quote:
Originally posted by m4hb:
This is my first topic so help me out.
I've come to understand that the two forms of measuring how old something is are relying on each other.
that fossil dating is based on carbon dating and carbon dating is based on fossil. its called something like circular reasoning so there is no standerd ground on the dating prosses
Help me out here, and set me straight.
This is a typical creationist misrepresentation of the process. You'll run into this objection a lot from that crowd. You seem to realize that something is wrong so congrats.
The first thing that goes awry is that there are not only two methods of dating fossils.
There is a class of dating method that rely upon radioactive decay. These are called radiometric dating methods. Carbon-14 is one of those methods. Also in that group is potassium-argon, argon-argon, and a bunch of others.
Here is a quick intro:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm
And a much longer read:
asa3.org
Joe Meert, an infrequent poster here, has a great article on his web page concerning this.
One of the main objections to radiometric dating
Radiometric dating depends upon radioactive decay, not upon fossil finds.
It is also possible to date via tree rings, ice core and magnetic orientations within certain rocks.
Then there is relative dating, which is essentially dating a fossil by association. A fossil of unknown age, which is beneath fossils that consistently date to a certain age, is dated older than the fossils above it. Simple.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
™ Version 4.2