Re: Meaning of the Geological Column

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 02:41:31 GMT, "Ross Langerak"
<rlangerak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

snip>

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.

correction. I did not propose this analogy. Carlson did.

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.

and, again, you have a prior knowledge of the alphabet; that is why
you recognize that Q goes between P and R. I'm looking for
characteristics that allow you to consistently recognize that Q is Q
in the geological field, regardless of where the layer is found. If
there are no identifying characteristics, then a layer could be Z as
easily as it could be Q.

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).

again, it is not my analogy. It is Carlson's. Take that up with him.

However, if erosion has completely occurred, then you have no evidence
that erosion has occurred, other than a prior knowledge of what should
have been there. Is this prior knowledge based on a solid premise or
not?

snip>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Meaning of the Geological Column
    ... except since you don't know the "alphabet" of the layers. ... very well be L, M, N, O, P, and R, with erosion having removed Q. ... Presumably, to be analogous with the fossil strata, the files would be found ... we don't find a single sequence of species everywhere on ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Angles and Erosion Rates - For John Harshman
    ... If the layers are so folded that some are protected from erosion, ... surface area) and slow down the process of complete erosion breeching ... The overall rate of sediment deposition ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Thickness of Richard Forrest
    ... If the layers are so folded that some are protected from erosion, ... surface area) and slow down the process of complete erosion breeching ... The overall rate of sediment deposition ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Angles and Erosion Rates - For John Harshman
    ... from the underlying crystalline base rock. ... If the layers are so folded that some are protected from erosion, ... The overall rate of sediment deposition ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Thickness of Richard Forrest
    ... from the underlying crystalline base rock. ... If the layers are so folded that some are protected from erosion, ... The overall rate of sediment deposition ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast