Ok, so the old geologists have been replaced. The articles today sound like this:
Most commonly, this is characterized by oversimplified statements like: “The fossils date the rock, and the rock dates the fossils.”
I would say that the ratios of specific isotopes are indicating material from a very old planet. But no one is dating the fossil when they cite those ratios. Of course, a great method of dating thousands and thousands of fossils as young is by simply finding soft tissue.
Again, this paradigm does not argue with an old planet. But fossils and life should not get mixed up in that dating.
This kind of reasoning won’t do. This is what stunts the YEC movement. The planet is old. They need to change their paradigm. The Genesis text will not be harmed in the process. But my prediction is that this will not happen or even begin happening until another decade has passed.
You aren’t reading. The ratios of isotopes are indicating rocks of very different ages, ranging from 4.5 billion years up to a few thousand. And those ages fit into a clear pattern. Igneous rocks close to Cambrian fossils date to something between 543 and 490 million years. Igneous rocks close to Triassic fossils date to something between 250 and 200 million years. Consistently. Now why should that be if it’s all contamination? I will also note that contaminated rocks will not produce a valid isochron.
There is much that goes into your claim of a “clear pattern”. More than just dating radioisotopes. If fossils of a certain type are found, that will also come into play. You and I are both smart enough to know that fossils are being dated on more information than mere radioactive decay.
Still not reading. They would have to be contaminated in a very specific and consistent way, such that flows in Cambrian sediments show Cambrian age, flows in Ordovician sediments show Ordovician age, flows in Silurian sediments show Silurian age, etc. Your notion of contamination doesn’t fit the facts.
And, once more, isochron dating, a common method, doesn’t work if there’s contamination at all.
I’m smart enough to know that the only objective dating method is radiometric, while other data (index fossils, for example) is used only to interpolate between dated horizons and to correlate among regions. So you’re just wrong about that, as about so much else.
That isn’t bad. Of course it says nothing about how rocks and fossils are dated, does it? So it’s irrelevant to what you were arguing. I, on the other hand, have an extensive background of undergraduate geology courses and graduate paleontology courses and have read quite a bit in the primary literature. I do in fact know how rocks and fossils are dated.
How familiar are you with Scriptures that speak about the nature of God standing outside of the natural and outside of human rationalism. You must not be because your statement punts these into the trashbin and i would not think you are the type to do such. You say that kind of reasoning wont do but who are you to speak on behalf of God? That is what Jobs friends did. They spoke on behalf of God based on what their rationale told them, not based on what God actually was and did.
How rational is it all of the humdreds of miracles in Scripture. Zero. If one tells me that the natural is the means of Gods creative abilities, i will challenge them with science fr guys like Behe. And if Behe is legit and i think he is, then the God who created kinds could have done so in the timeframe of His choosing and not feel the least bit obligated to leave an evidence trail that mans science can understand
You may believe that, but you have no basis for that belief, and it’s just wrong. Your paradigm has been decisively falsified by all the data. There’s no way more data will fix that.