Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
96 online now:
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,014 Year: 5,126/6,534 Month: 546/794 Week: 37/135 Day: 14/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dating Question For Members
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 4 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 18 of 77 (610179)
03-27-2011 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Buzsaw
03-27-2011 9:46 AM


Re: Related Dating Questions
Over the millennia the leaf ceased to be and the sediment formed the fossil.

No, it didn't. Ground water containing dissolved minerals might have formed the fossil, if it was a replacement sort of fossilization event. Or surrounding sediments might have made a mold that preserved the shape of the leaf. But the anthill grains themselves didn't "form the fossil."

And in answer to your topic title: no, Buz, I won't go out with you. I'm a happily married man.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 9:46 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 1:26 PM Coragyps has taken no action

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 4 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 34 of 77 (610203)
03-27-2011 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Buzsaw
03-27-2011 9:13 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
One answer was that the glue including mineral and whatever factored in, but that doesn't make sense to me, in that the aged glue itself would not necessarily record when the organism was deposited.

True, in the strictest sense. But if that leaf hasn't had its original tissues replaced by minerals in, say, 50,000 years or so, there won't be a fossil left for us to see (unless it is perhaps a cast) after a few million years. A 50,000-year error in a date of 50,000,000 years is the same size of error as being an hour off in something that you remember from 41 days ago - early February. Not a deal-killer in the question, "when did this leaf fall." Patticularly when the leaf is of a sort that has never been found on a modern tree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 9:13 PM Buzsaw has taken no action

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 4 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 43 of 77 (610224)
03-28-2011 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
03-27-2011 11:57 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
If the flood happened, the dating data recorded would be off due to unknown pre-flood consistency of the atmosphere elements and that in organisms.

So did the pre-Fludde atmosphere have uranium, rubidium-87, and potassium-40 floating around in it? Carbon-14 dating relies on stuff in the atmosphere, yes, but the things that get used to date dinosaurs don't. And the contents of organisms don't have doo-squat to do with the ages of, say, Devonian rocks. It isn't the fossil itself that gets dated, Buz.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 11:57 PM Buzsaw has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022