The Geologic Column

When the concept of the geologic column was first established, how did they know what dates to give each layer?

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i think they like to call it an educated guess,

---

Or so they'd have you think.But with the absense of dating methods during that time they are really just pulling the numbers out of the clear blue sky. [b] [QUOTE] in other words they pulled it out of their crapshooter.
[/b][/QUOTE]I'd have to agree.Now honestly speaking, how in the world could we imagine they got those dates right? What basis do we have to test them by today?Every known dating method gives such a wild range of numbers so evolutionist only pick the numbers that fit the preconceived notion on what age of the geologic column's layers represent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wj:
fossils were deposited in patterns, not randomly.

---

Would you expect animals to be deposited randomly in the event of a flood?Do you believe that animals are always found in the correctly dated layers?

quote:

---

Originally posted by wj:
the complete geologic column has been found in 26 locations:
The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

---

Can you direct me to photographs of these locations to provide proof? (Drawings and claims given by evolutionist provide me with no proof.)Can you give evidence of the developers of the geological column actually visiting any of these locations?

​

[This message has been edited by redstang281, 02-13-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Actually,i think it was established first by Carl Lyle in the 18th century"
--Wasn't it charles lyle? I could be wrong.

---

I'm asking them for proof that Charlie Lyle visited any of those locations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Although I'm interested in this question. That radiometric dating methods NORMALLY give a wild range of numbers is just plain wrong.

---

... it is usual to obtain a spectrum of discordant dates and to select the concentration of highest values as the correct age. (Armstrong and Besancon).... the thing to do is get a sequence of dates and throw out those that are vastly anomalous. (Curtis et al)As far as 40ar/39ar goes:For more than three decades potassium-argon (K-Ar) and argon-argon (Ar-Ar) dating of rocks has been crucial in underpinning the billions of years for Earth history claimed by evolutionists. Critical to these dating methods is the assumption that there was no radiogenic argon (40Ar*) in the rocks (e.g., basalt) when they formed, which is usually stated as self-evident. Dalrymple argues strongly:
The K-Ar method is the only decay scheme that can be used with little or no concern for the initial presence of the daughter isotope. This is because 40Ar is an inert gas that does not combine chemically with any other element and so escapes easily from rocks when they are heated. Thus, while a rock is molten, the 40Ar formed by the decay of 40K escapes from the liquid.1
However, this dogmatic statement is inconsistent with even Dalrymple's own work 25 years earlier on 26 historic, subaerial lava flows, 20% of which he found had non-zero concentrations of 40Ar* (or excess argon) in violation of this key assumption of the K-Ar dating method.2 The historically dated flows and their "ages" were:
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801) 1.60.16 Ma; 1.410.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (122 BC) 0.250.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (AD 1972) 0.350.14 Ma
Mt. Lassen plagioclase, California (AD 1915) 0.110.03 Ma
Sunset Crater basalt, Arizona (AD 1064-1065) 0.270.09 Ma; 0.250.15 Ma
Far from being rare, there are numerous reported examples of excess 40Ar* in recent or young volcanic rocks producing excessively old K-Ar "ages":3
Akka Water Fall flow, Hawaii (Pleistocene) 32.37.2 Ma
Kilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii (AD 1959) 8.56.8 Ma
Mt. Stromboli, Italy, volcanic bomb (September 23, 1963) 2.42 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (May 1964) 0.70.01 Ma
Medicine Lake Highlands obsidian,
Glass Mountains, California (

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
The majority of Redstang's most recent post was taken verbatim from ICR's website, "Excess Argon", IMPACT number 307, accessible here:

---

This is where all of Mark's post came from. And it's pretty much verbatim. So I don't see what the problem is with me doing the same thing. Radiometric Dating Does Work

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 02-15-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Redstang,

​

http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/lies/lie024.html

​

At this site you will find a complete rebuttal.

​

Unfortunately I can't post a relevant paragraph as the whole page is relevant. It is a paragraph by paragraph rebuttal.

---

Mark, can you say honestly that you really understand this dating method and all the inner workings of it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
I provided a link

---

I'm not insulting you, I'm just asking are we engaging in a search and find debate here?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Pretty much, I studied radioactive decay TWICE to A level standard in chemistry & physics. The premise is pretty simple once the decay series is understood, along with half life times. All you then have to do is read up on the various methods.

​

The question is, do you understand it?

​

If you haven't formally studied radioactive decay (at least), then you are going to struggle a bit. Nothing wrong with that, of course.

---

I understand the basic idea, probably not to even the extent that you do. But it would seem to me neither of us have the real indepth understanding to debate the details of the 40ar/39ar dating. I suppose this debat is limited to search and find.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Percy,

​

The "is the bible the word of God" thread just reached some sort of critical mass and imploded...

​

see the is the bible the word of God thread just threw a wobbly for mare details....

---

I think I'm going to be a couple days on that thread by the time I get back to it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
A "search & find debate" is not the issue. If I have found a rebuttle to your claims then it's entirely reasonable that I post them.

---

I didn't say it wasn't. [b] [QUOTE]You need to adress what was posted, not how the information was come by.[/b][/QUOTE]That's fine too. I'll search for rebutles too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Redstang,

​

http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/lies/lie024.html

​

At this site you will find a complete rebuttal.

---

The the vary name of this site; "Creationist Lies and Blunders"; is Ad Hominem. He's calling creationists liars right from the beginning.His favorite target seems to be Kent Hovind. I noticed that with his alleged out of context quotes, he gives no reference to look up the use by the creationist or to original source.They are trying for a rebuttal but regardless of that; the fact is that Ar-Ar can produce ages that even evolutionists would admit are ridiculously old.The following website describes this method. http://www.ees.nmt.edu/Geol/labs/Argon_Lab/Methods/Methods.htmlNote this quote:
Standard Intercalibration - In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must be known. For the J to be determined, a standard of known age must be irradiated with the samples of unknown age. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique.
They use a sample of "know age" to find J for the samples of unknown age. The key is the fact that use K-Ar dating to determine this "known age". Why? There are plenty of lava flows around the world with real historically known ages so why not use them? The only logical reason is that the "known" must close to the expected age, based on the geologic column, so that the result is calibrated to the geologic column. http://www.ees.nmt.edu/Geol/labs/Argon_Lab/Data/Tables.htmlThis page has a table of data from an actual sample set note that with the exception of 'A' they all have "ages" from 59-64 Ma. 'A' still has an "age" of 29 Ma. It doesn't give any information about the standard.I suspect that if historically known ages worked for a standard on all samples they would use them to give the method more credibility. Since they don't use standards of historically known age, it has probably been shown that such dates don't fit the geologic column.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wj:
Yes, Red, I believe that animals, plants and microorganisms are always found in the correctly dated layers, except where there is evidence of natural or artifical disturbance. Do you want to cite examples whcih contradict this?

---

One of the ironies of the evolution-creation debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this `fact’ in their flood geology.Raup, David M. Evolution and the fossil record
Science, Vol. 213 (July 17, 1981) p. 289

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
2/ A 90% accuracy rate isn’t good enough for you? Now be honest, which one do you think is most likely to be in error? Nine samples are EXTREMELY close, how do you explain this? Are you seriously telling me that the method should be scrapped because 1 in 10 results didn’t conform?

---

Can you show me were they have dated strata and
found and increase in "age" with depth from the same area as an accurate dating of a historically known item?