English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

...use sircular reasoning in your theory. You say that the rocks dates the fossils, but the fossils dates the rocks more accurately. What!!! Thats just realy very clever

2006-10-02 03:20:17 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

5 answers

No. I am a paleontologist/geologist and you are wrong. Do you put gas in your car, do you use any metal or plastic? Well guess what, that is all found using the wonderful Science of Geology. But you think that there is some flaw like that that no-one has ever thought of, even with all the billions and billions of dollars that is spent on looking for oil and metals???

The OBSERVATION that the same layer of rock contains the same fossils is used to trace that layer to a tie-point, which is dated by radiometric dating (no, not carbon dating - the half life is too short - potassium-argon and uranium-lead dating).

And do you know what? those 2 methods, with different half-lives and different logarithmic decay curves, both give the same age when used on the same rock. That would be mathematically impossible if they were wrong.

But don't worry, just call this a "stupid answer" and keep your hateful head in the sand.

2006-10-02 03:38:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

The fossils and rocks date themselves. There is a strong correlation between the two.

If the fossil dates 1.5 million to 1.7 million years old, and the rock it's in dates 1.6 million to 1.8 million, you've got a really strong correlation that the two together are between 1.6 million and 1.7 million years old. It would be incorrect to say 'the fossil ages the rock' or 'the rock ages the fossil'. It would be correct to say, "Upon aging the fossil with this radiometric test, we get 1.5 million to 1.7 million, and aging the rock with this other radiometric text, we get 1.6 million to 1.8 million, so it's fairly reasonable to conclude that the combination is between 1.6 million and 1.7 million years old."

2006-10-02 10:28:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

First on your agenda:
Buy a dictionary. Then you may attempt more difficult concepts.

2006-10-02 10:31:02 · answer #3 · answered by mutterhals 4 · 3 0

people tend to stop answering you when they realize you're a troll. Better lay low for a while

2006-10-02 10:37:55 · answer #4 · answered by Southpaw 7 · 2 0

evolution tip for you. Spell check.

2006-10-02 10:34:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers