No problem if you want to designate by some kind of name a system of rocks that occurs at a certain position in the Geological column, that seems very useful. It's the Time Scale idea that's nonexistent, the rocks are quite real and interestingly always found in the same position in the column.
OK, this came up before and I tried to work with it then. Now I've made the mistake of trying again.
Think of there being two time scales: a relative one and an absolute one. Computer-wise, I'm an old DOS'er who worked extensively with directories under MS-DOS long before Windows 95. I have worked so much with relative directory addresses versus absolutely directory address that it's like riding a bicycle; I can do it without having to think about it. But that analogy doesn't quite fit.
First, we have the
relative time scale courtesy of the Law of Superposition. Basically it says that the lower layers were laid down before the higher layers. And it appears that you do agree with that idea. And the end of what you wrote appears to say that you agree with the actual organization of the Column, that when it says that certain rocks are at a certain point in
relative time, you accept that.
What you don't accept are the absolute dates assigned to points within the Column.
Basically, those absolute dates are established through the radiometric dating of
tie points (the term used by a book I have, but which I haven't found elsewhere). Basically, you cannot date sedimentary rock radiometrically. All you can date radiometrically is igneous rock, because when molten rock solidifies, it effectively "resets" its isotope clock. After that, all sedimentary rock is is recycled igneous and other kinds of rock. Yes, we "evilutionists" do actually think through these problems, as I vividly remember thinking through this "sedimentary rock" problem. So I read up on it and learned about the "tie points."
You went through this evolution before (sorry, I just slipped into US Navy terminology -- you can take the Chief out of the Navy, ... -- , wherein an "evolution" is some kind of organized group activity in which the group performs a task or receives training, so we can truly say that without evolution(s), the US Navy could not possibly function). We have igneous intrusions. We have igneous layers that deposited between sedimentary layers and others, lava flows, which deposited on the surface. And we know how to tell one from the other. Now, we cannot date a sedimentary layer radiometrically, but we can date an igneous intrusion or a surface lava flow. It is that radiodating that provides us with our tie points. If you have an igneous intrusion, then you know that those sedimentary layers were already there before the date of that intrusion, so you know that they are older. If you have a lava flow on a surface, then you know that the layers beneath it are older and that the layers above it are younger. From all the tie-point dates collected around the world, we are able to bracket in the ages of each layer of sedimentary rock. We know that this particular relative age of rock is bracketed in absolute time between this long ago and this long ago. Then to interpolate within that bracket of ages, we can look to how long the processes that formed those rocks would take.
But of course, you reject all that absolute dating. No problem; I would hope that somebody had learned something from that.
But the problem of the order of the fossils that edge presents does not depend on absolute dates. Rather, it depends entirely on
relative dates, for which you have displayed agreement.
Or are you going to yet again start to try to redefine the known universe? Like the time you proved that "macroevolution" is nothing more than "microevolution" allowed to continue for long enough.
™ Version 4.2
