ICR article image.
Posted on 06/24/2014 8:34:36 AM PDT by fishtank
ICR article image.
The more we know, the thinner the ice on which the evolutionists stand becomes.
Polystrate trees in Tennessee.
But, but, but, those trees stood there for millions of years while those sediments formed around them. /sarc
Cool trees! I’ve just learned something new, thanks to you.
Either that or those are special Mt St Helens trees from 1980 eruption so you can NOT trust the millions of years age dating radio-isotope anomalies [as told to me by my ‘betters’].
/sarcasm off
yes some species have been around unchanged or barely changed for a long time, while other species that were once living a long time ago are now extinct, but those two sets of facts do not make fossils “out of place”, though it does sometimes alter what is recognized as how long some species have continued to be around; the new “finds” of a species earlier or later than previously thought to exist alter specific evolutionary understanding of specific species without altering general evolution theories;
Well, that's conveniently vague. If it's that simple, how come shark fossils are found in much lower layers than whale fossils? And why aren't there mammoth fossils mixed in with the dinosaurs?
Shark fossils are found at much lower layers than whales because the are very much older. The oldest shark fossil is from around 400 million years ago (mya). The first whale fossils are found in rocks dating from around 50 mya. Mammal fossils have been found dating back to 165 mya.
These were very small(small mouse size) animals called multituberculates. They appeared to live on a diet of insects. The Dinosaurs exited this world around 65 mya.
The Details Are in the 'Devil'
If this is the best example of Brian Thomas MS's work, it is a sad reflection on ICR's hiring policy.
Oh *I* know that. But I don't think Brian has an answer for why if sharks fossils and whale fossils are all from the Flood, we don't find them all in the same layers.
“The more we know, the thinner the ice on which the evolutionists stand becomes.”
That is just your own wishful thinking. The article is full of utter nonsense and false claims.
Well don’t stop there tell these fine folks here how evolutionary ‘science’ has arrived at the final arbiter for how old the rock layers are...
- can you say index fossils?
Circular reasoning at it’s best.
The types of fossils found there determine how old the rocks are and the type and depth of the rock determines how old the fossils are!!!
Of course you know that rock can be dated by other means than fossils don’t you? Fossils are zero use in dating igneous rock and of very little use in metamorphic rocks.
Radiometric decay analysis provides a method of establishing absolute age dates for both of those type of rock. In the case of the 400 mya shark, its relative age was probably determined by the absolute dates established for igneous/metamorphic rocks which underlay and overlay the stratigraphic sequences where that fossil was found.
Index fossils are useful in establishing a relative age within a stratigraphic sequence, but do not define the absolute age of that sequence.
“Radiometric decay analysis provides a method of establishing absolute age dates for both of those type of rock.”
OH Absolutely!!!
errr
well maybe not exactly...
Besides all the obvious signposts commonly ignored [see link below] RE: these various radio-isotope dating methods:
a. do not often agree with each other,
b. have no ability to determine beginning ratio for father/daughter elements,
c. have no means to determine effects of leeching on these ratios,
d. can not say anything definitive on re-setting these clocks which happens primarily with molten rock where no scientific instruments can measure, and
e. are nearing a paradigm shift [waiting for those ‘geologic experts’ to admit c-14 and soft tissue are found in many fossils and directly contradict anything aged > 50k years].
This particular geographic science is laughable and has doomed your beliefs from the start.
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
it does not matter
that some species are now thought to have existed “sooner” than previously thought does not make them “out of place”
You are correct ‘it does not matter’
to evolution and its’ followers anyways...
they are perfectly happy that their just-because-we-say-so stories keep changing again and again, each time with less in the story that makes sense and more of the absurd.
Consider alien seeding the Earth called panspermia or how about evolution happening in isolated pockets and so quickly no fossils are left as evidence - hopeful monsters.
But that's irrelevant to my point!!! The article claims that fossils are sorted "sea creatures in lower rocks, shore creatures higher, then swamp and land creatures in uppermost layers." If it's that simple, then we should find whale fossils in every layer where we find shark fossils, but we don't--we find shark fossils in lower layers that have been dated earlier. What's Brian's explanation for that?
Not true. This paper covers some radiometric dating case studies. Table 1 shows how up to 4 dating methods agreed on the ages of some meteorites. Table 2 shows even more instances of agreement on the dating of tektites from the K-T boundaries in Mexico, Canada, and Haiti.
I suppose the polystrata fossilized trees were put there just to fool you into thinking that the tree stood there fore 40 million years while the sedimentary rock formed around it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.