The Geologic Column

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.orghttp://www.tiac.net/users/cri/miller.html

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. Manningor 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.htmlOr 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]

[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?