It's a little more complicated that that.
Well, gollee. bro'. So all this stuff they find in oil wells and coal
mines and ekcetera is real recent an' all that stuff on top is real
ancient. Mus' mean all that top stuff in my outhouse is purty old an'
the bottom stuff is the newest. Glory be to god, an' let us pray.
No, no, no! Must I repeat? NO!
If you were a genuine Christian, which seems pretty unlikely given all the
nonsens you write, you would at least make even the most feeble attempt at
verifying what you write. The above statement is a clear example of all-out
ignorance and lack of knowledge.
The dating of the strata is a very complex subject, and before modern
methods of dating was invented, fossils used to be a good indicator. The
relative age of the strata was determined by looking at the kind of fossils
they contained - with the more 'primitive' species being the oldest, of
The relative dating of the geological column was determined already at
You would know such things if you'd care to learn. But from what you write,
it is obvious that you are not interested in facts, you only read
creationist's lies. If you made an effort to learn what it is all about, you
would have been able to find for yourself that creationists are liars!
You may fool ignorant people like yourself, but you can't fool people who
can think for themselves!
Yes, but he's not out to fool people who can think for themselves.
He's out to reinforce the beliefs of people who already agree with him
and would rather not think for themselves.
> The ages of the strata in the Geological Column were calculated by
> dividing the depth of any stratum in the geological column by the
> present rate of erosion.
Where in the world do you get nonsense like this?? In a lifetime in the
geological sciences I have never heard of such malarkey, even from
boneheaded freshman jocks.
Crude estimates of time represented by a given stratigraphic interval
can be obtaind by looking at present rates of sediment deposition
(that's the opposite of erosion) in equivalent sedimentary environments,
but such estimates are always a lower bound to the actual time interval
represented by a sequence of rocks due to the possibility of intervals
of erosion or non-deposition occurring during the formation of the
actual sequence. Note too that the physical processes of deposition
are determined by things like the viscosity and density of water or air,
velocity of currents, sediment particle size and density - things that
stay constant, and whose interactions are determined by pretty
fundamental physical relationships.
> However, when Johannes Walter studied strata that formed from the
> coastline toward the ocean in moving water he observed that the strata
> formed horizontally and vertically simultaneously. After taking core
> samples from these strata he discovered that wherever they were
> superposed and juxtaposed identically they formed horizontally and
> vertically simultaneously in the direction of the moving water.
> Superposition is the vertical position of each stratum in the strata
> while juxtaposition is the position of each stratum in the step like
> formation that occurs in the direction of the flow of the water as the
> strata formed.
This is called 'cross stratification' or 'cross bedding' and is
discussed in Geology 101. Magnificent examples of cross-bedding
resulting from the migration of sand dunes can be seen in the Navajo
Sandstone in the canyonlands of eastern Utah. Note that layers of
cross-beds are superposed, and always the material in the lower layers
must have been deposited before the material in the upper layers.
In a larger context, when the sea level is rising or falling, one can
find similar sorts of things on a larger but far more subtle scale; this
is called 'onlap' or 'offlap'; as sea level rises and falls repeatedly
sheet-like packages of sediments are deposited during periods of high
sea level and partially eroded during periods of low sea level, only to
be covered by more sediment during the next sea level high stand. These
packages are called 'sequences' - and again, the higher sequences are
younger than the lower sequences.
So what you have is this: regardless of any horizontal juxtaposition, in
any given vertical transect, the stuff on the bottom is older than the
stuff on the top. This is called 'relative dating' or 'relative age'
and is the basis for the construction of the geological column.
> After Johannes Walter made this discovery the American Geological
> society drilled core samples in the deep ocean sediments through out
> the Pacific Ocean and discovered that the superposition and
> juxtaposition of all of the strata were identical. This meant that all
> of the strata formed horizontally simultaneously in the direction of
> the moving water, as opposed to forming one layer at a time on top of
> each other over millions of years. This discovery, which was published
> in the 1930s should have immediately disqualified the age theory that
> the Geological Column was derived from and therefore the geological
> column itself.
This is amusing. Perhaps you could cite a reference to this work? I am
a little skeptical of your claim here for a number of reasons. First,
there is to my knowledge no such organization as the American Geological
Society, and certainly no geological society to my knowledge has the
resources to fund deep-sea drilling of any scope. Second, the thousands
of deep-sea cores that we have obtained in the last forty years show
nothing even remotely similar to what you claim - that is to say, your
first sentence in the paragraph above is flat out wrong in every phrase
and clause. This means that your second sentence is meaningless. Your
third sentence, about this discovery having been published in the 1930s,
troubles me greatly since the technology for deep ocean drilling did not
exist in the 1930s - indeed, was only developed in the early 1960s.
Thus, in the absence of some kind of documentation, I needs must
consider this whole paragraph to be pure fabrication - i.e. wrong.
> Despite this discovery, atheist scientists under the
> direction of atheist globalists, in their rejection of Jesus the
> Christ, continue to lie to both school students and the general public
> about the validity of the Geological Column.
Since your premises are dead wrong, your conclusion's gotta be false
too... I'd like to think that Jesus, insofar as He valued truth, would
happily accept the validity of not only the geologic column, but also
most of modern science. (Though to be fair, I suspect Jesus would have
questioned the relevance of science to what He considered important, Him
being a Hellenistic dualist and all.)
> After discovering bedding planes, which atheist scientists theorize
> form by the hardening of the uppermost sediments in a stratum before
> the next stratum is deposited, were present within sedimentary layers
> deposited by a single flood event, geologist Guy Berthault, conducted
> experiments in sedimentation at State University of Colorado.
Cite? This is pretty well understood, and can be observed in any flume
or even gutter. Sediment tends to travel along the bottom of rivers not
as a single blanket of uniform thickness, but in pulses or waves or
ripples (go to your nearest riverbank and look for ripples on the
bottom...). As these pulses of sediment move downstream, they tend to
leave a layer of deposited sediment behind, kind of like a trail of
slime behind a slug. Since these trails are cross-bedded (see above),
the next package to come along will deposit another cross-bedded layer
on top. The patterns are called 'fluvial cross-bedding'.
> In his
> experiments he discovered that bedding planes formed as the result of
> the separation of sediments by their sizes corresponding to the speed
> of the water that transported them. Whenever the speed of the water
> current was changed in the experiments a new layer made up of
> different size particles was add to the previous layers and they all
> continued to form horizontally.
So under the specific conditions Berthault studied, a change of
depositional conditions caused a discernable change in sediment
deposited. If you slow the water down, you get a layer of finer
sediment. If you speed the water up, some of the fine stuff you just
deposited gets stripped away and you get coarser stuff deposited. If
the water is moving, you will get pulses of sediment moving along the
bottom, leaving behind superposed layers of cross beds. Note that
again, in any vertical section, the stuff at the bottom is older than
the stuff at the top.
> The result of these experiments was
> that the age of strata has nothing to do with their position in the
> Geological Column.
How does this follow at all?? This is a complete non-sequitur, kinda
like saying because maple twigs bend, and because maple syrup is liquid,
it is impossible for a baseball bat made of maple to hit a baseball
farther than ten feet. None of your experiments or observations does
anything to challenge the law of superposition, which states that in a
vertical transect of an undisturbed sequence of sediments the stuff on
the bottom is older than the stuff on the top. The age of a given
stratum has everything to do with its position in the geologic column -
and the position of a given stratum in the geologic column tells us what
other strata (rocks) are older and what other strata (rocks) are
> This also applies to the age of fossils as well.
Look, the position of a particular fossil in the geologic column tells
us what other fossils are older (those that occur in rocks below the
given fossil) and what other fossils are younger (those that occur in
rocks above the given fossil). Nothing you have presented challenges
that at all.
> Today atheist scientists, under the direction of the ruling class
> atheist globalists, in their rejection of Jesus Christ, continue to
> lie to the school students and the general public about the age of and
> how bedding planes and stratum were formed in the Geological Column.
> The three groups strata that make up the Tonto Group in the Grand
> Canyon are also superposed and juxtaposed, which means that they
> formed vertically and horizontally simultaneously in moving water, the
> amount of which has been calculated to have been equal to a world wide
> flood such as is recorded in the Bible.
OK, if I recall correctly, the Tonto Group comprises only part of the
sedimentary rocks in the Grand Canyon - what about the rest of the rocks
there? What about the thick limestones (e.g. Redwall and Kaibab), that
were deposited in quiet, shallow water? What about the stuff that is
not cross-bedded, thus deposited in still water (Bright Angel Shale, for
example)? What about the sedimentary rocks east of the Grand Canyon
that sit on top of those exposed in the canyon itself?
> Despite this discoveries that
> atheist scientists under the guidance of the atheist globalists, in
> the rejection of Jesus the Christ, continue to lie to the school
> students and the general public about how the strata that make up the
> Grand Canyon were formed.
You really do have a persecution complex, don't you? You also don't
know too much about geology either, apparently. I reccommend it; it is
a fascinating study and the truth shall set you free.
I in no way wish to think for myself about geology, but neither am I
willing to read such a boring delusion with any degree of attention.
He should throw in a bit about handsome pirates with their shirts
> "Bro. James D Albright" <mfc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>The ages of the strata in the Geological Column were calculated by
>>dividing the depth of any stratum in the geological column by the
>>present rate of erosion.
> No, no, no! Must I repeat? NO!
Yes, actually. Comparing the thickness of strata with current erosion
rates was the major means used, before radiometric dating, to determine
the absolute ages of strata. Of course everybody knew that the estimate
had big error bars.
> If you were a genuine Christian, which seems pretty unlikely given all the
> nonsens you write, you would at least make even the most feeble attempt at
> verifying what you write. The above statement is a clear example of all-out
> ignorance and lack of knowledge.
> The dating of the strata is a very complex subject, and before modern
> methods of dating was invented, fossils used to be a good indicator. The
> relative age of the strata was determined by looking at the kind of fossils
> they contained - with the more 'primitive' species being the oldest, of
Are you related to Zoe? No, no, no! Must I repeat? NO! The primitiveness
of fossils has never been used to find the relative ages of strata.
Biostratigraphy has nothing to do with evolution. Index fossils are just
markers of particular ages, and numbered ball bearings would do as well,
if indeed somebody had distributed the numbers narrowly in time through
> The relative dating of the geological column was determined already at
> Darwin's time.
> You would know such things if you'd care to learn. But from what you write,
> it is obvious that you are not interested in facts, you only read
> creationist's lies. If you made an effort to learn what it is all about, you
> would have been able to find for yourself that creationists are liars!
> You may fool ignorant people like yourself, but you can't fool people who
> can think for themselves!
He never responds to criticisms, either. This is the second time he's
posted this particular bit of nonsense, and he ignored all responses the
last time too.
| > The dating of the strata is a very complex subject, and before modern
| > methods of dating was invented, fossils used to be a good indicator. The
| > relative age of the strata was determined by looking at the kind of
| > they contained - with the more 'primitive' species being the oldest, of
| > course.
| Are you related to Zoe? No, no, no! Must I repeat? NO! The primitiveness
Speaking of Zoe, do you think she has abandoned her thread?
William Smith, his white shirt unlaced to show the bronzed muscular
body it barely covered, pondered the rocks.
"Dig here, Lads"
His commanding voice rang out across the assmbled crowd of thugs and
cutthroats, every one a devoted evilutionist intent on overthrowing
true Christianity (TM).
"We'll bury them here".
The foundries and factories had been working at full capacity for
years, manufacturing exquisitely detailed ammonites, graptolites and
molluscs by the million. The funds of the evilutionists were vast, and
they had not spared any detail in their dastardly plot. Smith laughed.
His voice carrying the distillation of years of corruption and
depravity, yet holding the seductive resonance which had allowed him
to sow the seeds of his depraved religion in the minds of his
followers. The woman by his side laughed with him, her breasts heaving
under the flimsy blouse she was wearing, her lusciousc bodya constant
tempation to the proud, God-fearing men Smith was going to corrupt.
Those whom he could not decieve with his faked evidence he could bring
down with the tempations of the flesh. The pretty young man behind
him, his pockets bulging with cocaine, was there for those whose
tastes ran ....otherwise.
This was to be his triumph. The years devoted to the task of
corrupting the minds of scientists, the gathering of funds using any
device no matter how degraded, the blackmail and theft, all came
together in this time and place.
He was going to rebuild England.
Not just morally - that task was well under way, and the seeds he had
sown were bearing rich fruit in the minds of naive clergymen and
doctors of medicine all over that fair land. He was going to rebuild
the physical geology of the country stone by stone.
Already he and his henchmen has systematically destroyed countless
evidences which showed beyond doubt that the earth was created a few
thousand years previously. The remains of the wooden ark which by pure
chance had been found in Dorset had been consigned to the fire, as a
hellish sacrifice to his true master. The numerous artefacts of the
highly advanced technological cvilisation which had the knowledge to
build such a structure had been destroyed, the metal consigned to vast
furnances, and the molten remenants recast as the ammonites which
would be used as a device to prove to the minds of the naive his
The massive work was undertaken in secret. Mile upon mile of God's
created landscape was excavated, and relaid with numerous fossils
cunningly placed in the order he had devised to support the doctrine
of Evolution. This doctrine had not yet been formulated, but in his
black heart he knew that it would come in due time. Planning was
intricate and perfect - after all this was the intelligent and well-
educated section of the community who were not averse to using their
superior intellect to confound the minds of those honest men who used
the sacred doctrines as guidance, and common sense as the ultimate
standard of proof.
....to be continued
No, it just takes her a while to fail to digest other people's posts.
ITYM, comparing the thickness of strata with current *deposition* rates
was the major means, before radiometric dating, of estimating the
absolute ages of strata.
If this was what the OP was groping towards, then apart of the error of
writing "erosion", the physical "depth" of a stratum in the abstract
column is not well defined (and that's assuming that he didn't mean the
current depth of a stratum below the Earth' surface.
alias Ernest Major
I'm mainly interested in how she is going to fit the Dover cliffs into a few
thousand year scenario.
And I've always thought that Mr. Smith was just a meek geologist/geographer/surveyor.
Looks can be deceiving, can't they...
Breathlessly awaiting the next chapter, *just maybe* there appears a Young Earth Creationist in
a shining armor, who'll save he mankind from this depraved monstrosity :)
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Hurray! That is just the thing. I do hope that Br. Albright (not to
mention Logos) is taking notes!
Yo ho ho, and a bottle of rum! Inez, you seem to have inspired a budding
novelist. This one is going to run and run.
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Perhaps in the third chapter, Captain FitzRoy will make the valiant attempt.
I'm looking forward to the part where Alfred, maddened by tropical fevers,
inadvertently prods the reluctant Charles into finally publishing his
> "SeppoP" <seppo_pi...@xyahoox.com> wrote...
And mild mannered Wilberforce, bishop at the local See, turns into
SuperCritic at night, and repels the barbarous invaders. Faster than a
speeding sermon, able to leap tall tales in a single bound...
Sorry. Wrong genre...
This sounds a bit like a Tim Powers novel pltline.
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
>> The result of these experiments was that the age of strata has nothing to do
>> with their position in the Geological Column.
> How does this follow at all?? This is a complete non-sequitur, kinda like
> saying because maple twigs bend, and because maple syrup is liquid, it is
> impossible for a baseball bat made of maple to hit a baseball farther than ten
> feet. None of your experiments or observations does anything to challenge the
> law of superposition, which states that in a vertical transect of an
> undisturbed sequence of sediments the stuff on the bottom is older than the
> stuff on the top. The age of a given stratum has everything to do with its
> position in the geologic column - and the position of a given stratum in the
> geologic column tells us what other strata (rocks) are older and what other
> strata (rocks) are younger.
I think what he means is that cross bedding can form rapidly without having
to wait for lithification to protect lower sediments. It doesn't have to
indicate great age. I don't think he's disavowing the law of superposition.
>> This also applies to the age of fossils as well.
> Look, the position of a particular fossil in the geologic column tells us what
> other fossils are older (those that occur in rocks below the given fossil) and
> what other fossils are younger (those that occur in rocks above the given
> fossil). Nothing you have presented challenges that at all.
Here, you seem to fall into the assumption of great age. The use of the
words "older" and "younger", while technically correct, when used with used
with the word "fossil", can imply long ages separating the three fossils in
question. The possibility exist that the three animals lived simultaneously
and they were buried within seconds of each other. I think that's the point
the author is trying to get at.