Taz writes:
I think "fossil" is loosely defined as a remanant of life found in the dirt. This can include fossils that are still almost entirely organic. I am pretty sure that charcoal from ancient human settlements found in the ground are considered fossils, and they are used to date the settlement.
I was under the impression that the term "fossil," properly applied, referrs only to permineralized, inorganic impressions. If it's legitimate to use it to indicate
any preserved material, then I stand corrected.
Regardless, it appears that in the paper dennis cited, the creationists were specifically looking at carbon-dating of
inorganic substances and then complaining that they weren't getting accurate readings. If they were doing better "science" than that, I again stand corrected.
I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch
™ Version 4.2