Dave m dating Chat sexe en direct
With a half-life of only 5730 years, carbon-14 dating has nothing to do with dating the geological ages! Hovind is confusing the carbon-14 "clock" with other radiometric "clocks." The only thing in the geologic record which has anything to do with calibrating carbon-14 dating is the coal from the Carboniferous Period.Being ancient, the C-14 content has long since decayed away and that makes it useful in "zeroing" laboratory instruments. Hovind would take the trouble to do a little reading from something other than creationist publications he would not make such an outrageous statement.Evolution, working in tandem with geologic ages, can explain why we have index fossils, but evolution is needed to make the index fossils useful for dating strata.While we're on this subject, you might wish to know the odds of arranging the Precambrian era, the seven geologic periods of the Paleozoic (Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian, Pennsylvanian, Permian), the three periods of the Mesozoic (Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous), and the two periods of the Cenozoic (Paleogene, Neogene or Tertiary, Quaternary) in their proper order by pure chance.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.
The principle of faunal succession in the geologic record was established by direct observation as early as 1799 by William Smith.Once the worth of index fossils had been established on the basis of stratification studies, they could logically be used to extend the correlation of rock formations to other continents.At this point in time they were simply a useful tool for correlating rock formations.One can hardly accuse these pioneers of evolutionary prejudice.Nearly a half-century would pass before Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, was published!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.What does the Jurassic strata have that the Tertiary strata do not? Neutrinos penetrate the earth so easily that they would affect all strata more or less equally, to the extent that they affect anything at all.If rock type mattered then we would expect a zircon crystal's lead content to vary dramatically within the Cambrian or Cretaceous strata according to their local rock types. Cosmic rays, on the other hand, don't penetrate that far into the earth to begin with, so we can rule them out.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.