Dating Fossils and Rocks: Scientific Evidence and the Age of the Earth - Creation Research Society
and Rocks. DVD Lesson Plan. Purpose of the DVD. The purpose of the DVD is to demonstrate that the methods used to date fossils and the age of the earth are. Vol 1: Rocks & Fossils: Del Tackett, Thomas Purifoy: Movies & TV. Number of discs: 3; Studio: Compass Cinema; DVD Release Date: December 18, Understand how carbon dating actually works. Understand how scientists date rocks and the age of earth. Scientific evidence that support the Biblical.
It was decaying while it was alive, but now there is nothing coming in to replace it. So what they do is compare the amount of carbon 14 in the fossil to the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. If the fossil only contains half as much carbon 14 as the atmosphere, it is assumed to have been dead for one half-life, or 5, years. While it was alive it should have had. If a fossil only has.
In theory the amount of carbon 14 never goes to zero. However, for practical purposes we cannot measure passed a certain amount. There should be no measurable carbon 14 after about 40, — 50, years.
ActionBioscience - promoting bioscience literacy
Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene Ice Age strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old. The textbooks say that coal formed million years ago. However, when coal is tested it still has carbon How is that possible? If all of the carbon 14 atoms would have disappeared at a maximum ofyears, why would there still be carbon 14 atoms in coal?
Obviously it is not million years old. Also diamonds, which they say formed millions and millions of years ago, still have carbon 14 in them. So how do you get carbon 14 in diamonds? Again it is obvious that they are not millions of years old. The carbon dating assumptions need to be pointed out. It is also losing carbon 14 through decay.
The question is how long would it take the atmosphere to reach a stage called equilibrium? They wanted to figure out how long it would take the atmosphere to reach a point where the construction rate and the destruction rate of carbon 14 was the same.
They determined that it would take about 30, years to reach this equilibrium state. They made two bad assumptions after they came up with this calculation. They assumed that the earth was millions of years old and then assumed that they could ignore the equilibrium problem. It has been discovered that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. If radiocarbon is still forming faster than it is decaying, that means the earth is less than 30, years old.
It also means that you cannot carbon date anything! The reason is because you would have to know when the fossil was alive to know how much carbon 14 was in the atmosphere at that time.
It simply does not work. In fact, many geologists now see rare, short-lived events as being the principal contributors to geologic sequences…. The periods of relative quiet contribute only a small part of the record.
Thus, the procedure is far from ideal and the geologic ranges of fossils are constantly being revised usually extended as new occurrences are found. In spite of this problem, the system does work! Moreover, it may be misleading in some cases: The only chronometric scale applicable in geologic history for the stratigraphic classification of rocks and for dating geologic events exactly is furnished by the fossils.
Owing to the irreversibility of evolution, they offer an unambiguous timescale for relative age determinations and for world-wide correlations of rocks.
On View Now
There is no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from. If we date the rocks by the fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about the pattern of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?
Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Darwinian theory, however, is supposed to have, in addition to evolution, other less sweeping consequences which are more amenable to observational test.
For most biologists the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is their acceptance of some theory that entails it. There is another difficulty.
Early geologists, in the s and s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: The first work was done in England and France. Fossil hunting began by accident in England around AroundWilliam Smith in England, who was a canal surveyor, noticed that he could map out great tracts of rocks on the basis of their contained fossils.
The sequences he saw in one part of the country could be correlated matched precisely with the sequences in another. He, and others at the time, had discovered the first principles of stratigraphy — that older rocks lie below younger rocks and that fossils occur in a particular, predictable order.
Stratigraphy, the study of rock layers, led to paleontology, the study of fossils. Then, geologists began to build up the stratigraphic column, the familiar listing of divisions of geological time — Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, and so on.
Each time unit was characterized by particular fossils. The scheme worked all round the world, without fail. From the s onwards, geologists noted how fossils became more complex through time.
The oldest rocks contained no fossils, then came simple sea creatures, then more complex ones like fishes, then came life on land, then reptiles, then mammals, and finally humans.
Accuracy of the fossils Fossils prove that humans did not exist alongside dinosaurs. Sincepaleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils.
In the past years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected.
Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come sincenor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide.
All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.
Scientists now use phylogeny, mathematics, and other computations to date fossils. Paleontologists now apply sophisticated mathematical techniques to assess the relative quality of particular fossil successions, as well as the entire fossil record.
These demonstrate that, of course, we do not know everything and clearly never willbut we know enough. Today, innovative techniques provide further confirmation and understanding of the history of life.
Biologists actually have at their disposal several independent ways of looking at the history of life - not only from the order of fossils in the rocks, but also through phylogenetic trees. Phylogenetic trees are the family trees of particular groups of plants or animals, showing how all the species relate to each other.
Phylogenetic trees are drawn up mathematically, using lists of morphological external form or molecular gene sequence characters. Modern phylogenetic trees have no input from stratigraphy, so they can be used in a broad way to make comparisons between tree shape and stratigraphy.
The majority of test cases show good agreement, so the fossil record tells the same story as the molecules enclosed in living organisms.