Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
315 bytes added ,  10:48, December 27, 2007
→‎But, but, but...!: unsigned and reply re polystrate fossils
Line 94: Line 94:  
Nor was this the first such mistake. Back in 1993, miners in the Crinum Coal Mine in [[Australia]] unearthed a fossil tree buried in [[basalt]]. Andrew Snelling and his team sent a sample of the wood to one lab, and samples of the surrounding rock to two different labs. And what do you suppose the labs told them? They got back one apparent age for the tree (about 10,000 years) and apparent ages for the rocks that were orders-of-magnitude higher--as in, in the millions of years.
 
Nor was this the first such mistake. Back in 1993, miners in the Crinum Coal Mine in [[Australia]] unearthed a fossil tree buried in [[basalt]]. Andrew Snelling and his team sent a sample of the wood to one lab, and samples of the surrounding rock to two different labs. And what do you suppose the labs told them? They got back one apparent age for the tree (about 10,000 years) and apparent ages for the rocks that were orders-of-magnitude higher--as in, in the millions of years.
   −
:Polystrate fossils are a very well understood phenomenon having first been described in the 1860s.  Only young earth proponents still consider this any sort of problem for Geology.
+
:Polystrate fossils are a very well understood phenomenon having first been described in the 1860s.  Only young earth proponents still consider this any sort of problem for Geology. {{unsigned|SSchultz}}
 +
:: YECs don't consider it a problem for ''geology''.  They consider it a problem for ''long-age interpretations''.  And being aware of it doesn't explain it.  How do mainstream geologists explain polystrate fossils?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:48, 27 December 2007 (EST)
    
Now don't you think that somebody's got some explaining to do? What kind of stupid mistake was this? Not stupid--merely ignorant and prejudiced by their worldview--and making a bunch of wrong assumptions about radioactive decay.
 
Now don't you think that somebody's got some explaining to do? What kind of stupid mistake was this? Not stupid--merely ignorant and prejudiced by their worldview--and making a bunch of wrong assumptions about radioactive decay.
nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254

edits

Navigation menu