Re: The geological column

On Mar 29, 3:27 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
Jim Willemin wrote:
"[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:TLGzl.22353$qa.13411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

.
The geological column is incomplete. It is also dated with guess
work.
As to incompleteness:  I suppose if you need a continuous hourly
record of the history of the earth for the geological column to be
complete, you're right, it's incomplete.  So what?  We cannot know
everything with the confidence of Absolute Truth(tm).   However,
current mainstream geology makes pretty damn good sense out of the
record we do have, which is essentially complete for the
Quaternary and gets spottier as you go back in time.

As to dating: You have been corrected on this before.  Quit lying..

Please start over and get it right this time. Because it is very
misleading as it is now.

If you think we geologists have done such a bad job, go ahead and
redo it yourself.  If such work is beneath you, shut up.   Better
yet, learn something about the field - the autobiography of a
planet is fascinating reading.

Stop being so 'thin skinned'.

I did not say YOU did a bad Job. And there is MUCH that you guys do
in the field of geology that has furthered mankind.

However you know as well as i know that the original column was
dated with fossils, but, they had no idea what the date of the
fossils were because there was no dating methods when the column
was written. So the fossils were dated using guess work and the
column. Kinda like the old chasing your tail thingy.
As is very common among creationists, you have confused dating with
correlation, and absolute dating with relative dating. Fossils are
used to correlate strata not to date them. Correlation can be used
to establish a sequence of relative dates. Relative dates can be
calibrated by other means to give absolute dates. And once you have
a framework of absolute dates, you can then determine the absolute
age of a new section based on its fossils. I entirely understand
that you won't read this, and if you pick anything out of this
paragraph it will be a few random words whose intent you will
garble. But that's how it works.
Now generally that absolute dating is done using radiometric
methods. Hardly guesswork, wouldn't you say? Here, by the way, is
one of my favorite examples of rigorous dating: Landing, E., S. A.
Bowring, K. L. Davidek, S. R. Westrop, G. Geyer, and W. Heidmaier.
1998. Duration of the Early Cambrian: U-Pb ages of volcanic ashes
from Avalon and Gondwana. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
35:329-338. Check it out.
In addition you have no complete record of the column anywhere on
earth.
As one would expect, given that deposition in any one place is
episodic, erosion ditto, and that there are very few worldwide
events. (No global flood, for example.)

Pieces of a puzzle can look like one picture when partially
assembled and then when all of the pieces are in place the picture
can be quite different.
Oddly, when you put all the pieces together, there is no worldwide
flood. But there are worldwide events, like the K/T iridium layer.
Of course even that only shows up in places where the K/T boundary
is preserved. But just how does flood geology explain that?

Back to the drawing board and make a good one. This time consider
the time lines in many of the ancient texts that are available.
They may give some clues to help you. Who knows?
I know. They're useless. Why should ancient texts be better than
empirical data?

They are not any better. But they could elude to places to look
further for empirical data.

And your K-Ar dating can be skewed by numerous external forces as
well as rates of absorption by the rocks

I'm getting tired of your evasions. Ancient texts tell us nothing,
even in principle, about anything that's older than the texts.
There's no writing older than about 5000 years. The events we're
talking about are all millions of years old. The forces that affect
K-Ar dating (only one of many radiometric systems, by the way) are
all well known and can be accounted for by the methods used. Nor can
they be off by factors of millions, even if the error sources aren't
taken into account.

To say that ALL ancient texts are useless is not logical.

You said "logical". You should not use words that are beyond you
understanding without looking up their definition, and understanding
the definition.


To claim none of them have any accuracy based on principal is simply a
foolish discount of valuable information.

So far, no ancient text studied has ever provided one iota of useful
information with regards to the origin of the Universe, The Earth, or
life. No ancient text has provided any reliable explaination for the
geophysical structure of the Earth, which includes the distribution of
fossils within the sedimentary layers. No ancient text has offered
any verifiable explaination for the modern biodiversity of life.
Sorry, but the odd bit of actual history that has been verified is
exceedingly small, compared to the rest of the texts, almost to the
point of being accidental.


 But then.... evolutionist usually are illogical.

You should look up the definitions of words you do not understand

Boikat

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The geological column
    ... The geological column is incomplete. ... in the field of geology that has furthered mankind. ... fossils were because there was no dating methods when the column ... and absolute dating with relative dating. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The geological column
    ... The geological column is incomplete. ... in the field of geology that has furthered mankind. ... and absolute dating with relative dating. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The geological column
    ... The geological column is incomplete. ... field of geology that has furthered mankind. ... In addition you have no complete record of the column anywhere on earth. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The pseudo miracles of Plate tectonics Zealots
    ... planets/moons (Encelade, Earth, Venus, Io...) and at the same time very ... But this approach ruins the other pretensions of the false geology & ... fraudulent time scale based on fosssils & radio-nucleides decay. ... I enjoy at all times reading your evidence on the Plate Tectonics ' ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Age of Earth, 1952 opinion
    ... These aren't consensus on the age of the earth. ... You cannot use radiometric dating on items of 10,000 years old. ... Sedimentary rocks can't be directly ... Typically history consists of documents, ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading