Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 56 (9170 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,377 Year: 4,634/9,624 Month: 409/1,096 Week: 4/110 Day: 2/2 Hour: 0/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Member (Idle past 4868 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009

Message 664 of 1725 (595517)
12-09-2010 3:50 AM

A scientific flaw in Buzsaw's argument
From Message 33 in thread What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? (Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only):
Buzsaw writes:
One of my problems is with the SM position that the fossil date can be determined by the age it takes on from the sediment. The sediment is nothing but compacted and hardened old soil, tiny old rock/sand particles, minerals and other inorganic matter, having long existed on the surface of the old earth before being deposited around and/or in the fossil.
That would be tantamount to dating a house from the age of the material in it. No?
Actually, (and I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong on this) I think sedimentary rock isn't dated radiometrically. Instead, what they do is date the igneous rock that lies above and below a given layer of sedimentary rock, and infer its age to lie between the two. Since igneous rock is dated from the moment which it last solidified and formed a layer, it's possible to determine the relative age of fossils in the sedimentary layer.
So Buzsaw is arguing from a flawed understanding of how fossils are dated.

Replies to this message:
 Message 665 by DrJones*, posted 12-09-2010 4:31 AM Meldinoor has not replied
 Message 667 by Blue Jay, posted 12-09-2010 10:46 AM Meldinoor 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