Geologic time scale, when and how to use it

[Tonington]

This is split from the Hawking alien warning thread.

So what is wrong with my statement, that on a geological time scale (which is measured in hundreds of millions or billions of years) we came out of stone age an instant ago?

For starters, it's not what you said. You can differentiate stone age and the industrial age with techniques employed by geologists, but you couldn't delineate the arrival of computers.

For second, a geologic time scale is used to measure events which are relevant at that scale. There's nothing technically wrong with using milliseconds to measure your age, it's just not the scale that anyone would recognize what the numbers even mean. It's the same for using the geologic time scale to differentiate something which it can't even differentiate. It makes no sense.

We use the geologic time scale because many events take place over very long periods of time, so it's useful to have a scale that makes more sense. I'm sure most people can appreciate that a million is 6 zeros and another digit in front of it, but many if not most probably can't appreciate how big that really is.

I don't see anything wrong with that. And I suspect neither would your geology teacher (did you have a geology prof. did you take geology at university level?) if he understood what is meant by geological time scale.

Yes, I said prof...university level. My prof would have a problem with it, he did have a problem with it. Someone brought up climate change, and referred to geologic scale events, and tried to tie that today. It's nonsensical to do this, because things which happen on that scale are essentially no different than 0 and 0.000001 when using the time scale we are familiar with.

 

[CDNBear]

 

[SirJosephPorter]

This is split from the Hawking alien warning thread.



For starters, it's not what you said. You can differentiate stone age and the industrial age with techniques employed by geologists, but you couldn't delineate the arrival of computers.

For second, a geologic time scale is used to measure events which are relevant at that scale. There's nothing technically wrong with using milliseconds to measure your age, it's just not the scale that anyone would recognize what the numbers even mean. It's the same for using the geologic time scale to differentiate something which it can't even differentiate. It makes no sense.

We use the geologic time scale because many events take place over very long periods of time, so it's useful to have a scale that makes more sense. I'm sure most people can appreciate that a million is 6 zeros and another digit in front of it, but many if not most probably can't appreciate how big that really is.

Geologic time scale has nothing to do with geology. While it may be derived from geology, in ordinary language it simply means a very long time period (since geological time periods are very long, spanning millions or tens of millions of years).

So it is perfectly OK to use the expression geologic time scale in ordinary language. It simply means a very long time period. Same as if I say that odds against something happening are astronomical, that does not mean I am talking of stars, planets or galaxies. Astronomical simply means very large, in this context.

There are many expressions like this, which have come into ordinary usage from specialist subjects. The word ‘influence’ comes from Chemistry.

So when I say that on geologic time scale we came out of stone age an instant ago, what that means is that if we look at the time period over which geologic events take place (ten or 20 million years), we have been out of stone age for a very short time. It is a perfectly valid expression; I don’t see anything wrong with it.

Yes, I said prof...university level. My prof would have a problem with it, he did have a problem with it. Someone brought up climate change, and referred to geologic scale events, and tried to tie that today. It's nonsensical to do this, because things which happen on that scale are essentially no different than 0 and 0.000001 when using the time scale we are familiar with.

Well, I would have a problem with that myself. If he is talking of climate change and geological scale events, he is talking of geology, and then a geology professor is quite right to be concerned. But suppose he had said that global warming did not happen on a geological time scale, it happened in just a few decades, I don’t’ see your professor having any problem with it. When he refers to geological scale events, he is talking of geology as science, if he simply refers to geological time scale; he simply means a very long time scale.

However, I don’t see any geological professor having any problem with the way I used the phrase. In the context I used the phrase; it simply means a very large, very long time period.

 

[Johnnny]

Geologic time scale has nothing to do with geology. While it may be derived from geology, in ordinary language it simply means a very long time period (since geological time periods are very long, spanning millions or tens of millions of years).

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

if you honestly think that SJP your honestly just talking out of your ass....

Every property ive worked at has been divided into Supergroups, groups, formations and members, intrusians, etc....all these are dated using the geologic periods.These periods need to be understood so geologists know what there dealing with and geologists need to find out the order in which things occur, the geologic time scale is what you use.... It is very much a part of the practice of geology, if you dont know it your going to get burned...That statement alone shows me that your reading up on this subject from wikipedia and talking out of your ass. Especially if your an armchair specialist

 

[darkbeaver]

Many geological features cannot be placed in standard geological time frames. Many of the geological features of the present day earth are the product of very recent large scale construction. Many of these recent terra forming events have been recorded by witnesses.

The Mountains of Patagonia
There are some characteristics that bring into question the age of the features, however. Many of the landforms include rivers that empty into lakes with no outlets. If the lakes are part of such ancient geography, why have they not been filled-in with debris from the eroding mountain ranges that surround them?​

A Record of Planetary Catastrophe

We also see evidence that just a few thousand years ago, there was a sudden, dramatic shift in Earth’s global climate.

A recent study published in the current issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found evidence of an abrupt climate shift on Earth about 5,000 years ago—the most dramatic evidence being the discovery of unfossilized wetland plants around the margin of the Quelccaya ice cap. This same study found indicators of a shift to a warmer climate in the last 50 years. While most media have reported this story only in the context of global warming concerns, for catastrophists and proponents of the Electric Universe, this is another piece of the puzzle that is Earth’s (and the solar system’s) recent catastrophic history.

 

[Tonington]

Geologic time scale has nothing to do with geology.

We only have a geologic time scale because of geology. The relevance of geology to this time scale is explicit.

So it is perfectly OK to use the expression geologic time scale in ordinary language.

Right, I said it's technically correct. That doesn't mean a geologist is going to agree with how you use the language though. There's a huge difference between what you said, and your analogous use of astronomical odds. The geologic time scale is something specific. Rock formations, stratification, units of time, and includes processes occurring at that scale...astronomical odds against an event just mean the probability is small. That's it. The geologic time scale can't even distinguish a computer being invented...while probability can be given to just about everything, though it can be highly subjective, while interpreting the geologic time scale is done empirically.

Maybe astronomers even object to the common language idiom.

So when I say that on geologic time scale we came out of stone age an instant ago,

Which you said post-hoc, and I already said is fine.

 

[TenPenny]

This is split from the Hawking alien warning thread.



For starters, it's not what you said. You can differentiate stone age and the industrial age with techniques employed by geologists, but you couldn't delineate the arrival of computers.

For second, a geologic time scale is used to measure events which are relevant at that scale. There's nothing technically wrong with using milliseconds to measure your age, it's just not the scale that anyone would recognize what the numbers even mean. It's the same for using the geologic time scale to differentiate something which it can't even differentiate. It makes no sense.

We use the geologic time scale because many events take place over very long periods of time, so it's useful to have a scale that makes more sense. I'm sure most people can appreciate that a million is 6 zeros and another digit in front of it, but many if not most probably can't appreciate how big that really is.

Yes, I said prof...university level. My prof would have a problem with it, he did have a problem with it. Someone brought up climate change, and referred to geologic scale events, and tried to tie that today. It's nonsensical to do this, because things which happen on that scale are essentially no different than 0 and 0.000001 when using the time scale we are familiar with.

While that's all well and lovely, you're missing the point:

Some of us are perfectly omniscient, and so much superior to others, that we can use words to mean whatever we want to, and even change the definitons at will, in the middle of a single post, and even then, we are not wrong. Ever. No matter what we post, we are not wrong. Ever. The only reason that you might think we are wrong is that you are not keeping up.

Don't forget: we are not wrong. Ever.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

We only have a geologic time scale because of geology. The relevance of geology to this time scale is explicit.



Right, I said it's technically correct. That doesn't mean a geologist is going to agree with how you use the language though. There's a huge difference between what you said, and your analogous use of astronomical odds. The geologic time scale is something specific. Rock formations, stratification, units of time, and includes processes occurring at that scale...astronomical odds against an event just mean the probability is small. That's it. The geologic time scale can't even distinguish a computer being invented...while probability can be given to just about everything, though it can be highly subjective, while interpreting the geologic time scale is done empirically.

Maybe astronomers even object to the common language idiom.



Which you said post-hoc, and I already said is fine.

OK, they we are not really in disagreement. You say geologists or astronomers may take exception to using the terms astronomical ( to mean something big) or geological time scale (to denote a very long time period, millions of years). But these are part of the common language. And indeed many such phrases have entered the common language from specialty subjects.

While originally these phrases may have been unique to that discipline, in the common usage they have nothing to do with that discipline, they have acquired a meaning which has nothing whatever to do with the original subject.

So the adjective 'astronomical' has nothing to do with astronomy, it simple means something very big. Like 'USA has an astronomical deficit'. Or 'geological time scale has nothing to do with geology, it simply means a very long time scale. So somebody could say in reference to global warming, "we are not talking of geological time scale here, we are talking only of a few decades".

It is all part of English language, that is how the language gets enriched.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Indeed, there are so many words from various scientific disciplines, which have become part of the common usage.

We use the word ‘physical’ all the time, it has nothing to do with Physics. Or we say ‘there is a Chemistry between them.’ That doesn’t mean that they have set up a laboratory with flasks, beakers, Bunsen burner, test tubes etc. That means they are in love.

So whether it is Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Astronomy or any other discipline, many words have crept into common usage and have enriched the English language. If some scientists get their panties in a bunch as a result, that is just too bad.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

if you honestly think that SJP your honestly just talking out of your ass....

I make more sense talking out of my ass than some posters do talking out of their mouths, Johnnny.

 

[GreenFish66]

Hey ... I just happen to be studying/doing some research on Geo/Earth Science..Another great field of study ( Next to Astro Biology.) ..It's A bit off topic ..But here's some stuff ..You's might find interesting..If not ..Sorry to interrupt ..Just ignore it ..


1 I On - Earth Science /Geo Science/ Over turning Circulation ...Solar prominence..Magnetic pole reversal .Hmmm, some very interesting stuff..

Over turning circulation / Thermohaline Ocean Circulation

Thermohaline Ocean Circulation

NASA Study Finds Atlantic 'Conveyor Belt' Not Slowing

Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

SOLAR FILAMENTS AND PROMINENCES?

WHAT ARE SOLAR FILAMENTS AND PROMINENCES?

Sun Erupts: Epic Blast Seen by NASA Solar Observatory

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Earth Magnetic Field Reversal

When North Becomes South: New Clues to Earth's Magnetic Flip-Flops

EARTH CHANGES: Magnetic Field Reversal

Why Does Earth's Magnetic Field Flip?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------