Re: Meaning of the Geological Column

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:17:31 GMT, "Ross Langerak"
<rlangerak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Zoe" <muze10@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:p8ipu2dbus3ml1c1f4f4sobdeucpcm7led@xxxxxxxxxx
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.

Wherever you may have gotten the analogy, you used it in your original post.
That was your choice and no one else's.

so when I answer someone who uses a bad analogy, my mention of the bad
analogy makes that analogy mine. I see. Is this how the
evolutionary theory was developed, through similar unwarranted leaps?

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.

Presumably, to be analogous with the fossil strata, the files would be found
in stacks around a room. We wouldn't need to know the alphabet beforehand
in order to put the files in order. By simply matching sequences in the
various files, we could determine the correct order.

the analogy continues to be a bad one. Why are you continuing to use
it? The means of stacking books is different from the means of
stacking sedimentary rock layers. Rock layers get stacked through the
action of water, such that it is reasonable to conclude that one layer
is younger or older than another. Books are not necessarily stacked
according to some principle that says that the books must always be
stacked alphabetically. They could have been stacked according to
thickness with A on the bottom and Q at the top.


In the real world, we don't find a single sequence of species everywhere on
the planet. Different locations have different environments and different
flora and fauna. However, there are species that have extensive ranges, and
there are species that overlap. There are birds that migrate from the
northern coast of North America to the southern tip of South America on an
annual basis. Gulls, rats, crows, many fish and insects have wide ranging
habitats.

A fossil sequence found in one location may be nearly identical to a
sequence found at a nearby location. Move a little farther away and we may
begin to find differences in the sequence, while at the same time
maintaining similarities that put those differences into context. By
traveling around the world comparing nearby deposits, we may be able to put
fossil strata in central Africa, east Asia, and North America into the same
context.

if fossil strata in Central Africa, East Asia, and North America are
put into the same context, does this mean that those strata had to be
laid down at the same time?

Getting back to your alphabet analogy, suppose at one location we find a
sequence (A, B, C, D, E, F). Now, suppose we move to a nearby location and
we find the sequence is now (A, BB, C, D, E, F). We now know that B is
contemporaneous with BB. If we continue to move farther away, we may find
sequences (A, BB, C, DD, EE, F), (AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, F), (AA, BBB, CC, DDD,
EE, FF). Based upon these findings, we can determine that (A, B, C, D, E,
F) is concurrent with (AA, BBB, CC, DDD, EE, FF).

well...yes....even using YOUR bad analogy of the alphabet, this is
obvious. I'm not sure what you have accomplished with this, though.

snip>

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?

Scientists are not stupid.

agreed. Evolutionists are not real scientists, though.

Why are creationists always assuming that
scientists are stupid?

not scientists -- evolutionists. There's a vast difference.

Erosion and other geological processes produce
inconsistencies between sequences of strata.

Q. What is the inconsistency seen between sequences of strata that
lead one to conclude a missing layer?

A. The inconsistency is that of a missing layer.

Q. How do you know that a layer is missing?

A. Because there is an inconsistency between the sequences of strata.

Q. Oh.

Strata below a certain level
may be tilted while strata above that level may be horizontal.

how does a tilted strata demonstrate that a layer was once there and
is now missing, please?

Strata below
a certain level may be interrupted while strata above that level are
continuous.

how does interrupted strata demonstrate a missing layer?

What happens to the preservation of fossils when strata
deposited in water are interrupted by strata deposited on dry land?

want to tell me?

And, of
course, we now have isotopic dating methods that allow us to produce
absolute ages for strata that confirm interruptions in deposition.

I'm talking about the geological column before isotopic dating came
along, (which type of dating I've already resolved to my own
satisfaction).

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Meaning of the Geological Column
    ... finding a sequence of files ordered ... regardless of where the layer is found. ... fossil strata in central Africa, east Asia, and North America into the same ... The inconsistency is that of a missing layer. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Meaning of the Geological Column
    ... may be tilted while strata above that level may be horizontal. ... it is not anything in the tilted layer that is the ... contain the types of fossils that generally, in succesion, span life ... something to do with evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Meaning of the Geological Column
    ... may be tilted while strata above that level may be horizontal. ... it is not anything in the tilted layer that is the ... Deposition of the lower layers, ... He's not even talking about what fossils you find here, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Meaning of the Geological Column
    ... may be tilted while strata above that level may be horizontal. ... Let's take another look at my previous statement: "Erosion and other ... it is not anything in the tilted layer that is the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Meaning of the Geological Column
    ... may be tilted while strata above that level may be horizontal. ... It is the difference between the tilted strata below and ... it is not anything in the tilted layer that is the ... no deposition of fossils would have been taking place. ...
    (talk.origins)