Re: Fish to Amphibian

Morton, Glenn (gmorton@kmg.com)
Fri, 11 Jun 1999 06:33:02 -0500

Bob DeHaan wrote:
>>Let me make a small methodological point here. While "conodont x" lies in
a
geological layer that is "younger" or later than the layer in which
"conodont a" is found, nevertheless, "conodont x" is genealogically older
than "conodont a." Radiometric dates refer to the geological layers;
genealogical dates refer to the chronological order within the lineage.
Those who come first are younger geneaologically than those that come later,

given continuity in the lineage.

If this reasoning is correct, then the entire current biota is older than
previous biotas.

Cheers,<<

Unfortunately your reasoning is not correct here. There is no such thing in
geology as a genealogical dating which is differentiated from the geologic
dating. Radiometric dates refer to the age of the geologic layer AND to the
items contained within that layer. Thus the age of conodont X IS the age of
the layer in which it resides. Below is often the situation.

Top of the vertical sequence of strata
layer containing conodont X is 342 myr
layer containing conodont w is 345 myr
layer containing conodont T
layer containing conodont s
layer containing conodont r is 352 myr
layer containing conodont m
layer containing conodont n
layer containing conodont g
layer containing conodont b
layer containing conodont a is 360 myr
bottom of the vertical sequence of strata

And if the layer containing X is younger than the layer containing A then X
must be younger than A. Q.E.D.

I might add that the terrible misunderstandings of geology that are out
there are a major cause of the problems Christian apologetics has.