|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Make your own fossils in 10 years! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
techristian Member (Idle past 4422 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
All it takes is
1)Quick burial.2)Water, in the right amounts. 3)Suitable minerals. It has already been done with chicken bones and it is estimated that anything the size of o dinosaur bone would take hundreds of years. Dan"Official NANOSECOND Music and Music Videos website" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
techristian Member (Idle past 4422 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
A few interesting related links that I forgot.
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm Encarta article below showing that fossils can be 10,000 years old. Go to http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/home.aspx and type "FOSSILIZATION" into the MSN LEARNING AND reSEARCH engine. [This message has been edited by techristian, 09-25-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 6000 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: You understand of course what Glen Morton is trying to say, don't you? Glen is an ex-young earth creationist. He is discussing the creationist claim that it requires a flood to get fossils. This is wrong as any geologist could have told you. You don't even have to wait 10 years to get fossils, but you do need specific conditions for preservation. You have then made the illogical leap to conclude that all fossils are less than 10000 years old. You've not shown that by any stretch. Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 09-25-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
techristian Member (Idle past 4422 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
You don't even have to wait 10 years to get fossils, but you do need specific conditions for preservation. You have then made the illogical leap to conclude that all fossils are less than 10000 years old. You've not shown that by any stretch.
Yes, but I have also proved that it doesn't need to take "millions of years" Dan OUT OF THIS WORLD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: It does take millions of years for argon to build from the decay of potassium in the igneous rocks above these fossils. The age of the fossil is given by the dating of surrounding rock and the other fossil species found in the same layer of sediment. The age of a fossil is never measured by the extent of permineralization or the "rate" of fossilization.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23154 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
techristian writes: Yes, but I have also proved that it doesn't need to take "millions of years" When scientists date fossils, they're trying to determine how old they are, not how long they took to fossilize. Consider the example of a dinosaur killed and buried in a volcano eruption. We'll assume local conditions allowed rapid fossilization, say within a hundred years. So now, just a hundred years after the eruption, the dinosaur bones are completely fossilized. Sometime later scientists dig up these dinosaur fossils. Since they're found in volcanic layers they'll be very easy to date. Scientists will date the layers and arrive at an age of at least 65 million years. That's the age of the fossils, not the time it took them to fossilize. All fossils begin as organic remains of a once alive organism. Fossilization is a gradual process of replacing the organic materials with minerals. Depending upon local conditions, that replacement process may range from very incomplete to totally complete. In other words, some fossils, particularly young ones, may still have significant organic content. In the case of frozen woolly mammoths, no fossilization has taken place at all, and the remains are still completely organic. In the case of most dinosaur fossils, the replacement process is complete and these is no organic content left. When the fossil still has some organic content, then if it is younger than 50,000 years it can be radiocarbon dated. In many such cases there is no 14C left at all, indicating the fossils must be at least 50,000 years old. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 4247 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
only school children think it takes millions of years to fossilize materials.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 187 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Well, it's strawman.
Hate world. Revenge soon!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 4247 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
pretty much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1663 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
someone should forge a hominid skeleton and call it "straw man"
that would be awesome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zol Inactive Member |
You make the same illogical leap by implying that fossils cannot be that young.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zol Inactive Member |
Your logic is second to none. However, If you want to look back on scientific & geologic estimations at to the age of this planet we live on you will find that over the last 20 yrs or so that scientists have in general reduced their original estimates of the age of earth & all of the creatures held within its geological history. Have you noticed that the term "carbon dating" is not used anymore? Unless that is how old scientists get together of course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18051 Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I'm not aware of any significant changes in the estimated the age of the Earth in the last 20 years - it's still around 4.5 billion years.
And I don't know why you brought up carbon dating since it was never used to date fossils. The method itself is still in widespread use in archaeology and work on refining it continues - especially for ages in the range 11,000 - 50,000 years bp (before present).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zol Inactive Member |
"And I don't know why you brought up carbon dating since it was never used to date fossils. The method itself is still in widespread use in archaeology and work on refining it continues - especially for ages in the range 11,000 - 50,000 years bp (before present). "
Since carbon dating is or was used, it has been a way of measuring the life, life span of our earth, chronologically speaking. Certainly fossils will come into it, they are a great portion of, and undoubtedly an exciting part of both geological & archealogical discoveries every day. As you youself indicate, they are constantly refining their measurements, perspectives. What was in their eyes 60 million five years ago may now have become 60 thousand. Yes, they are refining it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18051 Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Carbon dating has a limited range and does not directly apply to a lot of material (it only applies to carbon derived directly from the atmosphere). It has no relevance to geology since most of geology lies outside the useful range of dates and much of the material involved contains no carbon at all (except perhaps as a trace contaminant).
Carbon dating has never been used to support dates of 60 million years (it absolutely cannot) and it is not very reliable for dates of even 60,000 years. But there is absolutely no chance of geological dating changing by three orders of magnitude as you suggest. I strongly suggest that you learn the basics of the subject, because it is quite clear that you don't know what you are talking about.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025