Dave m internet dating
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.Noah's flood might just as easily deposit the same crystal in one place as another. Pressure has nothing to do with it, and zircon crystals all have about the same density as their total lead content is small.Just what is it that a Cambrian stratum has which a Cretaceous stratum lacks?
(The principle of superposition was recognized as early as 1669 by Steno.) Reverend Benjamin Richardson and Reverend Joseph Townsend were a couple of early geologists involved in this work. Obviously, even Lyell was not pushing evolution at the time.
One would think that the flood sediments (gathered from the four corners of the old antediluvian world) and their associated igneous rock (formed during the flood) would all register very little radiometric age.
At the very least we would expect random fluctuations if the radiometric methods were totally at sea.
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.