Creationist explanation for the fossil record?

[Anomalocaris]

Incidentally, most Muslims argue from the same hymn book; so to speak.

Muslims would suffice as Antichrist for most Christian purposes, but as reliable witness to biblical "cosmology" Muslims become epitome of honest, objective, undeceivable probity.

[libalchris]

I've heard quite a few, actually. The most common (Of late, anyway) is that radiometric/carbon dating do not return accurate results, and that scientists are deliberately falsifying the data.

The two sources below pretty much cover the arguments that I've heard the most.

http://www.creationism.org/topbar/fossils.htm
http://www.icr.org/article/5145/

The first problem with that is, as minimalist said, that the order still stands without the dating. Then of course there's the fact that radio metric dates give consistent dates.

---

Oooh i almost forgot to add the best part! The order observed in the fossil record was ford discovered and documented by... Wait for it... CREATIONISTS!!! Their discovery made them determine that the record was too complex to be caused by a flood

[FallentoReason]

Carbon dating is of no use because the carbon isotope fully depletes within ~50 000-80 000 (I've seen a wide range of numbers, hence the 30k difference). I'm not sure what isotope they would use for fossils.

Anyone know?

[Phil]

Incidentally, most Muslims argue from the same hymn book; so to speak.

Edit:

Flood geology? You mean creotards still try to sell that idiocy? I would like to hear any creotard tell me what the first thing laid down by a flood would be and what is seen in the geological column. They can even use the grand canyon for ease.

Didn't you know that the Grand Canyon was formed by the flood? Well, so I've been told, anyway.

I would like to hear any creotard tell me what the first thing laid down by a flood would be and what is seen in the geological column.

[libalchris]

Carbon dating is of no use because the carbon isotope fully depletes within ~50 000-80 000 (I've seen a wide range of numbers, hence the 30k difference). I'm not sure what isotope they would use for fossils.

Anyone know?

Several different ones. The one I'm most familiar with is potassium argon dating. Mind you, the fossils aren't directly dated, the location in the geological column they're found in is dated

[Jinkies]

I once met a guy who believed that dinosaur bones were just a bunch of human bones that got melted together. I kind of wish I'd asked him about all the other fossil evidence now. I wasted some good crazy.

[Phil]

There really is a PhD paleontologist that believes in creotardism but at least he is honest enough to say he believes because of the bible not because of any evidence.

[libalchris]

Sorry for not going into detail on the fossil dating. I was on my phone at the time I responded. Basically, the geological column is in a certain order (with rare exceptions when one layer gets pushed onto the top of another layer, these instances are easily identifiable though.) It's a well-founded assumption that lower layers of strata are older than higher layers of strata. When it comes to fossils, only certain kinds of fossils are ever found together (you don't ever find mammals and dinosaurs together) sedimentary layers are very difficult to date, but igneous rock is very easy to date. Unfortunately, fossils are almost always found in sedimentary rock.

WIth that in mind, here is the process. Scientists label strata by the fossils that are found in them (since certain fossils are always found together no exceptions) We can then occasionally find igneous rock next to sedimentary rock, and we can use that to date the sedimentary rock, along with those fossils found in it. Then, when a new fossil is found, we look at its position with respect to other fossils in the geological column, and assign it the date based on the known date for other fossils in those layers. (note that many dates for each layer have been measured using multiple different radiometric techniques, and they all line up within a margin of error)

[popeyespappy]

Carbon dating is of no use because the carbon isotope fully depletes within ~50 000-80 000 (I've seen a wide range of numbers, hence the 30k difference). I'm not sure what isotope they would use for fossils.

Anyone know?

Several different ones. The one I'm most familiar with is potassium argon dating. Mind you, the fossils aren't directly dated, the location in the geological column they're found in is dated

I like Roger Wiens’ article Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective as an answer for the young Earth crowd’s radiometric bullshit. Even though it is a bit dated.

[Cyberman]

Even though it is a bit dated.

Inadvertent irony ftw!