Ah, there's that 'reworking' arugment that I mentioned to 'atlaw'. He seemed completely unaware of it.
Here is Woodmorappe responding to Morton.
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_jw_02.asp
Ah, there's that 'reworking' arugment that I mentioned to 'atlaw'. He seemed completely unaware of it.
Here is Woodmorappe responding to Morton.
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_jw_02.asp
Um, yeah. Whatever. You're aware that article has nothing, even indirectly, to do with fossil "reworking" aren't you? But then, very possibly you aren't. If you can't savvy the distinction between "spontaneous generation" and pre-biotic chemical evolution, then maybe the distinction between relative and absolute dating is equally mysterious.
The "Woodmorappe" article you link concerns absolute dating (dating in years, as by radiometric dating of rocks), whereas fossil reworking is an issue of relative dating (dating by position within the geologic column).
In any case Glenn Morton responded to it here:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/woodrad.htm
BTW, "Woodmorappe" neglects to tell you something very interesting about Morton's original response to his own original paper: that it was published when Morton himself was still also a young earth creationist.
Completely unaware of it? Hardly. It is readily apparent from your comments, however, that you haven't a clue about the concept. I was hoping that you would make at least a stab at giving your (apparently idiosyncratic) understanding of it, but you chose to dodge and huff instead. Perhaps you'd like to remedy that now.
ps -- it is ordinary courtesy to ping someone to a post in which they are referenced, especially when they are referenced with derision.