How the geo strata are identified as time periods

His condescending attitude annoys me.

I'm not sure his post works for me. I was hoping to get some information about techniques of identifying strata, in a more or less casual format. Fossils or character of strata or whatnot. General principles, specific examples. I kind of thought this might not be all that hard for anyone with a minimal background in geology. I might be wrong there, but what I know about geology I learned online and I haven't run across much information about the methods of identifying the layers. General principles of geology as a whole, though, lots of that out there.Jar then started asking questions about the specifics of sedimentary formations. I do know a few things about that and have thought about it to some extent. I know I don't agree with jar about some of it from other threads, and by his laying out the format for this thread with those questions he could force me into my Flood explanations, which is one thing I really wanted to avoid on this thread. I don't want to argue the two paradigms on this thread; that's what happened on the mutation thread where I also didn't want to argue them. I just want to know how geologists, evolutionist geologists, arrive at their identification of strata if it's possible to say.I COULD get very interested in all this if I had the time, and the money for some neat but very expensive books about aspects of geology, but I don't have all that much of either. And forget hiking expeditions to various sites. I never was much of a hiker and now I'm too old and physically out of shape for that level of involvement. This is going to have to be a cerebral undertaking.Anyway, I'm not looking for an entire course in geology on this thread, but it appears that's what jar and Nosy, and to some extent anglagard and Jazz, are turning it into.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

yeah, it's kinda difficult to learn the basics of something without it being a course.naturally, that's where those things are introduced--geology courses, and sometimes a background of previous geology courses are required.and I'm no geologist, so I can't help.as far as resisting the urge to defend the flood, perhaps we can do this. it can be a session between, say, me and jar. and he can teach me geology, slowly. I'll ask as many questions as possible that seem relevant.that work?
anyone else have a problem with this proposal?

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Hey, I'd enjoy watching jar teach you geology. It might not answer my questions but it would be interesting. If he's game, go for it.But I don't think even a basic course in geology would answer this particular question. I'm not sure, I just don't think so because it's not easy to find a discussion of this at online geology courses. Lots of general principles of geology are there, as I said, but little or no discussion of such particulars as how the strata all over the earth are identified.{Edit: The strata don't come in neat predictable little arrangements; they show up in all kinds of different sedimentary characters, so identifying which is what period has to take some ingenuity.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sorry, I didn't know this thread was about your feelings. Please consider proposing a new topic about yourself.

Faith, I gave away trying to explain geology to you around about your post no. 100 when you said regardless of what we explained, if it contradicted the Bible, you didn`t believe it. Since then many members have gone to great lengths to show you the Big Picture and it has gone down like a lead balloon. Americans have an expression 'I`m from Missouri' or whatnot, and I think the only way you will comprehend is to actually see and handle the materials involved. If you feel you can`t do field trips which would lay it out for you much quicker, can I suggest any nearby geological museum, lapidary clubs, even a minerals dealer. Once you see specimens, regardless of where they originated, it might make a connection with geology in general. Holding actual frozen time capsules brings you closer to their origin. Comparing specimens with illustrations, might enable you to place them a little better. Far better if you can join, say, a prospecting club with family outings where you will find similar old and infirm () who manage easy trips but share in the fun. Best of luck.

You asked about wanting to see something about a geologic formation that was dated by multiple methods, if I understood correctly. I sought to show you an example of a geologic formation that was dated by multiple methods.I simply tried to answer your question because, as a librarian, it is my nature and my job to answer questions I feel I may be able to answer. I only asked that you try to read that one part of the paper which showed how a formation was dated by multiple means, not that you undertake a degree program, although you may want to have a dictionary of geologic terms handy in order to fully comprehend that one part of that one article.Although I do have a BS in geological engineering, I am no expert as I do not work in that field. Unfortunately, despiite the fact that it was 26 years ago, I may be still be too close to such esoteric knowledge to fully appreciate the difficulty a novice may have.For that reason, I will not contribute further to this thread unless requested.Edited by anglagard, : speling

Well, that's what you've got. If you want the dumbed down version, it goes like this: Clever people who have actually studied geology found it out for you, that's how you know. Not at all. Obviously fossils are only used as index fossils if it has been discovered that, whenever they can be dated, they only occur in a certain period.Clearly the age of a fossil cannot be a matter of definition.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

To stick my foot in once more: William Smith and several other Englishmen did and wrote about what you're wanting about 190 years ago, Faith. Mr Smith, in particular, built canals for a living. He kept track of the rocks he found while doing this - a particular white-to-yellow limestone might show up at two spots, one 50 miles northeast of the other, and both times with, say, a grey sandstone above it and a black shale below. And the particular set of seashells found in each were very similar - but different from the set in a yellowish limestone that he'd dug through 50 miles to the southeast.Then Smith would go dig a canal elsewhere along the line of the first two above, and predict where he'd hit that same lime with the same seashell assemblage! And he'd never find that assemblage away from that particular line there in southern England, though Frenchmen might find the same set in a similar limestone in the Alps.I'll find the book tonight and get a detail or two.....

William Smith is interesting -- I'd probably like to read the book myself sometime. But I would expect there to be a continuous deposition in a relatively small area of the planet -- meaning by "small" the entire British Isles plus half the European continent possibly.Those observations are interesting of course, but my question has to do with the impression that the layers aren't continuous like that all over the planet. There are layers everywhere but their character changes. So I'm curious how geologists correlate the information from one set with others in such a way that a worldwide deposition of strata can be reliably identified as representing periods of time -- periods of time that can be tracked everywhere even if the characteristics of the strata are appreciably different.See, maybe naively, I just thought that people with some geology background would simply know the main principles of how this is done off the top of their heads, and have examples in mind to illustrate it.

I guess I have to disagree with your first proposition...

quote:

---

unless there are signs that the area has been disturbed, a layer under another layer is likely older than the layer above?

---

...after spending an hour and a half this morning reading up on experiments in sedimentation by Guy Berthault in which it was shown that it's possible for currents of water to carry a lot of sediment and precipitate it out all at once into separate layers. I'd read Henry Morris along these lines years ago but had the impression that the layers had accumulated sequentially. Berthault's experiments show otherwise. I hoped to find some pictures of the experiments online but haven't yet. Apparently there are some videos available though.CSAMA - 404 Error I didn't want to get into this kind of discussion though. I didn't want to bring up the flood or alternative explanations of sedimentation or anything like that. All I wanted to know, and still want to know, is how geologists NAME the strata according to the Geo Time Table when there appear to be quite a few differences in the layering across the planet. Is it really possible to identify a continuous layer across the entire planet and how do they do this? If it IS possible, this won't be disputed by flood theory.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith, I'm not at all sure that I am going to be able to help but am more than willing to try to answer your questions. If you would like we can step through this as I suggested, but it will be a long, slow process I fear.I really know no other way to do it and cannot give you the answer in a 30 second spot. I promise though that I will try NOT bring up the flood. I will talk about how things are made.If you want to continue I am more than happy to spend the time with you and call in others with far more knowledge than me when needed. For the most part though I, like you, am but an amateur and so it is possible that if you walk awhile with me I just may be able to explain things in a way that is less technical. The folk that really know this stuff will love to jump in though and straighten me up when I make to gross a mistake or even more likely, when I over simplify.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi Faith,Sorry to butt in, and I'm going suggest that everyone except Jar butt out, but I just wanted to quickly suggest that you temporarily suspend disbelief and avoid seeking creationist rebuttals. Raising issues and asking questions is part of the process, but the explanation of the analysis of sedimentary layers from the perspective of the science of geology will never be completed if you approach it like a debate. Entire threads have been spent debating Berthault, and other entire threads have been spent debating Mt. Saint Helens. I can't see how any progress can be made if the thread turns to discuss such topics. I'm sure you're very curious about them, but I don't believe that examining creationist claims about them while still ignorant of basic geological principles would be helpful. Just my opinion...--Percy

I SAID, Percy, that I do NOT want to approach this as a debate. I don't want to discuss the Flood. How much clearer can I possibly be about that? But jar asked questions and I answered them. Better he hadn't asked the questions.Jar's supposed step-by-step approach to this is NOT a step by step approach to what I asked for. It's not even a step approach to anything. He merely asked a series of questions and I answered them. This is NOT the way to approach this subject. I answered his questions in a way that shows I don't accept his way of construing them. How does that get us into any kind of step to anything whatever?In my OP I said I'd like to ask questions and otherwise watch. Well, so far, NOBODY has honored that request. Jar asked ME questions, questions I see no relevance for; others gave information that didn't answer my questions but required me to do further research. That's OK, I may yet do it, but it's not what I asked for.I have no idea why anybody thinks jar has found the right way to approach this subject. I don't see it. There are no steps in that list of questions.I've asked the questions that interest me a number of times already and he has not addressed them.I personally would not limit this thread to jar. I don't even see what he's trying to do. Spend this entire thread in some kind of preparation before he "gets to" my questions? Hey, I wrote the OP, and that's not what I asked for.If I were to choose anyone to participate here I might choose Coragyps, possible jazzns.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Okay, let's throw Jar out, but let's limit this. My reaction to this thread is that it's a mess. AdminNosy requested that participation be limited, and this was followed by a number of posts tugging in every different direction. They were all well-intentioned, but a cacophony is not conducive to learning.So pick someone, just one person, to answer your questions. Ah, I see you've chosen Coragyps or Jazzns. Good. Let's see if they accept.I still suggest that you limit yourself to asking questions about things you don't understand or want to know more about, but not seek creationist rebuttals of things you find difficult to accept. Instead seek to understand them better.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Respond to Faith's edit.