Re: Meaning of the Geological Column


"Zoe" <muze10@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:v41mu29clh825v4t29efk5bqpdvfio0at7@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:23:27 GMT, "Ross Langerak"
<rlangerak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Zoe" <muze10@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:egn9u21uonlbb8mlj9v4ruhujcfb1n7tju@xxxxxxxxxx
After reading those posts that were informative about the geological
column - thanks to those who know enough to respond informatively -
here is what I have learned so far.

1. The geological column does not exist in its entirety anywhere in
the world. Do I have that correct now?

Suppose there were a complete geological column, where would you expect
to
find it? For it to be complete up to this moment, it would have to still
be
forming, otherwise it would not be complete. So, where are new
sedimentary
layers now being deposited? The fact is, the complex history of the
Earth
makes it highly unlikely that we will ever find strata representing the
complete geological column at any one location.

so was Glenn Morton following a pipe dream when he declared that all
of the geological column can be found in one place in North Dakota?
He even had a breakdown of an oil drilling sample (on paper, anyway)
that showed every single layer in that core, precisely divided up,
dated, and labeled. Never mind that the layers that he described as
lying one on top of the other, were layers from other parts of the
U.S. and Canada, he nevertheless put them together, one on top the
other, on paper. Are you discounting his "evidence"?

If the deposits were found in North Dakota, then they aren't complete, are
they? At some point in the past, they had to be raised above sea level, at
which point deposition would have ceased and it would be missing the most
recent part of the geological column.

Neither I, nor evolution, nor science, are responsible for Glenn Morton's
declarations. Religious arguments rely upon arguments from authority, not
scientific theories. The validity of any theory in science is determined
entirely by how well it fits the evidence. People, including scientists,
sometimes make mistakes. When they do, they will be corrected by other
scientists who are familiar with the evidence. When a scientific theory
comes into question, we always go back to the evidence.

On the other hand, creationists have a poor track record when it comes to
understanding either evolution or the evidence that supports it. Was Glenn
Morton really talking about the entire geological column, or was he talking
about an uninterrupted series or an entire period of deposition?
Creationists seem to have a habit of misinterpreting statements by
evolutionists.

snip>

An observation: The ordering of files according to the alphabet
implies prior knowledge of the alphabet. So, to compare the ordering
of the column to the ordering of files alphabetically, implies that
there is some standard used against which the ordering of scattered
rock layers occurs. If that standard is not the ToE, then what is
it?

Not necessarily. Suppose we don't know the order of the letters in the
alphabet used for a set of files. We might find a set of files
identified
with the letters L, M, N, and O. If we later find a set of files with
the
letters N, O, P, and Q, it would be reasonable to conclude that the files
should be ordered L, M, N, O, P, and Q.

except since you don't know the "alphabet" of the layers. It could
very well be L, M, N, O, P, and R, with erosion having removed Q.

Hey, you're the one who proposed this analogy. Files don't erode, though
they may be removed. In that case, finding a sequence of files ordered O,
P, Q, R, S would indicate that we needed to insert a Q between P and R, and
we would be able to add an S to the end as well. Additional findings might
confirm this sequence.

Fossil bearing strata can be ordered in the same way. If strata from two
locations contain the same sequences of fossil species, it's perfectly
reasonable to conclude that the layers those fossils are found in are of
the
same age, and use that information to extend our construction of the
geological column.

using "erosion" as a solution for why certain layers are not found in
expected places, erodes your theory, as well. It seems easy to
advocate erosion when expected layers are missing, but it is just as
possible that erosion may have removed layers in what appear to be
original stacks so that what now looks like L-M-N-O-P layers were
originally L-N-O-P-Q layers.

We don't suggest that erosion has occurred because expected layers are
missing; we suggest that erosion has occurred because there is evidence that
erosion has occurred. Your analogy fails at this point because there is no
independent way to determine if a letter is missing from a sequence. Your
confusion here is the result of the inadequacy of your analogy, not the
inadequacy of evolution (or geology).

Okay, I'll try to answer that. The theory of evolution has nothing to
do with the arrangement of fossils in the geological column. It is
the age of igneous rock near fossil-bearing layers that indicate where
those rocks should be placed on paper.

Originally, similar sequences of fossils found at different locations
were
used to put those strata into chronological context.

in the lower layers, I gather that a certain level of index fossils
were used by canal-dredging engineers in England, to identify rocks
that came from the same period. How about the layers with more
complex fossils? You know, those fossils that will show a progression
from invertebrates to invertebrates, from fish to land life forms, all
stacked in orderly layers.

What about them?

Is there igneous rock near or within Devonian dig sites that give a
younger age than igneous rock near or within Cambrian or Silurian dig
sites? References, please?

Does every site worldwide carry a marker igneous rock so that the age
can be applied to the layer near it? If not (and I'm betting probably
not), what other standard is used as the "alphabet" for ordering the
layers?

Geologists and paleontologists generally use layers of volcanic ash or
tuffs
to establish the age of fossil strata. If a fossil is not found in a
tuff,
then tuffs above and below the find may be dated. This gives a range of
dates and interpolation can be used to establish a more precise age.

remember now, we are talking about benchmark sites named after their
locations -- Jurassic, Silurian, Devonian, and so forth. What tuffs
or ash are layered between these sites?

Tuffs are physical layers at a geographical location. They are not levels
in the geologic column. If a fossil is found in a particular layer at a
particular site, using isometric dating to date tuffs above and below the
layer of the fossil will provide a range of ages for the fossil. If that
fossil happens to be an index fossil, it can help establish an age for that
particular level of the geologic column. If those tuffs are found in the
benchmark sites used to name a period, then we may be able to determine the
absolute age of that period.

snip>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Meaning of the Geological Column
    ... Suppose there were a complete geological column, ... Never mind that the layers that he described as ... same age, and use that information to extend our construction of the ... do with the arrangement of fossils in the geological column. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Meaning of the Geological Column
    ... You agreed that the geological column does not ... rock layers occurs. ... There are many places in the world where multiple layers are stacked ... index fossils), they tend to occur in the same order relative to one ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Meaning of the Geological Column
    ... am not questioning the correctness of the superposition of the layers. ... geological column together. ... With respect to fossils, it ... If, as is the case here, layers that have the identifier ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Meaning of the Geological Column
    ... You agreed that the geological column does not ... Do you understand that when we say Devonian, ... layers of different rock types that have been designated as Devonian? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The geological column
    ... The geological column is incomplete. ... relative dating framework (and no, relative dating is not taking your ... How can you use the fossil to date the strata when you do not know ... Think of clips from a football game. ...
    (talk.origins)