43 Dinosaur Eggs Discovered in China by Construction workers.

a reply to: Barcs

You are just a troll, likely an atheist trying to paint Christians / creationists in a negative light.

Do creationist really need a troll to help them look ignorant? I know this is a conspiracy site and all, but I think the creationist that post here are doing a bang up job of it already.
Ignorance and superstition go hand in hand, this is something that a few people have known for some time now. In order for creationist to preserve, protect or keep their belief in things which really do not make any real sense, the human mind must be kept down to a certain degree of ignorance. Many believers simply choose to ignore anything which contradicts what they believe, they just do not let that information enter their mind.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Very nice paper on dinosaur-bird transition, Cymraeg - thanks for posting it. I put it in my library.

You are very welcome. I found it very interesting as well.

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: Barcs

You are just a troll, likely an atheist trying to paint Christians / creationists in a negative light.

Do creationist really need a troll to help them look ignorant? I know this is a conspiracy site and all, but I think the creationist that post here are doing a bang up job of it already.
Ignorance and superstition go hand in hand, this is something that a few people have known for some time now. In order for creationist to preserve, protect or keep their belief in things which really do not make any real sense, the human mind must be kept down to a certain degree of ignorance. Many believers simply choose to ignore anything which contradicts what they believe, they just do not let that information enter their mind.

The way I see it, willful ignorance is essentially trolling. Genuine misunderstandings or questions about science are different. There is nothing genuine about any of this, although you are right, they do not need a troll to help with that. Unless of course all of these guys are trolls and creationists are actually just a myth! How about that for a conspiracy?

I mean, hey, the arguments are usually downright ridiculous and attacking science and non believers does directly conflict with Jesus' teachings. YECers and science deniers are walking contradictions. It would be hilarious if they were all just a social experiment to see if society is ready to take the next step. If so, I'm guessing society failed. But then again, perhaps folks like you and me fighting on the front lines for scientific knowledge and understanding give us all hope for the future. Critical thinking, for the win.

My issues re science and assumed belief in religion and marriage to science
I quote your link and its introduction

Neontological studies suggest a radiation ( Suggest because we havnt a clue really)

However, deep time patterns of bird evolution remain obscure because only limited fossil data have been considered. (we still dont know and we dont have any fossils to substantiate our claim, but, if we did here is our imagined, beliefs, mythological, scientific based assumption on the possible fact of what happened)

yawn,

and please believe that it is science and that it answers your question 100% satisfactorly. but when I read words like, "obscure limited suggest", then accept that i think its a faith, a belief a religion

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: Barcs

You are just a troll, likely an atheist trying to paint Christians / creationists in a negative light.

Do creationist really need a troll to help them look ignorant? I know this is a conspiracy site and all, but I think the creationist that post here are doing a bang up job of it already.
Ignorance and superstition go hand in hand, this is something that a few people have known for some time now. In order for creationist to preserve, protect or keep their belief in things which really do not make any real sense, the human mind must be kept down to a certain degree of ignorance. Many believers simply choose to ignore anything which contradicts what they believe, they just do not let that information enter their mind.

Well cut my throat and end this game

Answer the question I asked
It will soon be over and you can do a little victory dance

Stratigraphic Principle and Relative time (note that this does not mean there are no exceptions but just because there are SOME exceptions does not mean they are prevalent.

1.The principle of superposition - in a vertical sequence of sedimentary or volcanic rocks, a higher rock unit is younger than a lower one. "Down" is older, "up" is younger.
2. The principle of original horizontality - rock layers were originally deposited close to horizontal.
3. The principle of original lateral extension - A rock unit continues laterally unless there is a structure or change to prevent its extension.
4.The principle of cross-cutting relationships - a structure that cuts another is younger than the structure that is cut.
5. The principle of inclusion - a structure that is included in another is older than the including structure.
6. The principle of "uniformitarianism" - processes operating in the past were constrained by the same "laws of physics" as operate today.


Then answer my question

Can you be kind enough to tell me why the exceptions are not prevalent and what are the exceptions and are not exceptions and how we can tell if they are exceptions or not exceptions

originally posted by: Barcs

The way I see it, willful ignorance is essentially trolling. Genuine misunderstandings or questions about science are different. There is nothing genuine about any of this, although you are right, they do not need a troll to help with that. Unless of course all of these guys are trolls and creationists are actually just a myth! How about that for a conspiracy?

I mean, hey, the arguments are usually downright ridiculous and attacking science and non believers does directly conflict with Jesus' teachings. YECers and science deniers are walking contradictions. It would be hilarious if they were all just a social experiment to see if society is ready to take the next step. If so, I'm guessing society failed. But then again, perhaps folks like you and me fighting on the front lines for scientific knowledge and understanding give us all hope for the future. Critical thinking, for the win.

The way I see it, willful ignorance is essentially trolling.
Genuine misunderstandings or questions about science are different.

So genuinely answer the question, I would appreciate that and you can shut me up, its just a question about science, a question from a US university
It cant be that hard if its true science

Stratigraphic Principle and Relative time (note that this does not mean there are no exceptions but just because there are SOME exceptions does not mean they are prevalent.

1.The principle of superposition - in a vertical sequence of sedimentary or volcanic rocks, a higher rock unit is younger than a lower one. "Down" is older, "up" is younger.
2. The principle of original horizontality - rock layers were originally deposited close to horizontal.
3. The principle of original lateral extension - A rock unit continues laterally unless there is a structure or change to prevent its extension.
4.The principle of cross-cutting relationships - a structure that cuts another is younger than the structure that is cut.
5. The principle of inclusion - a structure that is included in another is older than the including structure.
6. The principle of "uniformitarianism" - processes operating in the past were constrained by the same "laws of physics" as operate today.


Then answer my question

Can you be kind enough to tell me why the exceptions are not prevalent and what are the exceptions and are not exceptions and how we can tell if they are exceptions or not exceptions

You can carry on about me and my faith bot it amounts to nothing if I can ask the same question and get no answer for 5 pages

If you were truly fighting for science it wouldnt be strawman and personal attacks, it would be justifying science with science

C R I C K E T S

originally posted by: borntowatch
My issues re science and assumed belief in religion and marriage to science
I quote your link and its introduction

Neontological studies suggest a radiation ( Suggest because we havnt a clue really)

However, deep time patterns of bird evolution remain obscure because only limited fossil data have been considered. (we still dont know and we dont have any fossils to substantiate our claim, but, if we did here is our imagined, beliefs, mythological, scientific based assumption on the possible fact of what happened)

yawn,

and please believe that it is science and that it answers your question 100% satisfactorly. but when I read words like, "obscure limited suggest", then accept that i think its a faith, a belief a religion

Exactly the response I was expecting. A wilful misunderstanding of the cite, a total misunderstanding of the language involved, along with a sneer. The science is beyond you so you curl your lip and reject it.
Typical - but thanks for confirming every theory that this community has about you.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg


Exactly the response I was expecting. A wilful misunderstanding of the cite, a total misunderstanding of the language involved, along with a sneer. The science is beyond you so you curl your lip and reject it.
Typical - but thanks for confirming every theory that this community has about you.

Exactly the response I was expecting. A wilful neglect to explain, a total ignorance of the language involved, along with a sneer at me without explaining how "obscure limited suggest" can be used in a scientific document telling people "the facts".
The science is beyond you so you curl your lip and reject it with NO EXPLANATION.

Typical - but thanks for confirming every theory that this community has about evolutionist believers, dont have any answers just a nasty little set of replies.

Angry, you have offered nothing as an answer assuming you have no answer

You could answer it if you had an answer
Neontological studies suggest a radiation ( Suggest because we havnt a clue really)

However, deep time patterns of bird evolution remain obscure because only limited fossil data have been considered. (we still dont know and we dont have any fossils to substantiate our claim, but, if we did here is our imagined, beliefs, mythological, scientific based assumption on the possible fact of what happened)

another non answer C R I C K E T S

Can you be kind enough to tell me why the exceptions are not prevalent and what are the exceptions and are not exceptions and how we can tell if they are exceptions or not exceptions

Normally questions end with question marks. If you want folks to answer your question, then at least format it properly. People barely skim through your posts these days, as is, if they already don't flat out ignore you.

The answer is no and your list is not exceptions to anything. The layers are dated to verify what time period they are from, it isn't just assumed based on where they are in every single column and rock strata across earth. You do realize that the column is not the same everywhere, right? The column is based on the dating of layers from all over the world. You'll deny this or bring up some irrelevant attack against dating, but that's the way it is. Sorry that your faith (or trollness) blinds you from this fact.

Well cut my throat and end this game

I'm not playing your game or any game for that matter. If I choose not to ignore you, I will correct you for the benefit of other readers. The problem is 99% of the crap you post needs correcting, and I simply do not have the time to keep up with all your Gish. But there is hope! thanks to members like Barcs, peter vlar, boymonkey, angry, Phantom and many others, your ignorance has been spotlighted and exposed.

But, I do appreciate the laughs

originally posted by: Barcs

Normally questions end with question marks. If you want folks to answer your question, then at least format it properly. People barely skim through your posts these days, as is, if they already don't flat out ignore you.

The answer is no and your list is not exceptions to anything. The layers are dated to verify what time period they are from, it isn't just assumed based on where they are in every single column and rock strata across earth. You do realize that the column is not the same everywhere, right? The column is based on the dating of layers from all over the world. You'll deny this or bring up some irrelevant attack against dating, but that's the way it is. Sorry that your faith (or trollness) blinds you from this fact.

wernt you going to stop talking to me

Answer the question I asked


Stratigraphic Principle and Relative time (note that this does not mean there are no exceptions but just because there are SOME exceptions does not mean they are prevalent.

1.The principle of superposition - in a vertical sequence of sedimentary or volcanic rocks, a higher rock unit is younger than a lower one. "Down" is older, "up" is younger.
2. The principle of original horizontality - rock layers were originally deposited close to horizontal.
3. The principle of original lateral extension - A rock unit continues laterally unless there is a structure or change to prevent its extension.
4.The principle of cross-cutting relationships - a structure that cuts another is younger than the structure that is cut.
5. The principle of inclusion - a structure that is included in another is older than the including structure.
6. The principle of "uniformitarianism" - processes operating in the past were constrained by the same "laws of physics" as operate today.


answer my question please, not some irrelevant answer to something I didnt ask

in the geological time scale

Can you be kind enough to tell me why the exceptions are not prevalent ?
and what are the exceptions and are not the exceptions ?
and how we can tell if they are exceptions or not exceptions ?

originally posted by: flyingfish

Well cut my throat and end this game

I'm not playing your game or any game for that matter. If I choose not to ignore you, I will correct you for the benefit of other readers. The problem is 99% of the crap you post needs correcting, and I simply do not have the time to keep up with all your Gish. But there is hope! thanks to members like Barcs, peter vlar, boymonkey, angry, Phantom and many others, your ignorance has been spotlighted and exposed.

But, I do appreciate the laughs

All my gish, hmmm, enough time to keep up?
So far on this thread all my gish is two questions on two subjects

Can you be kind enough to tell me why the exceptions are not prevalent ?
and what are the exceptions and are not the exceptions ?
and how we can tell if they are exceptions or not exceptions ?

and my other question bout the accuracy of statistics (and I did know the answer) I had to get an answer for others because the learned gents here couldnt or wouldnt answer it

But hey you keep slapping backs and talking the game, me I can post my questions till the thread is closed or you realise it isnt looking like you are smart enough or science doesnt support your faith

all my gish is a set of questions about

the geological time scale

Can you be kind enough to tell me why the exceptions are not prevalent ?
and what are the exceptions and are not the exceptions ?
and how we can tell if they are exceptions or not exceptions ?

There is a girl on youtube who believes dinosaur bones are planted by some people, she believes that in spite of evidence that suggests otherwise, it does sound naive and silly. Though if that is what she wants to believe it doesnt harm anyone only herself.
I know people who believe the earth is millions of years old, possibly billions, its naive and silly but hey, they hurt only themselves.
Others in this crazy idea that everything (yes everything) was contained in a atom sized something and then just one day for no apparent or justifiable reason exploded into everything, just on a larger scale for no apparent reason.

I know people on this site who believe in Ghosts, aliens, lizard people, sure some said fairies, Dinosaurs still alive today (I do) big foots, mothmen and Jade helm starting another US civil war, mars rocks being bunkers or tanks, the strange here is endless
But this lady and her strange beliefs deserves more hate, bitterness and contempt? Yes she does, she attacks your religious beliefs.
No, its not about her beliefs, its about your religious beliefs

and the longer it takes science to answer the questions asked the more people will see its a religion

a reply to: borntowatch

There's absolutely no reason at all to go near your question. It's nothing but a deflection from the fact that you have
continuously, throughout multiple threads, asserted that dating techniques are based on circular reasoning. That the fossils are dated by the strata and the strata is dated by the fossils found within. Despite havin been shown to be woefully incorrect in this statement, you simply move on and ignore it as though your egregious error were never addressed. It's just business as usual in borntowatch fantasy land where science is defined by your whim of the day while standin gupon your soapbox pontificating about things you have no idea about because you refuse to read the facts and dismiss it out of hand in a fit if willful ignorance and childish outbursts where you make personal slurs against other posters for simply demanding evidence of, support for or even verification that you grasp the material at hand which you time and again refuse to give, address or acknowledge. It's baffling taken in any context other than trolling for personal amusement. Otherwise you wouldn't hide behind whatever petty and sardonic crap you pull from your rectum and would actually respond to questions and rebuttals. Yet you refuse, shock of all shocks. Best of luck with all that.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: borntowatch

There's absolutely no reason at all to go near your question. It's nothing but a deflection from the fact that you have
continuously, throughout multiple threads, asserted that dating techniques are based on circular reasoning. That the fossils are dated by the strata and the strata is dated by the fossils found within. Despite havin been shown to be woefully incorrect in this statement, you simply move on and ignore it as though your egregious error were never addressed. It's just business as usual in borntowatch fantasy land where science is defined by your whim of the day while standin gupon your soapbox pontificating about things you have no idea about because you refuse to read the facts and dismiss it out of hand in a fit if willful ignorance and childish outbursts where you make personal slurs against other posters for simply demanding evidence of, support for or even verification that you grasp the material at hand which you time and again refuse to give, address or acknowledge. It's baffling taken in any context other than trolling for personal amusement. Otherwise you wouldn't hide behind whatever petty and sardonic crap you pull from your rectum and would actually respond to questions and rebuttals. Yet you refuse, shock of all shocks. Best of luck with all that.

No Peter thats not accurate at all.
I have shown with evidence that science does use circular reasoning in dating rocks with fossils and fossils with rocks.
"It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology [theory of rock strata] is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology."—*Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record (1973), p. 62.

But the experts have no clear-cut answer for extricating themselves from this dilemma, which *Kitts says is caused by an acceptance of evolutionary theory:

"But the danger of circularity is still present. For most biologists, the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is their acceptance of some theory that entails it. There is another difficulty. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation, which necessarily presupposes the non-repeatability of organic events in geologic history. There are various justifications for this assumption but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis."—*David G. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," in Evolution, September 1974, p. 466.

No solid replies to the dilemma have been forthcoming:

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.www.pathlights.com...

To add to this cacophony of false science I want to show that the geo time scale is 200 year old science based on assumption, hence the questions to that statement from a us university site.

My questions are clear and simple

You avoid answers

Why

the geological time scale

Can you be kind enough to tell me why the exceptions are not prevalent ?
and what are the exceptions and are not the exceptions ?
and how we can tell if they are exceptions or not exceptions ?

and please stop with the Oh dear us poor atheists are being persecuted by a christian for our faith, its very unbecoming of an argument about science.
I just want an answer

a reply to: borntowatch

No solid replies to the dilemma have been forthcoming:

On the contrary. Your propensity to quote other quote mining sources does not actually accomplish much but demonstrate your enthusiastic propensity to confirmation bias. You have invented a "dilemma" to support yourself.

Your quote from O'rourke just says that the "circular argument" is so ridiculous that geologists find no point in disputing it. Read it again, it says that it's not worth the effort. In any case, in his conclusion O'rouke says:

The first step is to explain what is done in the field in simple terms that can be tested directly. The field man records his sense perceptions on isomorphic maps and sections, abstracts the more diagnostic rock features, and arranges them according to their vertical order. He compares this local sequence to the global column obtained from a great many man-years of work against his predecessors. As long as this cognitive process is acknowledged as the pragmatic basis of stratigraphy, both local and global sections can be treated as chronologies without reproach.

O'rourke supports geological dating techniques. He is not someone you want to quote to prove your point. Unless, of course, you take him out of context and not expect anyone to follow up.


Oh, using Kitts? Not so good for you. The "circularity problem" is avoidable, he says so. Following your out of context quote:

Despite these pitfalls we can with reasonable care avoid the danger of presupposing what it is we want to ultimately to test and have at our disposal a distribution of organisms in space and time that we suppose to have been related to one another by descent.

www.talkorigins.org...

I just want an answer

What was the question?

a reply to: Phage

Bravo Phage! Yes, he never reads his cites and takes things out of context. It's his MO. I was wondering what the point of debating him was, but then I realised that unless people stand up to him he'll go on merrily trolling away and pretending that he's winning. I would love to know why science terrifies him so much. Although I do have my suspicions.

As Plato said: “We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.”
― Plato

Borntowatch is afraid. He's afraid that if he delved into the citations and put the puzzle together that it would contradict his belief system. His retort: "I want answers. Give me the answer. Show me the evidence. Blah, blah, blah" is simply a pseudo intellectual ploy to get people involved in his game.

The article posted by Cymraeg on dinosaur-bird transition is one of the best articles I've read on the subject. I reposted it below. The OP posted information about a dinosaur egg find. A nice subject to explore and learn something. But the conversation devolves into a debate with a blank brain when he shows up.

If you look at all his posts on many threads he has contributed no knowledge on any subject in any thread. That says everything you need to know. It's simply willful ignorance.

My suggestion that the intelligent people on this board continue to post articles, questions, interesting topics and develop them.

Here's the article again: rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

Rates of dinosaur limb evolution provide evidence for exceptional radiation in Mesozoic birds

Roger B. J. Benson , Jonah N. Choiniere
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2013.1780 . Published 14 August 2013

Abstract

Birds are the most diverse living tetrapod group and are a model of large-scale adaptive radiation. Neontological studies suggest a radiation within the avian crown group, long after the origin of flight. However, deep time patterns of bird evolution remain obscure because only limited fossil data have been considered. We analyse cladogenesis and limb evolution on the entire tree of Mesozoic theropods, documenting the dinosaur–bird transition and immediate origins of powered flight. Mesozoic birds inherited constraints on forelimb evolution from non-flying ancestors, and species diversification rates did not accelerate in the earliest flying taxa. However, Early Cretaceous short-tailed birds exhibit both phenotypic release of the hindlimb and increased diversification rates, unparalleled in magnitude at any other time in the first 155 Myr of theropod evolution. Thus, a Cretaceous adaptive radiation of stem-group birds was enabled by restructuring of the terrestrial locomotor module, which represents a key innovation. Our results suggest two phases of radiation in Avialae: with the Cretaceous diversification overwritten by extinctions of stem-group birds at the Cretaceous–Palaeogene boundary, and subsequent diversification of the crown group. Our findings illustrate the importance of fossil data for understanding the macroevolutionary processes generating modern biodiversity.

I'll just leave this here. His list was obviously a selective copy paste job that blatantly ignored the explanations for it.

www.talkorigins.org...

Stratigraphic Principles and Relative Time

Much of the Earth's geology consists of successional layers of different rock types, piled one on top of another. The most common rocks observed in this form are sedimentary rocks (derived from what were formerly sediments), and extrusive igneous rocks (e.g., lavas, volcanic ash, and other formerly molten rocks extruded onto the Earth's surface). The layers of rock are known as "strata", and the study of their succession is known as "stratigraphy". Fundamental to stratigraphy are a set of simple principles, based on elementary geometry, empirical observation of the way these rocks are deposited today, and gravity. Most of these principles were formally proposed by Nicolaus Steno (Niels Steensen, Danish), in 1669, although some have an even older heritage that extends as far back as the authors of the Bible. A few principles were recognized and specified later. An early summary of them is found in Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology, published in 1830-32, and does not differ greatly from a modern formulation:

1. The principle of superposition - in a vertical sequence of sedimentary or volcanic rocks, a higher rock unit is younger than a lower one. "Down" is older, "up" is younger.
2. The principle of original horizontality - rock layers were originally deposited close to horizontal.
3. The principle of original lateral extension - A rock unit continues laterally unless there is a structure or change to prevent its extension.
4. The principle of cross-cutting relationships - a structure that cuts another is younger than the structure that is cut.
5. The principle of inclusion - a structure that is included in another is older than the including structure.
6. The principle of "uniformitarianism" - processes operating in the past were constrained by the same "laws of physics" as operate today.

Note that these are principles. In no way are they meant to imply there are no exceptions. For example, the principle of superposition is based, fundamentally, on gravity. In order for a layer of material to be deposited, something has to be beneath it to support it. It can't float in mid-air, particularly if the material involved is sand, mud, or molten rock. The principle of superposition therefore has a clear implication for the relative age of a vertical succession of strata. There are situations where it potentially fails -- for example, in cave deposits. In this situation, the cave contents are younger than both the bedrock below the cave and the suspended roof above. However, note that because of the "principle of cross-cutting relationships", careful examination of the contact between the cave infill and the surrounding rock will reveal the true relative age relationships, as will the "principle of inclusion" if fragments of the surrounding rock are found within the infill. Cave deposits also often have distinctive structures of their own (e.g., spelothems like stalactites and stalagmites), so it is not likely that someone could mistake them for a successional sequence of rock units.

These geological principles are not assumptions either. Each of them is a testable hypothesis about the relationships between rock units and their characteristics. They are applied by geologists in the same sense that a "null hypothesis" is in statistics -- not necessarily correct, just testable. In the last 200 or more years of their application, they are often valid, but geologists do not assume they are. They are the "initial working hypotheses" to be tested further by data.

Using these principles, it is possible to construct an interpretation of the sequence of events for any geological situation, even on other planets (e.g., a crater impact can cut into an older, pre-existing surface, or craters may overlap, revealing their relative ages). The simplest situation for a geologist is a "layer cake" succession of sedimentary or extrusive igneous rock units arranged in nearly horizontal layers. In such a situation, the "principle of superposition" is easily applied, and the strata towards the bottom are older, those towards the top are younger.
Figure 1. Sedimentary beds in outcrop, a graphical plot of a stratigraphic section, and a "way up" indicator example: wave ripples. Wave ripple in strata

This orientation is not an assumption, because in virtually all situations, it is also possible to determine the original "way up" in the stratigraphic succession from "way up indicators". For example, wave ripples have their pointed crests on the "up" side, and more rounded troughs on the "down" side. Many other indicators are commonly present, including ones that can even tell you the angle of the depositional surface at the time ("geopetal structures"), "assuming" that gravity was "down" at the time, which isn't much of an assumption :-).

In more complicated situations, like in a mountain belt, there are often faults, folds, and other structural complications that have deformed and "chopped up" the original stratigraphy. Despite this, the "principle of cross cutting relationships" can be used to determine the sequence of deposition, folds, and faults based on their intersections -- if folds and faults deform or cut across the sedimentary layers and surfaces, then they obviously came after deposition of the sediments. You can't deform a structure (e.g., bedding) that is not there yet! Even in complex situations of multiple deposition, deformation, erosion, deposition, and repeated events, it is possible to reconstruct the sequence of events. Even if the folding is so intense that some of the strata is now upside down, this fact can be recognized with "way up" indicators.

No matter what the geologic situation, these basic principles reliably yield a reconstructed history of the sequence of events, both depositional, erosional, deformational, and others, for the geology of a region. This reconstruction is tested and refined as new field information is collected, and can be (and often is) done completely independently of anything to do with other methods (e.g., fossils and radiometric dating). The reconstructed history of events forms a "relative time scale", because it is possible to tell that event A occurred prior to event B, which occurred prior to event C, regardless of the actual duration of time between them. Sometimes this study is referred to as "event stratigraphy", a term that applies regardless of the type of event that occurs (biologic, sedimentologic, environmental, volcanic, magnetic, diagenetic, tectonic, etc.).

These simple techniques have widely and successfully applied since at least the early 1700s, and by the early 1800s, geologists had recognized that many obvious similarities existed in terms of the independently-reconstructed sequence of geologic events observed in different parts of the world. One of the earliest (1759) relative time scales based upon this observation was the subdivision of the Earth's stratigraphy (and therefore its history), into the "Primary", "Secondary", "Tertiary", and later (1854) "Quaternary" strata based mainly on characteristic rock types in Europe. The latter two subdivisions, in an emended form, are still used today by geologists.

more at source

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: borntowatch

No solid replies to the dilemma have been forthcoming:

On the contrary. Your propensity to quote other quote mining sources does not actually accomplish much but demonstrate your enthusiastic propensity to confirmation bias. You have invented a "dilemma" to support yourself.

Your quote from O'rourke just says that the "circular argument" is so ridiculous that geologists find no point in disputing it. Read it again, it says that it's not worth the effort. In any case, in his conclusion O'rouke says:

The first step is to explain what is done in the field in simple terms that can be tested directly. The field man records his sense perceptions on isomorphic maps and sections, abstracts the more diagnostic rock features, and arranges them according to their vertical order. He compares this local sequence to the global column obtained from a great many man-years of work against his predecessors. As long as this cognitive process is acknowledged as the pragmatic basis of stratigraphy, both local and global sections can be treated as chronologies without reproach.

O'rourke supports geological dating techniques. He is not someone you want to quote to prove your point. Unless, of course, you take him out of context and not expect anyone to follow up.


Oh, using Kitts? Not so good for you. The "circularity problem" is avoidable, he says so. Following your out of context quote:

Despite these pitfalls we can with reasonable care avoid the danger of presupposing what it is we want to ultimately to test and have at our disposal a distribution of organisms in space and time that we suppose to have been related to one another by descent.

www.talkorigins.org...

 

I just want an answer

What was the question?

Oh WOW Phage you are so AWESOME, I cant refute what you have said, I am at a loss

Did you answer my questions, evidently not

Just ...
just....
just

anyway well done, you will get lotsa stars for nothing