The Geologic Column

[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.

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]

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.