stassen@spp2.UUCP (Chris Stassen) (03/10/86)
In article <519@imsvax>, Ted Holden writes: > Every one of the systems used to date geological ages and formerly > living material uses assumptions of continuity which go out the window > with events of the sort Velikovsky describes, and more than half of them > are circular (using fossils to date rocks, then using the same dates on > the rocks to date fossils). I've heard Ted say this about ten times, and I think it's far past time to put it to rest. I hope that Ted isn't depending on this assertion too heavily, because there are several methods that scientists use to date "rocks": (1) Known ice age evidence (cycles roughly 100k, 43k, 24k, and and 19.5k years) which are MATHEMATICALLY PREDICTED FROM THE EARTH'S ORBITAL ECCENTRICITIES. "Oddly enough," radio-carbon dating of ice age debris as well as examination of coral terraces on island shores ALL AGREE. (Terraces indicate different sea levels; an ice age lowers sea level). This is a mathematical verification -- hardly "circular". (2) Core samples from the sea floor, and the composition and species of Radiolaria (a small sea creature) within give very good ideas as to the global climate in various areas of the ocean. "Oddly enough," The radiolara samples, taken from many ocean floors, show ice ages in cycles of 100,000, 43,000, and 24,000, and 19,500 years. The radiolaria ice age evidence extends back 500k years in the particular cores. (3) Samples of air locked within the Antarctic ice sheet also give exact ideas as to the composition of the atmosphere. "Oddly enough", the same climates/atmospheres are predicted by both (2) and (3). (4) Known flips in the Earth's magnetic field. These are verified by magnetic patterns in the sea floor (near the plate creation area in the mid-Atlantic), and also agree with magnetic traces found in hardened lava. "Oddly enough", the ages of the rocks calculated within certain magnetic periods agree with radio- carbon dating! The relatively young sea floor, (which records the magnetic patterns at the continental drift rate) is an INDEPENDENT souce which verifies the radio-carbon ages of the land-based rocks. (5) Climactic change (not ice ages) predicted by computer simulation based on continental position, ocean currents, and atmospheric composition ties all of the pieces of evidence together. "Oddly enough," the climactic simulation based on continental drift, known ocean current changes, and atmospheric content MATCHES the climates indicated by the geologic evidence. Anyways, there are more sources of evidence than I can explain here, and probably even more that I'm not aware of. Even though a single one of these pieces of evidence could be explained away by Ted quite easily, he would be missing the STRENGTH of the evidence: (1) Most of the different pieces were collected by independent scientists, and several of these projects were going on in parallel. (2) The results ALWAYS agree with other work. The pieces of the puzzle are fitting together quite well, and the most important pieces are relatively recent. Ted can go on refuting pre-1940 evidence until he is blue in the face. (3) The "biggie": All of the evidence agrees. Radio-carbon dating may be unreliable BY ITSELF. When its results agree with MATHEMATICALLY PREDICTED results, then its validity is strengthened. In this case, pieces of evidence from all over the Earth (any ONE might be insufficient ALONE), TOGETHER have great strength since they all agree. -- Chris PS - My source for this is the PBS series "Planet Earth," a seven-part series that explores the most current findings in "Earth" science, and gives the up-to-date theories, but (most importantly) gives the supporting evidence, too. It is well-researched and well-presented.
stassen@spp2.UUCP (Chris Stassen) (03/10/86)
In article <519@imsvax>, Ted Holden writes: > Every one of the systems used to date geological ages and formerly > living material uses assumptions of continuity which go out the window > with events of the sort Velikovsky describes, and more than half of them > are circular (using fossils to date rocks, then using the same dates on > the rocks to date fossils). I've heard Ted say this about ten times, and I think it's far past time to put it to rest. I hope that Ted isn't depending on this assertion too heavily, because there are several methods that scientists use to date "rocks": (1) Known ice age evidence (cycles roughly 100k, 43k, 24k, and and 19.5k years) which are MATHEMATICALLY PREDICTED FROM THE EARTH'S ORBITAL ECCENTRICITIES. "Oddly enough," radio-carbon dating of ice age debris as well as examination of coral terraces on island shores ALL AGREE. (Terraces indicate different sea levels; an ice age lowers sea level). This is a mathematical verification -- hardly "circular". (2) Core samples from the sea floor, and the composition and species of Radiolaria (a small sea creature) within give very good ideas as to the global climate in various areas of the ocean. "Oddly enough," The radiolara samples, taken from many ocean floors, show ice ages in cycles of 100,000, 43,000, and 24,000, and 19,500 years. The radiolaria ice age evidence extends back 500k years in the particular cores. (3) Samples of air locked within the Antarctic ice sheet also give exact ideas as to the composition of the atmosphere. "Oddly enough", the same climates/atmospheres are predicted by both (2) and (3). (4) Known flips in the Earth's magnetic field. These are verified by magnetic patterns in the sea floor (near the plate creation area in the mid-Atlantic), and also agree with magnetic traces found in hardened lava. "Oddly enough", the ages of the rocks calculated within certain magnetic periods agree with radio- carbon dating! The relatively young sea floor, (which records the magnetic patterns at the continental drift rate) is an INDEPENDENT souce which verifies the radio-carbon ages of the land-based rocks. (5) Climatic change (not ice ages) predicted by computer simulation based on continental position, ocean currents, and atmospheric composition ties all of the pieces of evidence together. "Oddly enough," the climatic simulation based on continental drift, known ocean current changes, and atmospheric content MATCHES the climates indicated by the geologic evidence. Anyways, there are more sources of evidence than I can explain here, and probably even more that I'm not aware of. Even though a single one of these pieces of evidence could be explained away by Ted quite easily, he would be missing the STRENGTH of the evidence: (1) Most of the different pieces were collected by independent scientists, and several of these projects were going on in parallel. (2) The results ALWAYS agree with other work. The pieces of the puzzle are fitting together quite well, and the most important pieces are relatively recent. Ted can go on refuting pre-1940 evidence until he is blue in the face. (3) The "biggie": All of the evidence agrees. Radio-carbon dating may be unreliable BY ITSELF. When its results agree with MATHEMATICALLY PREDICTED results, then its validity is strengthened. In this case, pieces of evidence from all over the Earth (any ONE might be insufficient ALONE), TOGETHER have great strength since they all agree. -- Chris PS - My source for this is the PBS series "Planet Earth," a seven-part series that explores the most current findings in "Earth" science, and gives the up-to-date theories, but (most importantly) gives the supporting evidence, too. It is well-researched and well-presented.