Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,486 Year: 6,743/9,624 Month: 83/238 Week: 83/22 Day: 24/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 16 of 269 (43709)
06-23-2003 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Buzsaw
06-23-2003 12:33 AM


Apples and oranges.
Yeah, it's a failure of analogy.
Not so with carbon 14 half life. You can't observe the ratio of your carbon chain to the thing you are measuring before you begin as you can with the chain and object.
Let me ask you this - what method would you accept for the measurement of time? Do you accept that, within a tolerance, clocks measure time?
Radiometric dating is like a clock because the rates of radioactive decay are constant over time and accessable to current measurement. In the same way that a clock ticks the same over time, and a still-running clock is avaliable for us to determine how it matches other measurements of time - other clocks.
Now, if I have a clock, and I know it works now, and I know it's worked in the past because it's given independantly verifiable times for past events, I can figure out when something happened if I know how many clock ticks have occured between the event in question and now.
I assume your objection will be in regards to the constancy of decay rates over time, and honestly I'd like someone else to, uh, remind me why we assume this. Of course we have independant verification of the radiodates from other, nonradiometric dating techniques. Do we have other confirmation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 06-23-2003 12:33 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7831 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 17 of 269 (43710)
06-23-2003 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Buzsaw
06-23-2003 12:33 AM


I don't see any point in flogging a simile. The key issue remains that the method of measurement was inappropriate.
When I was learning practical science the very first step of every exercise was to propose a methodology and defend the proposed method in terms of its appropriateness to the issue at hand.
Why would you think K-Ar dating appropriate to a recently formed igneous sample?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 06-23-2003 12:33 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5449 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 18 of 269 (43722)
06-23-2003 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Buzsaw
06-23-2003 12:33 AM


Buz,
This is something I cooked up a while ago, I have yet to receive a response from YECs.
Radiometeric_Dating_Does_Work [Added by edit: The URL is not valid at the time of posting, the quote is Brent Dalrymple]
The K-T Tektites
One of the most exciting and important scientific findings in decades was the 1980 discovery that a large asteroid, about 10 kilometers diameter, struck the earth at the end of the Cretaceous Period. The collision threw many tons of debris into the atmosphere and possibly led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other life forms. The fallout from this enormous impact, including shocked quartz and high concentrations of the element iridium, has been found in sedimentary rocks at more than 100 locations worldwide at the precise stratigraphic location of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary (Alvarez and Asaro 1990; Alvarez 1998). We now know that the impact site is located on the Yucatan Peninsula. Measuring the age of this impact event independently of the stratigraphic evidence is an obvious test for radiometric methods, and a number of scientists in laboratories around the world set to work.
In addition to shocked quartz grains and high concentrations of iridium, the K-T impact produced tektites, which are small glass spherules that form from rock that is instantaneously melted by a large impact. The K-T tektites were ejected into the atmosphere and deposited some distance away. Tektites are easily recognizable and form in no other way, so the discovery of a sedimentary bed (the Beloc Formation) in Haiti that contained tektites and that, from fossil evidence, coincided with the K-T boundary provided an obvious candidate for dating. Scientists from the US Geological Survey were the first to obtain radiometric ages for the tektites and laboratories in Berkeley, Stanford, Canada, and France soon followed suit. The results from all of the laboratories were remarkably consistent with the measured ages ranging only from 64.4 to 65.1 Ma (Table 2). Similar tektites were also found in Mexico, and the Berkeley lab found that they were the same age as the Haiti tektites. But the story doesn’t end there.
The K-T boundary is recorded in numerous sedimentary beds around the world. The Z-coal, the Ferris coal, and the Nevis coal in Montana and Saskatchewan all occur immediately above the K-T boundary. Numerous thin beds of volcanic ash occur within these coals just centimeters above the K-T boundary, and some of these ash beds contain minerals that can be dated radiometrically. Ash beds from each of these coals have been dated by 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb methods in several laboratories in the US and Canada. Since both the ash beds and the tektites occur either at or very near the K-T boundary, as determined by diagnostic fossils, the tektites and the ash beds should be very nearly the same age, and they are (Table 2).
There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible.
1/
So the K-T Tektites were dated by no less than four methods, that corroborate. 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb . If that weren't evidence enough, lets take a look at how inaccurate they all must be, to fit a YEC world view. The lower age given is 64.4 mya. Now, assuming a 6,000 year old YEC earth is what YECs perceive as 100% of available time, then 60 years is 1%. This means that all the above methods, were ALL (1,085,000-100 = ) 1,084,900% inaccurate. Let me reiterate, the YECs requires these FOUR different, corroborating methods to be over ONE MILLION PERCENT INNACURATE.
Now, given that the four methods are different, & are subject to DIFFERENT potential error sources & yet still corroborate closely means that the various potential bugbears of each method have been reasonably accounted for in the date calculations themselves. This can only leave a YEC one place to go, the underlying physics. Half life constancy.
2/
The range of dates is from 64.4 mya to 65.1 mya giving a 0.7 my range.
64.4/0.7 = 92 (Not taking the 65.1 m.y. figure to be as favourable as possible to YECs)
The range of error is 92 times smaller than the minimum given date, giving us usable increments of time. Probabilistically speaking, we basically have four 92 sided dice. What are the odds of all four dice rolling a 92? On the familiar 6 sided die, the chance of rolling two sixes (or any two numbers, for that matter) is 6^2 = 36:1 (Number of sides to the nth power where nth = number of die).
Therefore, the odds of four radiometric dating methods reaching the same date range by chance is..drum roll..
92^4 (92*92*92*92)= 71,639,296:1
Is there any YEC that is prepared to state that the four radiometric dating methods achieve their high level of corroboration by pure chance?
If not, how much of the 65 m.y. old figure do you attribute to chance, & how much to radiometric half lives contributing to the derived date, percentage wise?
Here is your dilemma. The error required by the radiometric methods are 1,084,900% to fit a YEC 6,000 year old view. If they accept that the methods are capable of not being in error by more than 1,084,000%, then they accept a 60,000 year old earth, minimum. So, saying that half lives contribute only 1% to any derived radiometric date, means in this case (1% of 65,000,000 is 650,000 years), so even this small contribution by half lives falsifies a YEC young earth.
3/
The chance of all four methods being off by (chance) 64,400,000 years when the result SHOULD have been 6,000 years is truly staggering.
64,400,000/6,000 = 10,733.33 recurring (following the previous example, we now have four 10,733.33 sided dice)
10,733.33 recurring ^4 = 13,272,064,019,753,086:1
My questions to creationists are ;
A/ How do you account for four corroborating radiometric dating methods dating the tektites so closely at 65 m.y. old, given the odds of it occurring by pure chance?
B/ IF you don’t accept that radiometric dating is valid as a dating method, how do you account for the four methods being over one million percent inaccurate, relative to a YEC assumed 6,000 year old earth?
C/ If you DO accept that half lives affect the resultant date, even to a small degree, what percentage would you be prepared to accept that radiometric dating is influenced by half lives, the rest being just plain chance? And how do you come by this figure, evidentially?
D/ How do you rationalise the odds of all four radiometric methods being wrong by a factor of 10,733 each, when the odds of such an occurrence is 13,272,064,019,753,086:1 of them being wrong by the same factor?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 06-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 06-23-2003 12:33 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 06-23-2003 11:46 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 06-25-2003 1:30 AM mark24 has replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4690 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 19 of 269 (43737)
06-23-2003 9:20 AM


This is for Percy...
You're absolutely right about the Rb/Sr dating - and I should have thought about the example a bit more. I think I made a mistake about the Mull pluton - I'll have to check it up, but it might have been oxygen isotopes instead. My original post was just from memory (which is obviously failing me )
I am sure, though, that an isotope analysis was done on the pluton and a whole range of distorted figures were found because the rock had been metamorphosed by hydrothermal alteration. It's just to show that isotopes can be very tricky sometimes, and you have to be careful of the condition of the rock.
The Rock Hound
------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 422 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 20 of 269 (43794)
06-23-2003 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Percy
06-22-2003 11:28 AM


As an isochron method, Rb/Sr should either converge to an answer or not. I've never heard of Rb/Sr converging to a wrong answer before. Is this what happened at Mull, and if so can you explain this?
I don't know about Mull, but Rb-Sr isochrons sometimes give wildly inaccurate results; luckily, such cases are usually easy to detect. It is possible to get a line on an isochron diagram that has no age significance but rather is a consequence of incomplete mixing of isotopically varied sources; see Isochron Dating: Mixing of two sources. This does happen; I don't have a reference off-hand but I know I've seen articles declaring an isochron false because of mixing. It's possible to come up with pathological and in-practice essentially impossible cases in which three sources could mix to form a straight line on an isochron diagram and pass a mixing test, but we can be sure that no noticeable number of such cases have occurred.
You can also run into a situation in which an isochron line indicates either the original solidification event or a metamorphic event after solidification or even both; see Isochron Dating: Violation of cogenetic requirement.
The most trustworthy radiometric dates are measured by two or more independent methods, and mixing won't give you both a good isochron and a concordant U-Pb date. It's common to use multiple methods (sometimes in different studies): see Radiometric Dating and Consistent Radiometric dates for some examples.
FYI, Rb-Sr isn't used much in geochronology anymore, although it's used a lot in isotope geochemistry. The dates, while good within a couple of percent or so, aren't good enough for modern geochronologists. This is partly because the isotopes are a tad more mobile in the solid than we would like (leading to slight open-system behavior)and the slight uncertainty in the decay constant. U-Th-Pb methods are probably the most popular, partly because of the many powerful techniques available in such a complex system of nuclides and partly because the decay rate of U is known far more exactly than any other (bombs and reactors, you know). Ar-Ar probably comes in second, because of its wide applicability.
Dr. Ken Ludwig of the Berkeley Geochronolgy Center recently did a survey, which may well be published by now. He sent me some pre-press information, including:
"... a few months ago I did a quick literature search of articles presenting new geochronology (excluding rocks of Pleistocene age. for which methods such as radiocarbon, uranium series, optical luminescence.... are important) in a variety of different journals (Geology, Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., Canadian Jour. Earth Sci., Contrib. Mineralogy & Petrology) for the past 5 years. Of the 164 articles I selected at random, more than 80% were done by either U-Pb (54%) or Ar-Ar/ K-Ar (30%). with less than 5% each were done by Rb-Sr or Sm-Nd. In other words, both Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd are now minor methods in modern geochronology (though they remain extremely important in studies of petrology and crustal evolution)"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 06-22-2003 11:28 AM Percy has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 269 (43862)
06-23-2003 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by mark24
06-23-2003 5:11 AM


quote:
The lower age given is 64.4 mya. Now, assuming a 6,000 year old YEC earth is what YECs perceive as 100% of available time, then 60 years is 1%. This means that all the above methods, were ALL (1,085,000-100 = ) 1,084,900% inaccurate. Let me reiterate, the YECs requires these FOUR different, corroborating methods to be over ONE MILLION PERCENT INNACURATE.
I have never stated that the earth is a young earth -- just that life on earth is young. As I have stated before on several occasions, Genesis 1:1 is simply saying that whenever the heavens and the earth was made, God made them. It doesn't say how he did it, but that he did it. I posted this, I believe in my old "forever universe" thread where I claim that the universe had no beginning perse. Each thing in the universe had it's beginning as God saw fit to make it and when. He's forever been creating and destroying things in the universe to suit his good pleasure.
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mark24, posted 06-23-2003 5:11 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by mark24, posted 06-24-2003 5:02 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2424 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 22 of 269 (43864)
06-24-2003 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Buzsaw
06-22-2003 1:30 AM


quote:
Schraf, I run a full time business besides a lot of other activities and would appreciate that you not try to dictate as to how much time I devote to these threads. If I want to do a thread and feel I have time to add to the ones I'm currently involved in, I'll I'd like to make that decision myself.
Please be assured that I would never presume to demand that someone neglect their business or other responsibilities to play here on the board.
All you had to say was something about not having the free time to get into a new thread at the moment.
However, you HAVE decided to dive on in, so let's go.
quote:
However, I know this's buggin you so before I hit the sack I'll post this from the acknowledged link for you to ponder and anyone to comment on. It is a very interesting subject and I'd like to be able to give it more time. I'll try and do the best I can but may be slow responding much of the time. Ok bud?
Take as much time as you need, of course.
In addition, I think since you indicate that your time is quite limited, I will drop, for now, my request that you explain, in detail, how each radiometric dating method is incorrect.
I think that I am more interested in learning how it is that you can explain, if ALL of the dating methods are bogus, how they can be bogus in such an unlikely way as to date the single rock sample dated with several of them at the same age?
Here are some results for a meteorite collected in Saint Severin, France which was tested with three different dating methods, and they all show similar ages for the samples. There are more examples at this link:
The Age of the Earth
4 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.33
10 samples Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.15
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.04
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.38 +/- 0.04
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.42 +/- 0.04
Notice 2 important things:
1) Three different attempts at dating using a single method (Ar-Ar) led to the same result, indicating that a single method gives consistent results
2) Moreover, these results are consistent with two ADDITIONAL, independent methods (Sm-Nd, and Rb-Sr), indicating that three different dating methods give consistent results.
When you look at these patterns across many different samples and techniques (see the link), you see there MUST be some explanation for the consistency of results. The simplest answer: the methods are valid.
...unless you have another explanation, of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Buzsaw, posted 06-22-2003 1:30 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 06-24-2003 12:37 AM nator has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 269 (43866)
06-24-2003 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by nator
06-24-2003 12:01 AM


quote:
I think that I am more interested in learning how it is that you can explain, if ALL of the dating methods are bogus, how they can be bogus in such an unlikely way as to date the single rock sample dated with several of them at the same age?
Again, I'm not claiming rocks and other inorganic matter are young.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nator, posted 06-24-2003 12:01 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 06-24-2003 12:48 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 25 by wj, posted 06-24-2003 1:21 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 37 by nator, posted 06-24-2003 11:27 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 24 of 269 (43867)
06-24-2003 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Buzsaw
06-24-2003 12:37 AM


Again, I'm not claiming rocks and other inorganic matter are young.
Then, what about fossils and such found within those rocks? How could a fossil be younger than the stone matrix within which it was found?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 06-24-2003 12:37 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 06-24-2003 11:24 AM crashfrog has replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 269 (43870)
06-24-2003 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Buzsaw
06-24-2003 12:37 AM


Buzsaw, let's deal with your delusion that the earth's rocks may be millions or billions of years old but life is young. I assume that you envisage life being only thousands or tens of thousands of years old (young).
As you possibly know there are a multitude of dinosaur fossils found throughout the Mesozoic Era deposits, up to the K/T (Cretaceous/Tertiary) boundary. In message #18, Mark24 provides material from an article by Dalrymple explaining how the age of the K/T boundary has been determined at about 65 million years ago. The methodology used radiometric dating of volcanic ash beds and tektites found at or near the K/T boundary level.
From this information, it is obvious that dinosaurs lived, and some died, were buried and fossilised, before the K/T boundary events. The K/T boundary has been dated at 65 million years ago. One can safely conclude that dinosaurs lived more than 65 million years ago. This is completely contrary to your belief that life is young.
You can't have it both ways Buz. You can't say that radiometric dating might be accurate when used to date very old rocks and meteorites and ascertain that the earth is 4.5 billioin years old, but then claim that radiometric dating can't be right if it determines that the layers immediately above the latest dinosaur fossils are 65 million years old.
Which part of your worldview will you abandon first? That radiometric dating works at all? That life is young? That dinosaur fossils are the remains of previously living organisms? Did the dinosaurs get buried in the flood and then covered by the volcanic ash beds and tektites which had previously been lying under the earth's surface for millions of years? Or do you have another special plead to extract you from your situation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 06-24-2003 12:37 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by wj, posted 06-24-2003 8:04 PM wj has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5449 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 26 of 269 (43884)
06-24-2003 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
06-23-2003 11:46 PM


Buz,
I have never stated that the earth is a young earth
Irrelevant.
You did state that radiometric dating was unreliable, however. Please address the issues I raise in message 18.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 06-23-2003 11:46 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 27 of 269 (43895)
06-24-2003 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by tomwillrep
06-22-2003 11:18 AM


tomwillrep responds to edge:
quote:
if your argument is correct please shwo me a source made BEFORE the tests were taken stating that they knew the dating method would not work- if they stated that afterwards then i would be very suspicious.
The problem is that the company in question, Geochron Laboratories, no longer does K-Ar dating. They used to have a website that specifically described the requirements for submission for K-Ar dating, but it has been taken down since they no longer do that.
However, at the time it said, and I quote, "We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y." This can be referenced in Geotimes 1995-7.
When we combine this with the work of other scientists in the field of radiometrics like Dalrymple which showed that K-Ar dating isn't effective for young rocks, we are left concluding that Austin was either terribly incompetent in doing a K-Ar dating on recent lava flows or was deliberately being disingenuous.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by tomwillrep, posted 06-22-2003 11:18 AM tomwillrep has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 269 (43923)
06-24-2003 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
06-24-2003 12:48 AM


quote:
Then, what about fossils and such found within those rocks? How could a fossil be younger than the stone matrix within which it was found?
If the lava, limestone, sand, or whatever makes up the layers or rock beds, existed before the organism buried in it existed, that doesn't make the organism the same age as those elements into which it becomes buried, does it? If I bury a dead carcas in the earth, that doesn't make it the same age as the earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 06-24-2003 12:48 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Rrhain, posted 06-24-2003 11:56 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 30 by zephyr, posted 06-24-2003 12:22 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 06-24-2003 3:35 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 35 by mark24, posted 06-24-2003 8:19 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 29 of 269 (43931)
06-24-2003 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw
06-24-2003 11:24 AM


buzsaw responds to crashfrog:
quote:
If the lava, limestone, sand, or whatever makes up the layers or rock beds, existed before the organism buried in it existed, that doesn't make the organism the same age as those elements into which it becomes buried, does it? If I bury a dead carcas in the earth, that doesn't make it the same age as the earth.
No, but if you do something to make the rock read "new" as in make it from fresh lava, create a new sedimentary layer in a flood, etc., then anything buried in it is the same age as the rock in which it is buried.
What you're saying is that the stone was created in the flood and then somehow an organism that is much younger than it managed to get impregnated in it without disturbing any of the layers above it.
Think of it like making lasagna: You put down your layer of pasta, some sauce, some cheese, another layer of pasta, etc.
If you were to forget to add the cheese at that third layer, how do you propose to get it in there without first pulling up all the layers on top first?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 06-24-2003 11:24 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 06-24-2003 2:17 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4804 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 30 of 269 (43933)
06-24-2003 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw
06-24-2003 11:24 AM


quote:
If the lava, limestone, sand, or whatever makes up the layers or rock beds, existed before the organism buried in it existed, that doesn't make the organism the same age as those elements into which it becomes buried, does it? If I bury a dead carcas in the earth, that doesn't make it the same age as the earth.
As Rhain says, many events reset the "clock" by which rock is dated. If this weren't the case, all rocks would date to pretty much the same time. That's why some people make so much noise about claims of modern objects or fossils found in rocks that date millions of years. (None have been substantiated) It's rather difficult for a fossil to end up inside a rock after formation without leaving evidence of the process that put it there - like a burial. Therefore, the date of the rock tends to strongly suggest the date of the fossil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 06-24-2003 11:24 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024