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
redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 68 (5088)
02-19-2002 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Percy
02-19-2002 4:04 PM


[b] [QUOTE]When taken all by itself, this quote appears to be conceding that the geological column does not contain a record of change over time. But in the body of the letter Raup is taking issue with the common but erroneous view that evolutionary change is one of orderly progress. He explains that this is definitely not the case, and compares it more to price fluctuations on Wall Street. So when Raup in his conclusion denies "a detailed and orderly progression" in the fossil record, he isn't saying it isn't a record of change, but merely that it isn't a record of orderly progress.[/b][/QUOTE]
The reason they believe it is because the alternative is special creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 02-19-2002 4:04 PM Percy has not replied

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


Message 62 of 68 (5089)
02-19-2002 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by redstang281
02-19-2002 1:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
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?

Oh for goodness sake - read a book, why don't you? How about ...
The Absolute chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age: archaeology, radiocarbon and history (Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1995)
by S. W. Manning
or if you want to surf, have a detailed look at ...
THE SYNCHRONIZATION OF CIVILIZATIONS IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN
IN THE 2nd MILLENNIUM BC at
http://www.nhm-wien.ac.at/sciem2000/index.html
Or read an archaeological report - preferably one covering multi-period occupancy in an urban context. Roman or Middle Eastern would do nicely. Failing that, some of the excavations of medieval castles which have underlying iron and bronze age forts.
One problem (which kept me in work as a research historian for a few years) is that archaeology tends to be a bit underfunded and radiocarbon dating is expensive. Finding an absolute historical date of any sort: even a terminus post quem or ante quem has the advantage of saving a bundle in radiocarbon testing fees.
Even then, there are some cool sites in the UK - Winchester and York are obvious examples - where good RC dates can be compared to known historical dates.
What you probably won't find is palaeontological stratigraphy and archaeological stratigraphy in the same report. They are different disciplines and are interested in different sites.
There are however, some sites with wonderful stratigraphic sequences stretching back from medieval to neanderthal occupation:
http://www.acs.appstate.edu/dept/anthro/new_orleans.html
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 02-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by redstang281, posted 02-19-2002 1:59 PM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by redstang281, posted 02-20-2002 9:18 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

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


Message 63 of 68 (5090)
02-19-2002 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by redstang281
02-19-2002 1:59 PM


Firstly, please answer this from message 20
I repeat:
"So the K-T Tectites were dated by no less than four methods, that corroborate. 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb . If that weren't evidence enough, lets take a look at how innacurate they all must be, to fit a YEC world view. I'll assume, for the sake of simplicity that the K-T boundary is 60 mya, not 65 mya. Now, assuming a 6,000 year old YEC earth. This means that all the above methods, were ALL 1,000,000% innacurate. Let me reiterate, the YEC movement requires these FOUR different, corroberating methods to be ONE MILLION PERCENT INNACURATE. Thats all of them innacurate by the same amount."
Can you explain the correlation?
quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:

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?

How can something be 65 million years old & be historically known? It is prehistoric by definition.
If you mean have there been datings of particular sections of the geologic column, showing increased ages with depth, then yes. Not only that, but in this example they correlate with ammonite marker fossils. Meaning the dates given below corroborate with other dates elsewhere containing those same fossils.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
"By contrast, the example presented here is a geologically simple situation -- it consists of several primary (i.e. not redeposited) volcanic ash deposits with a diverse dateable mineral assemblage (multiple minerals and methods are possible), found in fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks in western North America. It demonstrates how consistent radiometric data can be when the rocks are more suitable for dating. For most geological samples like this, radiometric dating "just works". Consider this stratigraphic section from the Bearpaw Formation of Saskatchewan, Canada (Baadsgaard et al., 1993):
Figure 3. Lithostratigraphy (i.e. the sedimentary rocks), biostratigraphy (fossils) and radiometric dates from the Bearpaw Formation, southern Saskatchewan, Canada. Modified from Baadsgaard et al., 1993. The section is measured in metres, starting with 0m at the bottom (oldest).
About 40 of these ammonite zones are used to subdivide the upper part of the Cretaceous Period in this area. Dinosaurs and many other types of fossils are also found in this interval, and in broad context it occurs shortly before the extinction of the dinosaurs, and the extinction of all ammonites. The Bearpaw Formation is a marine unit that occurs over much of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and it continues into Montana and North Dakota in the United States, although it adopts a different name in the U.S. (the Pierre Shale), mainly for historical and political reasons, rather than any great geological difference.
The uppermost ash bed, dated by three independent methods (K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr), and from as many as three different minerals (felspar, biotite, and zircon), yields a date of about 72.5 +- 0.4 million years ago (Ma) (weighted mean of several analyses. The numbers above are just summary values). The results for the lower ash bed, although not as complete as for the upper ash bed (only the Rb/Sr isochron method -- the U/Pb isochron was discordant, indicating the minerals did not preserve the date), give the expected result from superpositional relationships -- it is older by about a million years (73.65 +- 0.59 Ma), taking the mean values.
Other examples yield similar results - i.e. compatible with the expectations from the stratigraphy. For example, Baadsgaard and Lerbekmo (1988) dated the age of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K/T) boundary using three methods (K/Ar, Rb/Sr, and U/Pb, again using multiple minerals) at three localities in the U.S. and Canada. Theoretically, the K/T boundary should be younger than the Baculites reesidei zone mentioned above, because the K/T boundary occurs stratigraphically above this level in the same area and globally. The result? 64.3+-1.2 million years ago is the weighted average from the three localities, and almost all the results are within 1 million years of each other. The results are therefore highly consistent given the analytical uncertainties in any measurement.
Eberth and Braman (1990) described the vertebrate paleontology and sedimentology of the Judith River Formation, a dinosaur-bearing unit that occurs stratigraphically below the Baculites reesidei zone (the Judith River Formation is below the Bearpaw Formation). It should therefore be older than the results from Baadsgaard et al. (1993). An ash bed near the top of the Judith River Fm. yields a date of 76.11+-0.22 million years ago, while one almost 100m lower yields a date of 78.2+-0.2 million years ago (Eberth and Braman, 1990, figure 5). Again, this is compatible with the age determined for the Baculites reesidei zone and its relative stratigraphic position, and even with the relative position of the two samples within the same formation."
I have answered all of your questions on this thread, & repeatedly asked you to answer the question at the top of this post. All I have got is more questions. So come on now, your turn.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by redstang281, posted 02-19-2002 1:59 PM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by redstang281, posted 02-20-2002 10:56 AM mark24 has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 64 of 68 (5122)
02-20-2002 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Percy
02-19-2002 4:04 PM


Percy: I'd be very interested in the text of the Raup letter. I think you have my email address on file, if not let me know. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 02-19-2002 4:04 PM Percy has not replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 68 (5151)
02-20-2002 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Mister Pamboli
02-19-2002 5:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
Oh for goodness sake - read a book, why don't you? How about ...
The Absolute chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age: archaeology, radiocarbon and history (Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1995)
by S. W. Manning

I think I'll read this book first -> http://www.icr.org/store/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=001&Product_Code=BMYOF1
[This message has been edited by redstang281, 02-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-19-2002 5:11 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-20-2002 11:46 AM redstang281 has not replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 68 (5156)
02-20-2002 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by mark24
02-19-2002 5:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
Firstly, please answer this from message 20
"So the K-T Tectites were dated by no less than four methods, that corroborate. 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb . If that weren't evidence enough, lets take a look at how innacurate they all must be, to fit a YEC world view. I'll assume, for the sake of simplicity that the K-T boundary is 60 mya, not 65 mya. Now, assuming a 6,000 year old YEC earth. This means that all the above methods, were ALL 1,000,000% innacurate. Let me reiterate, the YEC movement requires these FOUR different, corroberating methods to be ONE MILLION PERCENT INNACURATE. Thats all of them innacurate by the same amount."
Can you explain the correlation?

All dating methods are collaborated with the geologic column so it doesn't prove much to me.
Basically they assume the geologic column was established with the correct dates.
So the claim that 40ar/39ar dating has given the correct date for "the 79 A.D. eruption of Vesuvius that is famous for destroying Pompeii" may be in fact true. But I have a hard time believing the collaboration for 40ar/39ar in that instance was based off the geologic column. I would like to see them date the rock below the eruption of vesuvious and see what dates 40ar/39ar would show.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by mark24, posted 02-19-2002 5:21 PM mark24 has not replied

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


Message 67 of 68 (5158)
02-20-2002 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by redstang281
02-20-2002 9:18 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[B] I think I'll read this book first -> http://www.icr.org/store/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=001&Product_Code=BMYOF1
[/QUOTE]
Wow - is he still in print? Have you read any of his other stuff?
If so, you could help me. I'm fascinated by the intellectual background to this discussion, most especially in the ways in which non-experts approach the evidence of each side.
On one side we have a vast body of work which has established and continues to refine the dating techniques in use today. On the other side we have a much smaller body of work which critiques these techniques to the extent of claiming them to be completely and hopelessly wrong.
As a non-specialist, one would be unable to decide the technical merits of either side - in essence it comes down to which "authoritative" version one chooses to trust.
How do you make that choice? How does a non-specialist decide that Woodmorappe has a surer analytical technique, or has greater insight into these issues than the hundreds arrayed against him?
After all, Woodmorappe's criticisms of dating methods are regarded as quite ludicrous and even amusing by those I know in the field. And this is not because they are uncritical of these methods themselves - the difficulties of interpreting the evidence are being constantly examined by the community of users of the evidence. There are extremely vigorous debates, often quite personalised, about the relative ages of various fossil remains and archaeological artifacts: careers are made or broken on very fine interpretations of this evidence. One cannot say it is not uncritically examined. But the overall context - that these dates largely say what they mean - is generally accepted.
I'm not trying to lead you into a trap here so let me be clearer about my interest with a few questions.
:
o you think Woodmorappe knows more about these issues than those he criticizing?
:
o you think Woodmorappe is more honest than those he is criticizing?
:
o you think there is a conscious dishonest attempt to mislead on behalf of those he criticizes?
:
o you think Woodmorappe has a spiritual position that enables him to see the true meaning of the evidence that is closed to those he criticizes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by redstang281, posted 02-20-2002 9:18 AM redstang281 has not replied

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


Message 68 of 68 (5165)
02-20-2002 12:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:

All dating methods are collaborated with the geologic column so it doesn't prove much to me.

So why did you ask me to provide an example? Because asking a question is easier than asking the question I have asked of you THREE TIMES?
Different dating methods corroborate EACH other, not the geologic column. Given the KNOWN accuracy (vesuvius) of Ar-Ar, it is entirely reasonable to apply the method to the geologic column. You may not like the results, of course, but it is for you to explain why Ar-Ar dating was wrong by ONLY SEVEN YEARS with regard to the vesuvius eruption (less than 1%, the range given is 5%, if my memory serves), but is to be considered innacurate as a method.
quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
Basically they assume the geologic column was established with the correct dates.

Rubbish. The various methods are applied to the geologic column, & produce consistant results.
Why the consistancy between different methods?
quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:

So the claim that 40ar/39ar dating has given the correct date for "the 79 A.D. eruption of Vesuvius that is famous for destroying Pompeii" may be in fact true. But I have a hard time believing the collaboration for 40ar/39ar in that instance was based off the geologic column. I would like to see them date the rock below the eruption of vesuvious and see what dates 40ar/39ar would show.

The "corroboration" for Ar-Ar dating wasn't taken from the geologic column. For the purposes of this discussion, it was from the vesuvius eruption, & the highly concordant & corroborative results of different methods.
I've given you an example of the geologic column dating older the deeper you go, asking for ages beneath vesuvius' ash is irrelevant & evasive. The method has been SHOWN to work.
Let me repeat, Ar-Ar dating HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE ACCURATE! In samples with excess argon, no less.
So, back to my original question. Please, no more evasions by posing more questions.
I repeat:
"So the K-T Tectites were dated by no less than four methods, that corroborate. 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb . If that weren't evidence enough, lets take a look at how innacurate they all must be, to fit a YEC world view. I'll assume, for the sake of simplicity that the K-T boundary is 60 mya, not 65 mya. Now, assuming a 6,000 year old YEC earth. This means that all the above methods, were ALL 1,000,000% innacurate. Let me reiterate, the YEC movement requires these FOUR different, corroberating methods to be ONE MILLION PERCENT INNACURATE. Thats all of them innacurate by the sam

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024