Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
162 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, DrJones*, jar, JonF, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (6 members, 156 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,811 Year: 1,559/23,288 Month: 1,559/1,851 Week: 199/484 Day: 17/105 Hour: 3/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dating Question For Members
Percy
Member
Posts: 19320
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 13 of 77 (610171)
03-27-2011 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by dwise1
03-27-2011 5:05 AM


dwise1 writes:

Furthermore, I already knew of the Law of Supposition...

I suppose there could have been a law of supposition, but if so then I think it may have been superseded.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by dwise1, posted 03-27-2011 5:05 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by dwise1, posted 03-27-2011 11:39 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19320
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 23 of 77 (610189)
03-27-2011 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by jar
03-27-2011 1:54 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
I think that by "minerals or surrounding sediments" that Buz was referring to sediment deposited contemporaneously with the organism. He understands that the sedimentary material is particles broken down from older rock, so he's asking how you can date the organism if the sediments containing it are made up of much older material.

Of course, this question has already been answered at least several times in nearly identical ways by you and others. At one point JonF mentioned a method by which one might extract the date of sedimentation from the layer itself, see Message 15, but Buz didn't respond so that may not be the source of his confusion.

The trick in this thread won't be answering the question - that's already been done. The trick will be getting Buz to understand the answer.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 03-27-2011 1:54 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19320
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 30 of 77 (610198)
03-27-2011 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw
03-27-2011 7:54 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
Buzsaw writes:

I understand this fully, Jar, but you seem to be ignoring what I wrote. Catastrophes disturb formations. No? Formations which are relatively suddenly created by catastrophes are disturbed formations. No?

Obviously as sedimentary layers form, the newest layers are always on top. This is how things always start, with newer layers atop older layers. The layers start out like this:

Layer 5
Layer 4
Layer 3
Layer 2
Layer 1

Now you're proposing that some catastrophe might come along and leave the layers in some other order. For the sake of discussion I'll assume inverted order, like this:

Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Layer 4
Layer 5

Though the majority of geological formations have not experienced this kind of topsy-turvy past, we do find inverted formations like this in many places around the world, but turning trillions of tons of rock upside down leaves a lot of evidence behind. What kind of tectonic process or even catastrophe are you imagining that could do this without leaving any evidence behind?

And more importantly, what has this got to do with your original question?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 7:54 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020