RE: Moorad's assumed timeline

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Thu May 20 2004 - 22:44:18 EDT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Alexanian, Moorad
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 12:58 PM
> To: Michael Roberts; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: Moorad's assumed timeline
>
>
> An attorney sets up a scenario in time and fits the known
> data into that scenario. Doesn't the geologist fit data in a
> scenario in time? How else can you talk about past events in
> a time orderly fashion and not fit them in a time sequence?

Sorry Moorad, what you are saying is pure misunderstanding and
poppycock. Geologists have radiometric dating to pin certain points in
the timeline via the laws of physics. And as Michael noted, there is
relative dating, there is the observed rates of sedimentation for
various rock types today, which if applied to the thickenesses of
sediments we see in the geologic record fits remarkably well with the
radiometric dates. When it comes to oceanic sediments we can
radiometrically tie certain dead nannoplankton to age dates. These
nannoplankton are found in an invariable order throughout the world's
ocean basins. There have only been a few hudnred species of these type
of plankton. They float in the ocean waters and float along with the
currents which take them all over the world. So we know that these
plankton form timelines in the sediments of the worlds oceans. Today
our timelines are based upon the laws of physics. So you can't act as if
this is just mere speculation.
Received on Thu May 20 22:44:34 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 20 2004 - 22:44:35 EDT