Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Geologic Column
Guest
Guest


Message 1 of 68 (5181)
02-20-2002 12:42 PM



  
redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 68 (4317)
02-12-2002 10:39 PM


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

KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 2 of 68 (4319)
02-12-2002 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by redstang281
02-12-2002 10:39 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
When the concept of the geologic column was first established, how did they know what dates to give each layer?
i think they like to call it an educated guess, in other words they pulled it out of their crapshooter.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by redstang281, posted 02-12-2002 10:39 PM redstang281 has replied

LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 68 (4321)
02-12-2002 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by KingPenguin
02-12-2002 10:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i think they like to call it an educated guess, in other words they pulled it out of their crapshooter.

Actually,i think it was established first by Carl Lyle in the 18th century

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 10:44 PM KingPenguin has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 4 of 68 (4325)
02-12-2002 11:09 PM


Ah, another opportunity to push one of my favorite introductions to the geologic thought process:
Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
It serves up a fine indroduction, leading up to radiometric dating considerations.
Moose

KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 5 of 68 (4328)
02-12-2002 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Minnemooseus
02-12-2002 11:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Ah, another opportunity to push one of my favorite introductions to the geologic thought process:
Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
It serves up a fine indroduction, leading up to radiometric dating considerations.
Moose

weve said this before, explain the links you give, well, and give your own summary of it.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-12-2002 11:09 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 68 (4341)
02-12-2002 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by KingPenguin
02-12-2002 11:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
weve said this before, explain the links you give, well, and give your own summary of it.

Penguin, I suspect you have a problem with understanding some simple concepts.
Red's initial was was basically a request for information. Moose's suggested link provides the information requested. He is not providing an argument or even information which could be considered to be contentious. Therefore it is not necessary for him to explain it (this would only reiterate the information available in the linked article) or give his own summary (he might omit some information which Red might need). Can you see the difference between citing a link for information or citing one as support for your argument?
The main problem for creationists presented by the geological cloumn, which was recognised by geologists as early as at least the 19th century, is that fossils were deposited in patterns, not randomly. This, and other data, allowed the geological column to be ordered in a consistent manner, oldest at the bottom etc. And the fossils showed that evolution of living organisms had occurred.
The actual age of the various layers was not important, except that they included evidence that they had formed over long periods of time; it was not critical if the timeframe was millions or billions of years. Radiometric dating has allowed the ages of various strata to be measured with great precision.
Perhaps, as a development of this thread, creationists might like to explain why the pattern of fossils is as they appear (eg. simple life forms only near the bottom, advanced vertebrates first appearing near the top, etc.).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 11:16 PM KingPenguin has replied

KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 7 of 68 (4344)
02-13-2002 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by wj
02-12-2002 11:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wj:
Penguin, I suspect you have a problem with understanding some simple concepts.
Red's initial was was basically a request for information. Moose's suggested link provides the information requested. He is not providing an argument or even information which could be considered to be contentious. Therefore it is not necessary for him to explain it (this would only reiterate the information available in the linked article) or give his own summary (he might omit some information which Red might need). Can you see the difference between citing a link for information or citing one as support for your argument?
The main problem for creationists presented by the geological cloumn, which was recognised by geologists as early as at least the 19th century, is that fossils were deposited in patterns, not randomly. This, and other data, allowed the geological column to be ordered in a consistent manner, oldest at the bottom etc. And the fossils showed that evolution of living organisms had occurred.
The actual age of the various layers was not important, except that they included evidence that they had formed over long periods of time; it was not critical if the timeframe was millions or billions of years. Radiometric dating has allowed the ages of various strata to be measured with great precision.
Perhaps, as a development of this thread, creationists might like to explain why the pattern of fossils is as they appear (eg. simple life forms only near the bottom, advanced vertebrates first appearing near the top, etc.).

i guess i am being ignorant today. anyway wouldnt those columns be subject to things like mass erosion and radiation. also would it be possible for the bones to sift downward in the ground into another layer? maybe at one point there was an underground river that shifted a few of the fossils around and changed the order, even though there would be evidence of this the underfround river might have been caved in on by dirt from the surface. the less advanced lifeforms might have lived underground and found more food where they were eventually fossilized. also god may have tried to create an earth suitable for man, failed to do so, destroyed all the life besides man and eden, and repeated this several times. maybe god had always intended man to only live in the garden of eden and not be outcast for eating the forbidden apples. he just didnt need to have an animal counterpart for man until man was cast out to live without the fruits of eden. maybe it was easy for humans at first but we kept sinning so he made life more and more difficult for humans as they made it more and more difficult for him to forgive them for all of their sins. just some ideas.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by wj, posted 02-12-2002 11:47 PM wj has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 8 of 68 (4350)
02-13-2002 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by KingPenguin
02-13-2002 12:08 AM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i guess i am being ignorant today. anyway wouldnt those columns be subject to things like mass erosion and radiation.
Erosion, yes. We recognize erosion in the geological record frequently. I am not sure what you mean by mass erosion. At any rate mass wasting is not usually a problem in constructing a geological column. I don't think radiation has much to do with the position of fossils.
quote:
also would it be possible for the bones to sift downward in the ground into another layer?
Probably not, but even if it did happen, we would have a very different fossil record. Extremely mixed up if nothing else.
quote:
maybe at one point there was an underground river that shifted a few of the fossils around and changed the order, even though there would be evidence of this the underfround river might have been caved in on by dirt from the surface.
That would have to be on very unusual river to rearrange the entire fossil record in different locations on several continents...
quote:
the less advanced lifeforms might have lived underground and found more food where they were eventually fossilized.
I think you are grasping here.
...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 12:08 AM KingPenguin has replied

KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 9 of 68 (4354)
02-13-2002 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by edge
02-13-2002 12:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by edge:
I think you are grasping here.
...

i did say they were just some thoughts and i find it strange that you didnt respond to the creationist half of my post. the river still could have corrupted a few and maybe added and removed fossils that were or werent in that region originally. also if we did evolve from apes and the apes survived all this time then why didnt a few of the middle species stay around too, it to me seems more likely that the better smarter monkey would have had a great chance of living than the ones we have now. or did the smart monkeys just breed with eachother like crazy and were then allowed to choose mates?
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by edge, posted 02-13-2002 12:36 AM edge has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 68 (4362)
02-13-2002 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by KingPenguin
02-13-2002 12:08 AM


Penguin, you have cited circumstances which might result in disruption to the otherwise expected deposition and stratification of rocks and their embedded fossils. Don't you think that the natural processes which you have nominated would leave other evidence of their actions which geologists could identify?
However, the most telling point is that, despite the range of processes which could cause disruption to the formation of the standard geologic column, it has been produced in nature. And not just in one location, 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
(Sources:
Robertson Group, 1989;
A.F. Trendall et al , editors, Geol. Surv. West. Australia Memoir 3, 1990, pp 382, 396;
N.E. Haimla et al, The Geology of North America, Vol. L, DNAG volumes, 1990, p. 517)
(Figure courtesy of Thomas Moore)
from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
Seems more than just coincidence.
As for your supernatural explanations, there is no scientific evidence to start to support them so I won't bother addressing them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 12:08 AM KingPenguin has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 11 of 68 (4369)
02-13-2002 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by KingPenguin
02-13-2002 12:50 AM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i did say they were just some thoughts and i find it strange that you didnt respond to the creationist half of my post.
Originally posted by KingPenguin
also god may have tried to create an earth suitable for man, failed to do so, destroyed all
the life besides man and eden, and repeated this several times. maybe god had always intended man to only live
in the garden of eden and not be outcast for eating the forbidden apples. he just didnt need to have an animal
counterpart for man until man was cast out to live without the fruits of eden. maybe it was easy for humans at
first but we kept sinning so he made life more and more difficult for humans as they made it more and more
difficult for him to forgive them for all of their sins. just some ideas.


The problem with replying to the creationsist half of
your post is that there is nothing to reply to. It represents
your own opinion/thought (which is fine), but if you want it
to spark debate you need to SUPPORT it with some evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

the river still could have corrupted a few and maybe added and removed fossils that were or werent in that region originally.

It could, but that would show up as an anomaly in the fossil
record ... it would not re-order the ENTIRE fossil record.
quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

also if we did evolve from apes and the apes survived all this time then why didnt a few of the middle species stay around too, it to me seems more likely that the better smarter monkey would have had a great chance of living than the ones we have now.

First (how many more times) evolution does NOT say that we evolved
from apes. Find me an evolutionary reference that says so if you
can!
Second (a bit pedanticly) monkeys are NOT apes.
Modern apes, man, and monkeys are on the SAME RUNG of the
evolutionary ladder. We are NOT more advanced than other
modern animals in an evolutionary sense.
We may have higher intelligence than other animals (even
that is open to debate), but we are not more advanced.
What evolution does postulate, is that apes and man have a common
ancestor.
There was a creature in the dim and distant past which was split
into two populations, each of which developed along slightly
different lines. One branch led to modern man, the other to
modern apes.
quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

or did the smart monkeys just breed with eachother like crazy and were then allowed to choose mates?

The 'smart monkeys' evolved into us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 12:50 AM KingPenguin has not replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7576 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 12 of 68 (4398)
02-13-2002 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by redstang281
02-12-2002 10:39 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
When the concept of the geologic column was first established, how did they know what dates to give each layer?
There are all manner of geology texts and sites which explain this - some of them pointed out in other answers to this post.
I would like to point you to the work of Hugh Miller, the Scottish geologist. Miller (1802-1856) was a self-educated geologist and a profound and influential Christian, active in the founding of the Free Church of Scotland and the evangelical revivals of his age.
His work, I trust, will interest you for two reasons: he writes before Darwin and at a time when geological thought was developing towards its modern positions. He also writes beautifully, which is a pleasure in itself, and his observations are meticulous and thoughtful.
I do wish creationists would read more of these early studies - not just summaries of the history of science, but actually get back and read the words of these writers in context. You'll find they struggled - long personal soulful struggles - to understand how the spiritual and physical worlds, observed in such detail, interwove in history. One cannot read Miller without being moved.
Today, we can go to a geology textbook and all this is neatly summarised and sanitised and presented as simple pedagogy. This is perhaps as it should be - as Newton said, we stand on the shoulders of giants. The growing pains of those giants, however, were agonizing, and we ought to recognize them and respect them.
http://www.hughmiller.org
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri/miller.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by redstang281, posted 02-12-2002 10:39 PM redstang281 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 13 of 68 (4400)
02-13-2002 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by redstang281
02-12-2002 10:39 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
When the concept of the geologic column was first established, how did they know what dates to give each layer?
To bring you back on track, Redstang is asking how rock strata was dated BEFORE radiometric dating methods were used.
I confess, I'm interested also.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by redstang281, posted 02-12-2002 10:39 PM redstang281 has not replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 68 (4410)
02-13-2002 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by KingPenguin
02-12-2002 10:44 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 10:44 PM KingPenguin has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024