Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dating by Stratigraphic Position
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1 of 38 (112127)
06-01-2004 4:34 PM


One of the oldest methods of dating things is based on where they are found in relation to other objects. In this thread I would for us to discuss the merits and limitations in positional dating.
It is hoped that those who have a position, either in support of, or attempting to refute, positional dating will participate. It is intended as a step by step analysis of positional dating where each step is fully discussed and a concensus is achieved about each step before going forward.
The first issue relates to a basic assumption. Does everyone agree that if an object is found in a relative undisturbed site, that the object must be younger that what lies on top of it?
{Per message 5, jar has corrected the previous paragraph to "The first issue relates to a basic assumption. Does everyone agree that if an object is found in a relative undisturbed site, that the object must be older than what lies on top of it?" - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-01-2004 04:10 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 06-01-2004 5:02 PM jar has replied
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2004 5:04 PM jar has not replied
 Message 6 by 1.61803, posted 06-01-2004 6:21 PM jar has replied
 Message 11 by Loudmouth, posted 06-01-2004 8:45 PM jar has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 38 (112135)
06-01-2004 4:51 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 3 of 38 (112142)
06-01-2004 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
06-01-2004 4:34 PM


Ooooops
The first issue relates to a basic assumption. Does everyone agree that if an object is found in a relative undisturbed site, that the object must be younger that what lies on top of it?
Uh, no I don't . This isn't the best start is it? LOL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 06-01-2004 4:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 06-01-2004 5:06 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 38 (112144)
06-01-2004 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
06-01-2004 4:34 PM


Hats off to jar!
Excellent topic, jar!
Of course, this is one of the methods by which Christian geologists realized that earth was hundreds of millions of years old, at least.
If no true creationist decides to argue with you on this, I may try to play devil's advocate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 06-01-2004 4:34 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 5 of 38 (112147)
06-01-2004 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by NosyNed
06-01-2004 5:02 PM


Re: Ooooops
Ooooops is right. Mea Culpa. Thank you Ned. I can only atribute that to old age and gross stupidity.
May I revise that to say "The first issue relates to a basic assumption. Does everyone agree that if an object is found in a relative undisturbed site, that the object must be older than what lies on top of it?"
Thank you sir.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 06-01-2004 5:02 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 6 of 38 (112170)
06-01-2004 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
06-01-2004 4:34 PM


pulling up a chair.
The only problem I can see with dating something by position would be perhaps a shift in the strata that could possibly allow older material to surface above younger material. But I am no geologist and this is merely armchair speculation.

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 06-01-2004 4:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 06-01-2004 7:12 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 7 of 38 (112187)
06-01-2004 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by 1.61803
06-01-2004 6:21 PM


Re: pulling up a chair.Well, I think you are getting a little ahead of the game
(surprise?) since so far we are confining this to a realtively undisturbed site.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by 1.61803, posted 06-01-2004 6:21 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by 1.61803, posted 06-01-2004 7:28 PM jar has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 8 of 38 (112193)
06-01-2004 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
06-01-2004 7:12 PM


Re: pulling up a chair.Well, I think you are getting a little ahead of the game
My bad...I thought by undisturbed you meant human..In that case I can not see a problem with the premise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 06-01-2004 7:12 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 06-01-2004 7:46 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 9 of 38 (112201)
06-01-2004 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by 1.61803
06-01-2004 7:28 PM


Undistrubed
So how do we distinguish an undisturbed site from others?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by 1.61803, posted 06-01-2004 7:28 PM 1.61803 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 06-01-2004 8:20 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 10 of 38 (112211)
06-01-2004 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by NosyNed
06-01-2004 7:46 PM


Re: Undistrubed
Simple. Rocket attends the disturbed ones, and when he isn't here, the site is undisturbed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 06-01-2004 7:46 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 38 (112222)
06-01-2004 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
06-01-2004 4:34 PM


My first question is how do we know if the sediment is undisturbed. For example, lets say that there is a limestone layer that is full of fossils. A river cuts through this limestone layer, dissolving the carbonate rock but transporting the fossil. The fossil is then deposited in the river delta and becomes part of the delta silt. With this scenario, the rock encasing the old fossil dissolves (lack of rocks in the sediment) and the fossil is older than those below it in the delta record.
PS: playing devil's advocate for a change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 06-01-2004 4:34 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2004 9:27 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 15 by sidelined, posted 06-02-2004 2:06 AM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 16 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-02-2004 4:01 AM Loudmouth has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 38 (112247)
06-01-2004 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Loudmouth
06-01-2004 8:45 PM


My guess is that there would be a lot of wear on the fossil. It is now a rock, and rocks wear a lot as they are transported. Bones are not worn, at least not like rocks. So if a fossil shows definite signs of wear, it can probably be concluded that it was transported or weathered or something after fossilization.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Loudmouth, posted 06-01-2004 8:45 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 06-02-2004 1:35 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 13 of 38 (112251)
06-01-2004 9:32 PM


What about the condition of the land that surrounds the object. Does a delta or slough appear the same as the original limestone bed? Is it descrete or homogenous? Does a Delta have characteristics that we can definitely tie to specific events or cycles?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 14 of 38 (112315)
06-02-2004 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Chiroptera
06-01-2004 9:27 PM


mmm maybe
That doesn't sound very convincing. Why wouldn't a bone be worn? Could it wear and then fossilize?
However, let's not get stuck on the fossils. Can we get to a final point on the rock layers themselves then worry about fossils?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-02-2004 12:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2004 9:27 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 15 of 38 (112321)
06-02-2004 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Loudmouth
06-01-2004 8:45 PM


loudmouth
Since it is not likely that all the fossils in a given area of limestone would all get washed into the delta it would be possible to investigate the area upriver{since I am sure the possibility of displacement by such would not escape a professional} and locate correlating fossil remains that also show limestone deposits or some other such clue.It is likely to be a mystery initially however that is the purpose of careful field work to log location and enviroment in relation to changing geology.
Would this be probable?
This message has been edited by sidelined, 06-02-2004 01:19 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Loudmouth, posted 06-01-2004 8:45 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024