“Well then maybe you should discuss this w/ DevNet (see post 54) and get one or both of your stories corrected. And then explain all the age-dating anomolies found w/ the recent Mount St. Helens eruption.”
—I’m not positive, but I believe DevNet may have been referring to xenoliths. Lava flow may contain rocks dragged up from within the earth that haven’t melted, which are called xenoliths. Since such rocks are just random rocks dragged up, they can be of thousounds, or millions, or billions of years old, while the lava they are contained in is very young. Fortunately, such xenoliths are easy to spot (thus the name - “xenolith” - foreign or strange rock that sticks out like a sore thumb).
When you were talking about the million year old rocks found in 200 year old lava, were you referring to the study done in Hawaii using K-Ar dating? IIRC, that was a study done specifically to date xenoliths. The xenoliths SHOULD date much older than the lava flow, since the xenoliths ARE rocks while the lava hasn’t hardened into rock yet - so by definition, the xenoliths must be older.
I believe the layering you are referring to from St. Helens are the layers of unsolidated ash from the pyroclastic flow. It was well known that volcanoes can create many layers of such ash in a single eruption long before 1980. Other examples of such are known around the world, such as Cathedral Rock in Oregon, which has many layers put down instantly from an eruption millions of years ago. The difference between these layers and other layers is, well, these are just layers of volcanic ash. If there was a layer of limestone in there, and a layer of shalestone imbedded with fossils and footprints, than that would be interesting.
Thanks for your reply goodusername (and you too Ira). I learned a few things from both. But too be honest I still see too many problems for evolution too be fact or beyond criticisms. I may again be showing naivete but why don’t new lava rocks establish a base point then for the ratio of father/daughter elements in the radio isotope dating?
Ichneumon - I won’t bother to reply directly to your post in 170 as it is too heavily sprinkled w/ half-truths and insults. I’ve yet too see any of the facts you present as ‘geology 101’ taught in public schools nor does the average 14 year old present same. Surely you’ve noticed there are quite a few things neither creation nor evolution can describe satisfactorily - any honest assessment does show this at least.
The point I failed to describe previously about the worldwide layering is that most of it has to have been laid down by flood rather than volcanic activity, just the same as most fossils show a quick burial which is the best explanation for polystrate fossils. And the best explanation for soft-celled fossils as well as DNA fragments and soft tissue remains is a young earth of no more than 10,000 years.
Also I have read both Ichy and Ira links and simply see too many problems sprinkled in again w/ the facts. Lastly, not too many FR folks consider wikipedia a good source nor talkorigins.