have any thoughts?

reply to post by ParaZep



To be clear if there is a claim the results should be refuted all they would need to do is retest the results.

I mean if a person claims that somehow the tools have been compromised they should go ahead and build the tools themselves.

That would clear up any real misunderstanding as to the efficacy of these results that I consider to be valid.

reply to post by Kashai


My thoughts exactly.

Sadly, when logic and evidence fails them, some will just close off their mind and refuse to accept something with no reasonable grounds. The ego is a formidable enemy.

reply to post by ParaZep


How hard is it really to build a car or airplane from purchasing the fundamental elements needed do do so. I mean honestly and with all due respect, access to rock samples and the right equipment. Determining the results are pretty much as easy as solving photosynthesis as the cause of why plants exist.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ParaZep

 

How hard is it really to build a car or airplane from purchasing the fundamental elements needed do do so.

Given the right instruction and an appropriate time-frame, then I'm sure it's very do-able. Making equipment for testing rock samples would possibly be easier!

I think the problem for some lies in the mind, as opposed to the physical possibility of doing something: i.e. they are capable of doing these tests, but it is their mind, their ego (of Freudian theory), which compels them not to.

Determining the results is even simpler than solving the concept of photosynthesis, but their minds have been conditioned to enact a 'Filter' type construct, leading to a very set world view (internal model of the external world). Any external fact or idea is filtered through their pre-existing (usually religious) beliefs. If it can in some way be modified to not conflict, or even corroborate, with their internal model, it is accepted. If it does not corroberate, and irreconcilably conflicts with the internal model, it is simply rejected on the grounds of not fitting self-same model, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

E.g: Senator Gabrielle Giffords survives and recovers (to an extent) from a direct gunshot to the head. This situation is modified by the Filter. A miracle occurs.

E.g: Reputable, unbiased scientists report that some rock samples from the Williston Basin date back almost 600 million years. This situation cannot be modified to fit the internal model. It is rejected on this basis.


Note: Obviously I'm using a certain internal model for these examples, mostly because it is the one I am most familiar with. But the principle can be applied to any model, regardless.

What do you think?