That makes no sense. Even flood geologists think that the layers were laid down sequentially, though during a year-long flood. How could a surface lava flow happen at the same time as sediment being deposited above and below it? That’s mechanically impossible.
Nope. Magma is liquid and amorphous. It only gets crystals when it cools. And your notion couldn’t possibly explain why there’s a succession of ages from bottom to top, correlated quite closely to the succession of fossils. (And a flood can’t explain the succession of fossils either.)
That is self projection. In YEC, the geological column is dated a priori, so he assumes (or repeats what he has heard from YECs) the same is true in mainstream science. He does not know how the geological column is dated in mainstream science. So it makes sense he would refer to what he knows and repeat what he has heard. He doesn’t yet know that is not how mainstream scientists work.
If so, then probably neither does he realize that the implications of “The geologic column is dated a priori” are exactly what @Chris_Falter has claimed. But that is the implication, right? You can’t set ages a priori and then find radiometric dates to fit without consciously faking the data.
Seriously? @r_speir, I would encourage you to investigate the Haymond Formation in Texas as just one of countless massive piles of evidence refuting your claim. Consider that the HF consists of about 15,000 alternating layers of sandstone (a sedimentary rock) and shale (a sedimentary rock) with each such layer thoroughly riddled with countless animal burrows and tunnels. There’s also plenty of root casts.
Tell me this, r_speir, how did so many animals manage to dig and maintain their homes during the Flood if all of those 15,000 layers were formed during the approximately one year of the Noahic Flood’s duration? Scuba equipment perhaps? How did so many plants manage to grow in each layer? Are you sure that when scientists examine and date fossils from the top layer at the Haymond Formation, all of the layers below those fossils were deposited in the Noahic Flood year?
Does not common sense tell you that the evidence points to long periods of time being represented by each plant and animal inhabited layers? Or are you going to tell me all of the voluminous fossil evidence points to a high-energy, massively chaotic flood wherein you believe all 15,000 layers were formed during the 371 days which most Genesis-literalists count as the flood’s duration?
Some Genesis-literalists believe the flood lasted just 365 days but I’ll use the higher 371 days figure to help your position out in the following calculations:
(1) 15,000 layers of alternating sand and shale layers at the Haymond Formation (near Marathon, Texas, if I recall.)
(2) If those sedimentary layers formed during the Noahic Flood as Genesis-literalists have claimed, that is 15,000 / 371 = 40 sedimentary layers deposited per day.
(3) That would mean that another sedimentary layer was deposited—and all the animals LIVING and digging tunnels and burrows, and all the plants LIVING and putting down roots into that layer were buried—every 35.6 minutes on average.
@r_speir, I would encourage you to investigate the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
This is a good catch and I accept the correction. Absolutely, over a year’s time frame. Thanks.
Remember, the geologic column spans maybe 300 million years for most of the indexing that we would hear about and even be interested in. And that few million years is easy to massage when it comes to correct ordering of index fossils. I don’t think the contributors here really know that much about what they are talking about when it comes to assigning ages to the column. I think you are all basically more interested in fighting with me. So yes, based on index fossils, the ages returned in radio dating can be - and are - massaged.
Now, let’s put this whole argument into real perspective. Find me a fossil with soft tissue and let’s get it dated for Carbon 14. Whadda say to that? Then when those results are returned, we can continue this discussion.
Well he hasn’t made that connection yet. He doesn’t realize it would be tantamount to claiming everyone is intentionally lying in a (uncoordinated and unenforced) conspiracy (somehow). He doesn’t know how the dating works, so it isn’t really an accusation of dishonesty, at least no yet.
Why only 300 million? The Phanerozoic alone spans 543ma.
You’re saying that 300 is “few” (not to mention 543)?
Whether you realize it or not, that’s an accusation of massive fraud on the part of geologists and paleontologists. Are you sure you want to go there?
I think we already covered that. You’re the one who doesn’t know much. I certainly know much more about how it works, and I suspect a few of the others might also.
By which you mean let’s introduce a pointless and irrelevant condition that lets you avoid thinking about the data we already have. Thanks, but no thanks.
Yes he has. He just hasn’t used the word “liars”. I don’t think, at this point, he even has plausible deniability. He’s said this: “So yes, based on index fossils, the ages returned in radio dating can be - and are - massaged.”
We would expect every single sample to contain carbon-14, even those that are millions or even billions of years old. Small amounts carbon-14 are introduced during sample preparation, and environmental contamination is a known source of error for the oldest samples. This is why carbon dating has an upper limit on its sensitivity.
2 Likes
swamidass
(S. Joshua Swamidass)
Split this topic
175