Problem with radiocarbon dating

Your chances are 6.2 billion to one of getting the right order for all thirteen.

And, when you consider that each period can also be divided into "upper, middle, and lower," the odds of arranging them in the correct order by pure chance become astronomical. It has correctly placed the Cambrian between the Precambrian and the Ordovician, the Ordovician between the Cambrian and the Silurian, the Silurian between the Ordovician and the Devonian, and so forth.

It's just one of the tricks that have been used to make the work a little more precise. I believe he has confused the use of index fossils with evolution.

One creationist editor, who is more mellow than his unfortunate statement suggests, phrased the argument thus: Unfortunately the geologists date the rocks as the paleontologists tell them to. That passage might have come out of one of Henry Morris' books, except that Morris usually avoids crude slander. Hovind is not aware of the fact that by 1815 the broad outlines of the geologic column from Paleozoic times onward had been worked out by people who were mostly geologists.

At the very least we would expect random fluctuations if the radiometric methods were totally at sea.By then, the relative ages (order) of the geologic column had already been worked out in some detail.Radiometric dating would later confirm the relative ages of the strata and tie them to absolute dates.Any kind of object clearly restricted to a specific point in the geologic column would do just fine.If green dice were found only in the middle Ordovician strata, they would make excellent "index fossils." Evolution should be seen as an explanation of the faunal succession, a succession which was worked out long before evolution dominated the scene.The depth of burial, itself, has little to do with our mystery.


Leave a Reply