The Geologic Column

Well if we bury somebody in Cretaceous clay soil, that doesn't mean the body is from the Cretaceous. If a rat falls down an old well into Precambrain rocks, that doesn't make the rat Precambrian. These are some examples of artificial disturbances.If a mudslide of Jurassic sand covers a stump, and the stump fossilizes there, we have a vertical fossil crossing multiple strata and an anomaly...but the stump is not Jurassic. If a worm burrow crosses multiple strata, then fills with silt and fossilizes, another anomaly. Ditto with tree roots. If a mountain goat falls into the Grand Canyon, and is covered with silt from an annual flood and fossilizes there, it would be sitting there on Precambrian schists with recent layers on top (now *there's* an unconformity for you!) but would not be from the Precambrian. These are some examples of natural disturbances of the geologic column, but they all seem like they would be fairly obvious to a geologist working nearby. "Polystrate" fossils on a steep hillside obviously implies deposition or even a landslide. Goats in the bottom of a fossil river channel are obvious. Roots are obvious. Worm burrows are obvious. I'm sure there are many more examples though.

The majority of Redstang's most recent post was taken verbatim from ICR's website, "Excess Argon", IMPACT number 307, accessible here: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-307.htmWithout sufficient attribution or bibliographic data...the closest thing to an attribution is "+ Dr. Snelling is Associate Professor of Geology at ICR." and it looks likely that he grabbed that by mistake.

[QUOTE]Origin unclear, due to Redstang's posting tactics[b]
There are plenty of lava flows around the world with real historically known ages so why not use them? The only logical reason is that the "known" must close to the expected age, based on the geologic column, so that the result is calibrated to the geologic column. [/QUOTE][/b]

quote:

---

I suspect that if historically known ages worked for a standard on all samples they would use them to give the method more credibility. Since they don't use standards of historically known age, it has probably been shown that such dates don't fit the geologic column.

---

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient[b]
Since K/Ar dating is only used for material older than 50 million years, a possible residual amount of Ar-40 at levels measured by Dalrymple could cause no more than a 2 million year descrepancy, and Dalrymple's work help establish guidelines for correcting even that small error.[/QUOTE][/b]There you have your answer, Redstang. Please read some of the posts left for you before resorting to conspiracies or asking questions that have already been answered.