In message 245, Steve asked:
"Stratigraphic layering is cross-correlatable globally.
Where's the data supporting this?"
It depends on what type of stratigraphy a person is talking about. In terms of rock lithology, lithostratigraphy, this is **not** true. There is not a single bed or rock layer that has been mapped as present everywhere in the world. However, in terms of fossils, biostratigraphy and the geologic column, which is what I presume is being discussed here in terms of "stratigraphic layering", this is a true statement.
The evidence for the global nature of biostratigraphy and the geologic column, which is defined by biostratigraphy, can be found in thousands of published papers on biostratigraphy and thousands of geologic maps that have been made of any part of the world underlain by either sedimentary or volcanic rocks. That the **relative** sequence of different types of fossils in fossil-bearing strata has been found to be consistent throughout the world, except where disrupted by independently recognizable faulting, folding, and reworking (by erosion and redeposition from older strata), is proof that biostratigraphy works for the entire world and the geologic column exists. The fact of the manner is that the different periods that comprise the geologic column can be consistently recognized all over the world as geologists, even creationists like Culvier, have recognized starting in the 1800s.
For example, in Texas a person finds fossils, on which the periods of the geologic column are based, occurring in the same relative order that a person finds either in Europe, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, or elsewhere in the world. In Texas, Ordovician fossils, when present are found above Cambrian fossils. Paleocene fossils are found above Cretaceous fossils as in Europe, Asia, within the ocean basins, and elsewhere in the the world. Eocene fossils, as in Europe are found above Paleocene fossils. Tens of thousands of published papers, describing and discussing the occurrence of fossils in measured sections throughout the world, have all found this same relative occurrence of fossils throughout the world. The data reported in innumerable papers, along with innumerable geologic maps that have been made in part using biostratigraphy, demonstrate that this consistency is quite real.
Some specific web pages that present a miniscule part of the evidence that proves the validity of the geologic column, in terms of the discussion of Young Earth creationism, are:
The Geologic Column and Its Implications to the Flood
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm
Can Froede and Reed kill the Geologic Column?
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo1.htmhttp://home.entouch.net/dmd/yungerth.htm
The periods of the geologic column are based on the consistent relative distribution of fossils within sedimentary rocks. The consistency of how fossils occur within sedimentary, and some volcanic, rocks is illustrated by a couple of examples that use only a miniscule amount of the available paleontological data.
Pollen Order Presents Problems for the Flood
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/pollen.htmhttp://home.entouch.net/dmd/paleo.htm
Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the Flood
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/micro.htm
Also, a person can look at message no. 13 in this thread at:
http://
EvC Forum: Fossil sorting for simple -->
EvC Forum: Fossil sorting for simple
Finally, Kurt Wise, a well-respected Young Earth creationist paleontologist, the geologic column had some quite interesting comments on this question in:
Wise, Kurt P. (1986) The Way Geologists Date! in Proceedings of
the First International Conference on Creationism, Section 1, Vol. 2,
Walsh, R.E.; C.L. Brooks; and R.S. Crowell (eds.), Creation Science
Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.
On pp. 135-136, Dr. Kurt Wise stated:
"Years before Darwin published the "Origin of Species", geologists
had constructed a geologic column very similar to that used today.
As early as the late eighteenth century it began to be recognized that
fossils found below others in one area would be found beneath the
same ones in another area. By the late 1820's Georges Cuvier had
convinced most of the scientific world that there was a certain
inviolable order to the fossils of the world. Although the types of
rock did not always occur in the same order, the fossils contained
within them always would. It became common to give names to
suites of fossils which were always found together. Thus arose the
names Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, etc., that are found on the
current geologic column.
When the theory of evolution was introduced, the order of the
geologic column was not affected appreciably. Since it is not
possible to predict the path of evolution, no change in the column
SHOULD have occurred with the acceptance of evolution -- and no
change did occur. The column also preceded by at least a century
any means of affixing absolute ages. The only methods of "dating"
available in the nineteenth century were those of superpositional
stratigraphy and biostratigraphy. Each of these methods yielded
only relative ages-- that is, younger, older, or the same age as some
reference rock or fossil. When radiometry was introduced a method
of assigning absolute ages had finally arrived. With it, any defects in
the column should have been quickly recognised. No significant
contradictions occurred between the column and radiometry.
Although this may be due to wholesale dishonesty in the
interpretation of radiometric dates, no systematic study has been
done to establish this. As a result, the radiometric dates must be
taken as strong evidence in support of the correctness of the
geologic column."
It should be noted that Georges Cuvier mentioned in the above quote, was a scriptural catastrophist, closely equivalent to modern Young Earth creationists in his devout Christian beliefs. Essentially, many of the geologists, who initially constructed the geologic column were also Christian scriptural catastrophists.
Yours,
Bill
This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 06-24-2004 02:35 PM
™ Version 4.2
