Basic
Worldview:
103
Science, the Bible,
and Creation
Origins
- Section Four:
Relative Dating
Origins - Section One: Introduction
and the Basics
Origins - Section Two: Premature
Dismissals
Origins - Section Two: Application
of the Basics
Origins - Section Three: Creation
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Origin of Life
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Environment for Life 1
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Environment for Life 2
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Another Planet
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Origin of Species
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Speciation Factors
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Speciation Rates
Origins - Section Four: Time and
Age, Redshift
Origins - Section Four: Philosophical
Preference
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological
Model 1
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological
Model 2
Origins - Section Four: Dating Methods,
Perceptions, Basics
Origins - Section Four: Global Flood
Evidence
Origins - Section Four: Relative
Dating
Origins - Section Four: Dating and
Circular Reasoning
Origins - Section Four: The Geologic
Column
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric
Dating Basics
Origins - Section Four: General
Radiometric Problems
Origins - Section Four: Carbon-14
Problems
Origins - Section Four: Remaining
Methods and Decay Rates
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric
Conclusions, Other Methods
Origins - Section Five: Overall
Conclusions, Closing Editorial
Origins - Section Five: List
of Evidences Table
Origins Debate Figures and
Illustrations
Focus
on Critical Evidence: Relative Dating
As
we begin our examination of relative dating, it is important
to identify the basic vocabulary and concepts. The first item
to cover is stratification. The rocky surface of the earth
is distributed in layers or strata. And, as the following
quote simply states, this stratification of rocks into layers
is the “essence” of relative dating. Consequently,
it is no surprise that the term stratigraphy is commonly used
as a synonym for relative dating.
“Archaeology,
Interpretation, Classification and analysis, Dating –
Stratigraphy is the essence of relative
dating.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe
Edition
"Dating
Methods, II DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE METHODS –
The relative scale was devised mainly by application of the
principles of stratigraphy. An
example of these is the law of superposition, which simply
states that in an undisturbed succession of strata, the
youngest beds are on top and the oldest on bottom (or, the
higher beds are younger than the lower).” –
"Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
In
fact, the stratification of rocks into layers is so crucial
to relative dating that relative dating is sometimes refered
to as “chronostratigraphic” dating.
“Earth,
geologic history of, Time scales – There are, in fact, two geologic time scales. One is relative, or chronostratigraphic,
and the other is absolute, or chronometric. The chronostratigraphic
scale has evolved since the mid-1800s and concerns the relative
order of strata.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004
Deluxe Edition
Futhermore,
as we will see later on in this study, rock stratification
is also indirectly crucial to absolute dating methods due
to the fact that absolute dating actually depends on relative
dating.
But
as we continue with our examination of basic terms, we note
that rock stratification simply refers to the primarily horizontal,
but at least parallel, layers in which rocks are found.
“Geology,
V Fields of Geology, B Historical Geology, B1
Stratigraphy – Stratigraphy
is the study of the history of the earth's crust, particularly
its stratified (layered) rocks. Stratigraphy is concerned
with determining age relationships of rocks as well as their
distribution in space and time. Rocks may be studied in an outcrop but commonly
are studied from drilled cores (samples that have been collected
by drilling into the earth). Most of the earth's surface is
covered with sediment or layered rocks that record much of
geologic history; this is what makes stratigraphy important.”
– "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Stratigraphy,
II PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY – Stratigraphy relies
on four simple principles to unveil geologic history. The
principle of original horizontality states that the sediments
that form sedimentary rocks are usually deposited in approximately horizontal
sheets.” – "Stratigraphy," Microsoft®
Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
“Geology,
The rock dispute – Nicolaus
Steno, a Danish physician, published
a key observation in 1669. He discovered that strata (layers)
of rock in oceans and lakes are always deposited horizontally.
Thus, the oldest layers usually lie on the bottom, and the
youngest layers sit on the top. This tendency, called the
law of superposition, helps scientists determine the order
in which geologic events occurred.” – Worldbook,
Contributor: Maria Luisa Crawford, Ph.D., Professor of Geology,
Bryn Mawr
College.
"Dating
Methods, II DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE METHODS –
The relative scale was devised mainly by application of the
principles of stratigraphy. An
example of these is the law of superposition, which simply
states that in an undisturbed succession of strata, the
youngest beds are on top and the oldest on bottom (or, the
higher beds are younger than the lower).” –
"Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
As
we continue with some basic vocabulary for this segment, the
next fundamental term that we come to is an “outcrop.”
An outcrop is where bedrock becomes visible at the surface,
such as at the side of a cliff. It is at outcrops where the
stratification of rocks becomes visible.
“Outcrop
– Function: intransitive
verb 1: to
project from the surrounding soil (ledges
outcropping from the eroded slope) 2:
to come to the surface: appear.”
– Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
“Outcrop
– Function: noun
1: a coming out of bedrock or of an unconsolidated deposit to the surface of the ground 2: the part of a rock formation that appears at the surface of the ground.”
– Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
The
next important concept to relative dating is the principle
known as the “law of superposition.” The law of
superposition is the foundation of relative dating and it
simply states that the oldest rock layers are lower in rock
formations and the youngest rock layers are higher up.
“Stratigraphy,
II PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY – Stratigraphy relies on four simple principles to unveil geologic history…The
principle of superposition states that, in
an undeformed sequence of strata, younger
strata lie on top of older strata. Strata are sheets of
sedimentary rock that, as a group, are visibly distinct from
those above or below (see Bed). This principle results from the simple observation
that new sediment settles on top of previously deposited sediment.
Consequently, strata are deposited sequentially, sheet after
sheet. By using
this principle, geologists can reconstruct geologic history
as recorded in the sedimentary rocks.” – "Stratigraphy,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Geology, III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, A
Relative Time – Geologists create a relative time scale
using rock sequences and the fossils contained within these
sequences. The scale they create is based on The Law of Superposition,
which states that in a regular series of sedimentary rock
strata, or layers, the oldest strata will be at the bottom,
and the younger strata will be on top. Danish geologist Nicolaus Steno (also called Niels Stensen)
used the idea of uniformity
of physical processes. Steno noted that sediment was denser
than liquid or air, so it settled until it reached another
solid. The newer sediment on the top layer is younger than the layer it settled
upon. Since this is what happens in the world today, it should
also determine how rock layers formed in the past.”
– "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating,
General considerations, Determination
of sequence –The sequence of a layered
sedimentary series is easily defined because deposition
always proceeds from the bottom to the top. This principle
would seem self-evident, but its first enunciation more
than 300 years ago by Nicolaus Steno represented an enormous
advance in understanding. Known
as the principle of superposition, it holds that in a series
of sedimentary layers or superposed lava flows the oldest
layer is at the bottom, and layers from there upward become
progressively younger.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
While
the law of superposition indicates which layers formed first
at individual sites, superposition cannot connect the layers
at one geographic location to the layers at another. To arrange
rock layers on a large geographic scale, in effect linking
the ages of layers at one site to the layers at another site,
evolutionary scientists use the characteristics of the artifacts
or fossils found at each site.
“Archeology,
VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS – Relative dating relies on the principle of superposition. This principle
states that deeper
layers in a stratified sequence of naturally or humanly deposited
earth are older than shallower layers. In other words,
the uppermost layer
is the most recent, and each deeper layer is somewhat
older. Relative chronologies
come from two sources: (1) careful stratigraphic excavation
in the field, noting the precise location of every artifact
and remain within layers of earth; and (2) close study of the characteristics of artifacts themselves.”
– "Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
There
are several obstacles that absolutely prevent relative dating
from rendering any age or large-scale order of rock layers
and fossils. Or, more specifically, while superposition allows
for ordering rocks and fossils at an individual site, there
are insurmountable problems that prevent constructing any
age sequence or order for fossils at different sites or on
a global scale. Two of these obstacles will be discussed here
and others will be discussed in the next segment on circular
reasoning. Consequently, as we will see, all that relative
dating can produce is an indication of which fossils were
buried first at a particular location. It cannot in any way
indicate how long ago they were buried or how long before
or after other fossils they were buried. Nor cannot it indicate
a sequence in which life forms emerged and evolved throughout
earth’s history. The reasons for these conclusions are
as follows.
First,
relative dating cannot indicate a sequence in which life forms
emerged and evolved throughout earth’s history because
relative dating is limited into how far back in time it can
date rocks or fossils even on a theoretical level. Specifically,
because relative dating relies upon fossils for dating, relative
dating can only be used to date the most recent 13 percent
of earth’s history. The earliest 87 percent of earth’s
history did not produce a sufficient amount of fossils necessary
for dating through relative dating methods.
“Geochronology,
Development of radioactive dating methods and their application
– Approximately the first 87 percent of Earth
history occurred before the evolutionary development of shell-bearing
organisms. The result of this mineralogic control on the preservability of organic remains in the rock record is that the
geologic time scale—essentially a measure of biologic
changes through time—takes in only the last 13 percent
of Earth history. Although the span of time preceding
the Cambrian period—the
Precambrian—is
nearly devoid of characteristic fossil remains and coincides
with some of the primary rocks of certain early workers, it
must, nevertheless, be evaluated in its temporal context.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
The
earth is believed by evolutionists to be 4.6 billion years
old.
“Earth,
geologic history of, The pregeologic period – The
history of the Earth spans approximately 4.6
billion years…It is widely accepted by both geologists
and astronomers that the
Earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old.” –
Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Earth
[planet] – Age
of Earth. Scientists think that Earth probably formed
at about the same time as the rest of the solar system. They
have determined that some chondrite meteorites, the unaltered
remains from the formation of the solar system, are up
to 4.6 billion years old. Scientists believe that Earth and
other planets are probably that old.” – Worldbook,
Contributor: Steven I. Dutch, Ph.D., Professor, Department
of Natural and Applied Sciences, University
of Wisconsin, Green Bay.
“Geology
– Earth probably
formed about 4 1/2 billion years ago, and it has been
changing ever since.” – Worldbook, Contributor:
Maria Luisa Crawford, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, Bryn
Mawr College.
When
we compare the evolutionary age of the earth to the percentage
of that time, which relative dating can be applied to, we
find the following. 87 percent of 4.6 billion years is about
4.002 billion years. 13 percent of 4.6 billion years is 598
million years. Consequently, fossils only become abundant
enough for relative dating to work in about the last 500-600
million years. Incidentally, the inability to perform relative
dating without a sufficient quantity and diversity of fossils
indicates how much relative dating depends on fossil characteristics
in order to assign ages. We will examine this issue in greater
detail below.
“Geology,
V FIELDS OF GEOLOGY, B Historical, B4 Paleontology and Paleobiology
– The oldest fossils are older than 3 billion years,
although fossils do not become abundant and diverse until about 500
million years ago.” – "Geology,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Geology,
III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, B Biostratigraphy –
In the field of biostratigraphy geologists study the placement of fossils
to determine geologic time. British surveyor William Smith
and French anatomist Georges Cuvier both reasoned that in
a series of fossil-bearing rocks, the
oldest fossils are at the bottom, with successively younger
fossils above. They thus extended Steno's Law of Superposition
and recognized that fossils could be used to determine geologic
time. This principle
is called fossil succession. Smith and Cuvier also noted
that unique fossils were characteristic of different layers.
Biostratigraphy is
most useful for determining geologic time during the Phanerozoic
Eon (Greek phaneros, "evident"; zoic, "life"),
the time of visible and abundant fossil
life that has lasted for about the past 570 million years.”
– "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
According
to the last quote above, sufficient fossils for relative dating
do not arrive until around 570 million years ago. These dates
of somewhere between 570 to 598 million years ago corresponds
roughly to the start of the Cambrian Period, even as indicated
on the following chart of the geologic column.
[PHOTO
CAPTION: © Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved. "Geologic
Time Scale," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.]
The
fact that sufficient fossils for relative dating do not arrive
until roughly the start of the Cambrian Period is why an earlier
quote designated that the Pre-Cambrian Period is largely devoid
of indicative fossils. Consequently, the term “Precambrian”
refers roughly to the first 4 billion years of earth’s
history, a long period in which there is not enough fossils
for relative dating.
“Geochronology,
Development of radioactive dating methods and their application
– Approximately the first 87 percent of Earth
history occurred before the evolutionary development of shell-bearing
organisms. The result of this mineralogic control on the preservability of organic remains in the rock record is that the
geologic time scale—essentially a measure of biologic
changes through time—takes in only the last 13 percent
of Earth history. Although the span of time preceding
the Cambrian period—the
Precambrian—is nearly devoid of characteristic fossil remains and coincides
with some of the primary rocks of certain early workers, it
must, nevertheless, be evaluated in its temporal context.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
But,
it is also important to note that the existing fossil record
we do have contains so many “variations,” “different
accumulation rates,” “discontinuities,”
“unconformities,” “breaks,” and “large
gaps”as to make it “virtually impossible”
to date the earth, even for the portion that we have fossils
for.
“Geochronology,
Development of radioactive dating methods and their application,
Early attempts at calculating the age of the Earth –
Equally novel but similarly flawed was the assumption that,
if a cumulative measure of all rock successions were compiled
and known rates of sediment accumulation were considered,
the amount of time elapsed could be calculated. While representing
a reasonable approach to the problem, this procedure did not
or could not take into account different accumulation rates associated with different environments
or the fact that there
are many breaks in the stratigraphic record. Even observations
made on faunal succession proved that gaps in the record do
occur. How long were these gaps? Do they represent periods
of nondeposition or periods of deposition followed by periods
of erosion? Clearly
sufficient variability in a given stratigraphic record exists
such that it may be virtually impossible to even come to an
approximate estimate of the Earth's age based on this technique.
Nevertheless, many attempts using this approach were made.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Notice
that the quote above states that despite the “virtual
impossibility” of constructing a time scheme from the
fossil record, “nevertheless, many attempts” to
do so “were made. This is important because, as we will
see a little later on, many methods for dating the earth are
still based upon this flawed approach. But most importantly,
the fact that the nature of the fossil record is such that
it cannot be used to construct an estimate of the earth’s
age also inherently means that it is impossible to use the
fossil record to construct an age sequence for the stratification
and fossils in rock layers.
In
summary concerning this first problem, relative dating can
only be used for developing a time scale for the most recent
13 percent of earth’s history, but it is also “virtually
impossible” to do even that because of all the variations
and discontinuities in the record. Consequently, relative
dating alone cannot construct a time scale for earth’s
history but requires absolute dating to do. We will discuss
the need for absolute dating a little later on.
Second,
relative dating cannot indicate how long ago fossils were
buried, how long before other fossils they were buried, or
a sequence in which life forms emerged and evolved throughout
earth’s history because relative dating can only provide
an order, not a rate, a duration of intervals, or an age.
Near the beginning of this segment, we examined the following
3 quotes, which described the law of superposition. As we
noted, the law of superposition simply asserts that lower
rock layers are “older and higher rock layers are “younger.”
“Stratigraphy,
II PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY – Stratigraphy relies on four simple principles to unveil geologic history…The
principle of superposition states that, in
an undeformed sequence of strata, younger
strata lie on top of older strata. Strata are sheets of
sedimentary rock that, as a group, are visibly distinct from
those above or below (see Bed). This principle results from the simple observation
that new sediment settles on top of previously deposited sediment.
Consequently, strata are deposited sequentially, sheet after
sheet. By using
this principle, geologists can reconstruct geologic history
as recorded in the sedimentary rocks.” – "Stratigraphy,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Geology, III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, A
Relative Time – Geologists create a relative time scale
using rock sequences and the fossils contained within these
sequences. The scale they create is based on The Law of Superposition,
which states that in a regular series of sedimentary rock
strata, or layers, the oldest strata will be at the bottom,
and the younger strata will be on top. Danish geologist Nicolaus Steno (also called Niels Stensen)
used the idea of uniformity
of physical processes. Steno noted that sediment was denser
than liquid or air, so it settled until it reached another
solid. The newer sediment on the top layer is younger than the layer it settled
upon. Since this is what happens in the world today, it should
also determine how rock layers formed in the past.”
– "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating,
General considerations, Determination
of sequence –The sequence of a layered
sedimentary series is easily defined because deposition
always proceeds from the bottom to the top. This principle
would seem self-evident, but its first enunciation more
than 300 years ago by Nicolaus Steno represented an enormous
advance in understanding. Known
as the principle of superposition, it holds that in a series
of sedimentary layers or superposed lava flows the oldest
layer is at the bottom, and layers from there upward become
progressively younger.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
Notice
that all three of the quotes above explicitly use the terms
“older” and “younger” regarding the
law of superposition and the age of rock layers. The use of
these terms gives rise to a misportrayal of the evidence,
or at least it has the potential to do so.
It
is undeniable that unless some natural process has flipped
the rock formation over or sideways, the lower layers are
typically laid down first and higher layers are laid down
last. In this sense, the adjective “older” simply
denotes the layers that were laid down first while the adjective
“younger” denotes the layers that were laid down
later. And that is all that the evidence itself, the observation
that some rock layers are lower than others, can tell us.
It cannot tell us “how old” they are or when they
were laid down, whether that was a long time ago or recently.
And it cannot tell us how much time past between the laying
down of one layer and the laying down of the next.
However,
statements like those in the quotes above equivocate on the
terms “older” and “younger.” With
phrases like “By using this principle, geologists can
reconstruct geologic history,” “how
rock layers formed in the past” and even “layers
from there upward become progressively younger,” suddenly
“older” no longer simply designates which layer
was laid down first. Now “older” means “much
older” and “very old,” old enough to “reconstruct
history” and old enough to be categorized as part of
“the past,” even earth’s distant past. Consequently,
the discussion starts off by establishing “older”
and “younger” in terms of a very agreeable fact
that lower layers were laid down before higher layers, and
then somewhere in the midst of the discussion the meaning
of the terms get switched as if the simple fact that some
layers are lower somehow indicates great age and a formation
long ago.
This
equivocation can be illustrated as follows. When people here
the term “twins,” they think of siblings that
are born at the same time. In reality, twins are not born
at the same time. They are born minutes apart. Because this
is the case, the first twin to be born is “older”
than the second in the same sense that lower rock layers are
“older” than those above them. However, despite
the fact that one twin is born first and is therefore “older,”
we don’t think of the twins as having different ages.
We think of them as being basically the same age. While it
is a simple and agreed-upon fact that one twin is born first
and consequently is “older,” this fact alone does
not indicate “how much older” the first twin is,
nor does it indicate exactly how many years old either twin
is. The same is true with rock layers. The simple fact that
one is lower does indicate that it was formed first and is
therefore older. But this simple fact does not indicate “how
much older” one rock layer is than another or that the
lower rock layer is “really old.” And it doesn’t
tell us the age of either rock layer.
The
evidence is that one layer is formed before another. It is
an assumption and a speculation that the rocks are very old.
And it is a clear case of equivocation to start out using
the term “older” to refer to the first and then
to assume or assert that this necessarily implies the second.
The
simple facts are these. Order does not indicate rate. Stratification
only indicates which layers were laid down first. Stratification
does not and cannot indicate how much time elapsed between
the laying down of individual rock layers. The fact that one
layer was laid down before another does not provide any information
or indication about the rate at which individual rock layers
formed or the duration of time between the formaton of each
layer. Whether or not the rocks formed extremely quickly or
extremely slowly and whether or not there were extremely long
or extremely short intervals between the formation
of each layer is simply not indicated by the mere fact that
some rock layers are lower than others.
Furthermore,
the fact that relative dating only provides relative order,
not time, rate, interval duration, or actual age is admitted
by evolutionists, as the numerous quotes below all plainly
state.
“Geologic
Time, III DATING METHODS – In
order to determine the relative age of rock layers, scientists
use three simple principles…By matching the fossil content
of rock sequences, even across widespread geographic regions,
paleontologists believe that certain sequences are probably
about the same age. All of these methods facilitate the relative dating of rock sequences,
but do not provide absolute ages for the rocks. Geologists
have several methods for determining the actual age of a rock
layer. The most important is radiometric dating, which
uses the steady decay of radioactive elements (seeRadioactivity)
in the rock to provide a measure of age.” – "Geologic
Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Archaeology,
Interpretation, Dating – Absolute man-made chronology
based on king lists and records in Egypt
and Mesopotamia goes back
only 5,000 years. For a long time archaeologists searched
for an absolute chronology that went beyond this and could
turn their relative chronologies into absolute dates.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Fossil,
Studying fossils, Dating fossils – When
a fossil species is first discovered, it is usually found
along with other species. If
paleontologists know the position of the other species in
the history of life, they can determine the position of the
new species. This type of dating only indicates whether one
fossil is older or younger than another fossil. It does not
provide a fossil's age in years. Paleontologists determine
how old a fossil is by measuring the radioactive isotopes
in the rocks that contain the fossil.” – Contributor:
Steven M. Stanley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth and Planetary
Sciences, Johns
Hopkins University.
“Index
Fossil, IV USE OF INDEX FOSSILS – Using index fossils and the principle of faunal and floral succession,
scientists can determine a relative chronology, or a sequence
of events. Yet, absolute
age, or the number of years that have passed since a rock
layer formed, cannot be determined using fossils alone. Absolute
age must be derived from dating methods such as radiometric
dating.” – "Index Fossil," Microsoft®
Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
“Dating,
General considerations, Distinctions between relative-age
and absolute-age measurements – Precise isotopic ages
are called absolute ages, since they date the timing of events
not relative to each other but as the time elapsed between
a rock-forming event and the present.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Archeology,
VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS – Accurately dating
an archaeological site requires the application of two distinct
methods of dating: relative and absolute. Relative
dating establishes the date of archaeological finds in relation
to one another. Absolute dating is the often more difficult
task of determining the year in which an artifact, remain,
or geological layer was deposited.” – "Archaeology,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Stratigraphy,
I INTRODUCTION – Stratigraphy,
in geology, the study of rock layers, or strata, particularly
their ages, compositions, and relationships to other rock
layers. Stratigraphy provides geologists with clues about
the earth's past…II PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY – Stratigraphy relies on four simple principles to unveil geologic
history…III RELATIVE VERSUS ABSOLUTE AGES – The above example gives only the sequence
of geologic events for a particular place; it provides no
information as to how long ago the events occurred. The
example illustrates the use of relative ages by showing the
occurrence of events with respect to each other. In contrast,
absolute ages specify, in years, when a rock formed.”
– "Stratigraphy," Microsoft® Encarta®
Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights
reserved.
“Archaeology,
How archaeologists interpret findings – Relative dating gives information about the age of an object in relation
to other objects. Thus, relative dating methods produce only
comparisons, not actual dates...Absolute
dating determines the age of an object in years.”
– Contributor: Thomas R. Hester, Ph.D., Professor of
Anthropology, University of Texas,
Austin.
“Fossil,
Dating fossils – Through many years of research,
paleontologists have come to understand the
order in which most kinds of fossils occur in the geological
record. When a fossil species is first discovered, it
is usually found along with other species. If paleontologists
know the position of the other species in the history of life,
they can determine the position of the new species. This type of dating only indicates whether
one fossil is older or younger than another fossil. It does
not provide a fossil's age in years. Paleontologists determine
how old a fossil is by measuring the radioactive isotopes
in the rocks that contain the fossil.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geology,
III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, D Radiometric Dating –
Another fundamental goal of geochronology is to determine
numerical ages of rocks and to assign numbers to the geologic
time scale. The primary tool for this task is radiometric
dating, in which the decay of radioactive elements is
used to date rocks and minerals…Using
dated rocks, geologists have been able to assign numbers to
the geologic time scale.” – "Geology,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating
Methods, II DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE METHODS
– With the methods then available, 19th-century
geologists could only construct a relative time scale.
Thus, the actual age of the earth and the
duration, in millions of years, of
the units of the time scale remained unknown until the
dawn of the 20th century.
After radioactivity was discovered,
radiometric dating methods were quickly developed. With these
new methods geologists could calibrate the relative scale
of geologic time, thereby creating an absolute one.”
– "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating,
General considerations, Distinctions between relative-age
and absolute-age measurements – In fact, even
in younger rocks, absolute dating is the only way that the
fossil record can be calibrated. Without absolute ages, investigators
could only determine which fossil organisms lived at the same
time and the relative order of their appearance in the correlated
sedimentary rock record.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Earth,
geologic history of, Time scales – There are, in fact, two geologic time scales. One is relative, or
chronostratigraphic, and the other is
absolute, or chronometric. The chronostratigraphic scale has
evolved since the mid-1800s and concerns
the relative order of strata…The
chronometric scale is based on specific units of duration
and on the numerical ages that are assigned to
the aforementioned chronostratigraphic boundaries.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geochronology,
Development of radioactive dating methods and their application,
An absolute age framework for the stratigraphic time scale
– In 1905 Strutt succeeded in analyzing the
helium content of aradium-containing rock and determined its
age to be 2 billion years…Although
faced with problems of helium loss and therefore not quite
accurate results, a major scientific breakthrough had been
accomplished. Also in 1905 the American chemist Bertram B.
Boltwood, working with the more stable uranium–lead
system, calculated
the numerical ages of 43 minerals. His results, with a range
of 400 million to 2.2 billion years, were an order of
magnitude greater than those of the other “quantitative”
techniques of the day that made use of heat flow or sedimentation
rates to estimate time. Acceptance of these new ages was slow in coming. Perhaps much to their
relief, paleontologists now had sufficient time in which to
accommodate faunal change. Researchers in other fields, however,
were still conservatively sticking with ages on the order
of several hundred million, but were revising their assumed
sedimentation rates downward in order to make room for expanded
time concepts. In a brilliant contribution to resolving
the controversy over the age of the Earth, Arthur Holmes,
a student of Strutt, compared the relative (paleontologically
determined) stratigraphic ages of certain specimens with their
numerical ages as determined in the laboratory…As
a result of this work, the relative geologic time scale, which
had taken nearly 200 years to evolve, could be numerically
quantified. No longer did it have merely superpositional significance,
it now had absolute temporal significance as well.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
In
summary, we have seen that relative dating is faced with the
following 2 obstacles. First, relative dating cannot indicate
a sequence in which life forms emerged and evolved throughout
earth’s history because the fossil record is only sufficient
for dating the last 13 percent of earth’s history and
has so many gaps and breaks that even constructing a history
from that portion is “virtually impossible.” And
second, relative dating cannot indicate how long ago fossils
were buried, how long before other fossils they were buried,
or a sequence in which life forms emerged and evolved throughout
earth’s history because relative dating can only provide
an order of burial, not a rate, a duration of intervals, or
an age.
Given
these facts, we arrive at some contradictions concerning the
current status of determining the earth’s age and biological
history using relative dating. As we noted earlier, the condition
of the fossil record with all of its breaks, gaps, and discontinuities,
makes “coming to an approximate estimate of the Earth’s
age” “virtually impossible” using stratigraphy,
which is another term for relative dating.
“Geochronology,
Development of radioactive dating methods and their application,
Early attempts at calculating the age of the Earth –
Equally novel but similarly flawed was the assumption that,
if a cumulative measure of all rock successions were compiled
and known rates of sediment accumulation were considered,
the amount of time elapsed could be calculated. While representing
a reasonable approach to the problem, this procedure did not
or could not take into account different accumulation rates associated with different environments
or the fact that there
are many breaks in the stratigraphic record. Even observations
made on faunal succession proved that gaps in the record do
occur. How long were these gaps? Do they represent periods
of nondeposition or periods of deposition followed by periods
of erosion? Clearly
sufficient variability in a given stratigraphic record exists
such that it may be virtually impossible to even come to an
approximate estimate of the Earth's age based on this technique.
Nevertheless, many attempts using this approach were made.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
As
we can see, the quote concludes that despite the “impossibility”
of the task, “many attempts were made” to calculate
the age of the earth based solely on relative dating methods.
Although, as we have seen, it is now fully acknowledged that
relative dating is inherently incapable of producing an age
for the earth, many sources still cite relative dating and
stratigraphy as proof that the earth is billions of years
old rather than the 6,000 year age asserted in the Judeo-Christian
scripture.
“Stratigraphy,
IV HISTORIC IMPORTANCE OF STRATIGRAPHY – Prior to the advent of stratigraphy, the earth was generally considered
to be significantly younger than a million years. In fact,
the dominant estimate, by Irish Archbishop James Ussher
in the 17th century, held that the earth was younger than 6000
years. Ussher's estimate was based
on his chronology of the Old Testament. Stratigraphy developed in England during the early 1800s
with the work of a land surveyor named William Smith. Using stratigraphic concepts, 19th-century geologists clearly demonstrated
that the earth was far older than a million years.”
– "Stratigraphy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating,
General considerations, Correlation, Principles and techniques
– Correlation is, as mentioned earlier,
the technique of piecing together the informational content
of separated outcrops…To this day, fossils are useful
as correlation tools to geologists specializing in stratigraphy…Geologic column and its associated time
scale – The
end product of correlation is a mental abstraction called
the geologic column. It is the result of integrating all the
world's individual rock sequences into a single sequence.
In order to communicate the fine structure of this so-called
column, it has been subdivided into smaller units. Lines are drawn on the basis of either significant changes in fossil
forms or discontinuities in the rock record (i.e., unconformities, or large gaps in the sedimentary sequence);
the basic subdivisions of rock are called systems, and the
corresponding time intervals are termed periods…The
geologic column and the relative geologic time scale are sufficiently
defined to fulfill the use originally envisioned for them—providing
a framework within which to tell the story of Earth history…In
all these happenings the geologic column and its associated
time scale spell the difference between an unordered series
of isolated events and the unfolding story of a changing Earth.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
The
first quote above plainly states that, “Using stratigraphic
concepts, 19th-century geologists clearly demonstrated that
the earth was far older than a million years.” Likewise,
the second quote states that, “The geologic column and
the relative geologic time scale are sufficiently defined
to fulfill the use originally envisioned for them.”
The second quote goes on to describe that “originally
envisioned use” for stratigraphy as “providing
a framework within which to tell the story of Earth history…In
all these happenings the geologic column and its associated
time scale spell the difference between an unordered series
of isolated events and the unfolding story of a changing Earth.”
However, as we have seen, relative dating is utterly incapable
of accomplishing any of these things. Yet, despite its failings,
the impression is still widely reported that the age of the
earth and the sequence of its biological history have been
accomplished by relative dating and, subsequently, relative
dating is believed to have disproved creation theory even
though it is inherently incapable of doing so. How could relative
dating and the geologic column prove that the earth is older
than the estimated Biblical amount of 6,000 years if neither
of these methods indicates actual amounts of time? Since it
does not provide any actual ages or dates, how do we know
that even the relative sequencing (or burial order) provided
by relative dating and the geologic column doesn’t fit
within the Biblically allotted 6,000 years?
The
fact that relative dating has not and cannot provide any indications
of the earth’s age or of an evolutionary sequence for
life is further demonstrated by the fact that an absolute
dating method was sought expressly because relative dating
could not accomplish these tasks.
“Dating,
General considerations, Distinctions between relative-age
and absolute-age measurements – In fact, even
in younger rocks, absolute dating is the only way that the
fossil record can be calibrated. Without absolute ages, investigators
could only determine which fossil organisms lived at the same
time and the relative order of their appearance in the correlated
sedimentary rock record.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition