To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Wait a minute - aren’t those layers dated by the fossils contained therein, which in turn are dated by the layers in which they’re found?
4 posted on
10/26/2009 12:18:46 PM PDT by
MrB
(The only difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
To: MrB
Wait a minute - aren’t those layers dated by the fossils contained therein, which in turn are dated by the layers in which they’re found? ~420 million years would be well before most of this, but if you look at the actual change, it doesn't change the overall age, just the speed in which they formed, they are still within the ~420 million year old date range.
9 posted on
10/26/2009 12:20:35 PM PDT by
mnehring
To: MrB
From the article:
*******************************EXCERPT********************************
Cramer and his advisor, Matthew Saltzman, professor of earth sciences, and their colleagues used a relatively new technique called high-resolution carbon isotope stratigraphy to determine the age of rocks in Niagara Gorge in New York .
To: MrB
Wait a minute - aren’t those layers dated by the fossils contained therein, which in turn are dated by the layers in which they’re found?Who told you that?
35 posted on
10/26/2009 6:58:57 PM PDT by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson