Native Creationists - How has creationism changed? (Wood v. Duff/MacMillan)

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

First you claim “above” and “below”. In the next breath you more accurately but still so inaccurately state “in the rocks around”

So which is it? But I am still interested in this geologic column where you have dated rocks directly above and directly below fossils.

The K/T boundary is a well known geologic feature found in many, many places around the world. Below this boundary you have dinosaurs. Above you do not. That K/T boundary has been dated using multiple different ratios of different isotopes. Nowhere can anyone find a dinosaur fossils above igneous rocks that have a specific ratio of isotopes in them. Here is a sample of some of the dates for the K/T boundary using multiple different pairs of parent and daughter isotopes:

The K-T boundary is recorded in numerous sedimentary beds around the world. The Z-coal, the Ferris coal, and the Nevis coal in Montana and Saskatchewan all occur immediately above the K-T boundary. Numerous thin beds of volcanic ash occur within these coals just centimeters above the K-T boundary, and some of these ash beds contain minerals that can be dated radiometrically. Ash beds from each of these coals have been dated by 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb methods in several laboratories in the US and Canada. Since both the ash beds and the tektites occur either at or very near the K-T boundary, as determined by diagnostic fossils, the tektites and the ash beds should be very nearly the same age, and they are (Table 2).

There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible.
Radiometric Dating Does Work! | National Center for Science Education

What YEC needs to explain is how a flood can sort fossils so they correlate with the ratios of isotopes in igneous rocks above and below them. YEC also needs to explain why we get consistent dates when we apply the observed half-lives of the parent isotopes for multiple parent/daughter isotope pairs.