are layers of the gological column are dated by the fossles and the fossils by the layers?
955868
No. The basic geological column was first realised by creationists such as Rev. Sedgewick and William Smith, following logical rules such as the principle of superposition (sediments were deposited on top of older sediments). They observed that layers of different ages contained some different fossils which could aid in recognising the layers, without always having to physically trace them along. This was well before the Origin of Species.\n\nNowdays, the geological column is dated by absolute radiometric methods (eg. Uranium-Lead and Potassium-Argon dating). There are hundreds of radiometrically-dated tie-points in the geological column. Index fossils, along with other methods such as magnetostratigraphy, are used to correlate, relatively, between different locations, and to the radiometrically-determined time scale.
660314
They rationalize them away, just like they do everything else. They say "there's no missing link" when indeed we have found so many missing links in the past 100 years it's ridiculous. Of course, there's always a space between two points, so one can continue to say there's a "missing link" ad infinitum.\n\nI think the typical creationist response is that the fossil record is evidence of a worldwide flood. This is nonsense in that the fossil record is layered into various strata, with certain species only appearing at certain levels. If it all took place over a 40-day period, each species would be spread out across the various strata rather than separated into stratum according to species. Their excuse for this is some nonsense about heavier species sinking to the bottom or something. What? Not a single primitive-looking species floated to the top layers? Nonsense.\n\nAs for fossils of fish species on mountain tops, that's a no brainer. Mountains are formed when rock is upheaved due to various geological forces. Hence what used to be below sea level ends up atop a cliff or peak. It's basic geology.\n\nIt's all just willful ignorance, so there's not much you can do to convince them they're wrong. Admitting that macroevolution is a fact would require them to question their literal reading of the Bible, which would cause their whole world to come tumbling down. Obviously that's not going to happen.
752370
Cambrian 540-500 MYO, Ordovician 505-438 MYO, Silurian 438-408 MYO, Devonian 408-360 MYO,(age of fishes), Caboniferous 360-280 MYO, Permian280-248 MYO (age of amphibians), Triassic 248-208 MYO, Jurassic 208-146 MYO, Cretaceous 146-65 MYO, Tertiary 65-1.8 MYO, Theres a little way to remember these periods, my year 12 geology teacher taught it to me.  The first letter marks a period. Camels, Often, Sit, Down, Carefully, Perhaps, Their, Joints, Creek, Terribly. Then finally you have the age of man from 1.8 MYO to the present. This is known as the Quaternary period.\n\nThere are 3 eras, Paleozoic 540-248 MYO, Mezosoic 248-65 MYO (age of reptiles) Cenozoic 65 MYO -present (the age of mammals)
1032997
Yes of course they are! They and the suckers they mislead. \nThe brilliance of the charlatans of our day can be seen in the postings of many of their followers to yahoo answers. These charlatans have convinced the ignorant that not only is their opinion just as good as the opinion of experts (people who have spent their entire life studying a subject) it's actually better, because it's not based on unapproachable 'egghead' stuff, but on a child-like faith in sweet Jesus that even an idiot can have.  \nCrooks like Stroebel and Hovind are lying to this crowd and they mostly know it too. \nJust one example of this is their treatment of radioactive dating. When creationists say that dinosaur bones have been found that radio-carbon date to a few thousand years old, this leads their readers to assume that the dinosaur bones are only a few thousand years old, but surely the creationist know that carbon14 has a half-life of only of 5730 years. Potassium-argon dating is used to date anything over a million years old, and using that dating method, dinosaur bones date from between 140 and 65 million years. The creationists must know a simple fact like that. They complain about the unreliability of radioactive dating methods but see no problem with setting their clocks to standards based on radioactive decay. It's extremely reliable as a method of setting chronology.\nThere is a vast array of intertwining evidence that supports evolution, and the extremely old age of the universe and of the earth. Fields as diverse as biology, chemistry, geology, geography, nuclear physics, and astronomy, have given humans a wonderfully coherent and comprehensive picture of the universe we live in, of what it used to be like, and of what it most probably will be like in the future. It is a picture based on theories with not just great, but astonishing, predictive power. \nCreation science proves nothing, does not explain existing evidence, and has astonishingly poor predictive power. This is why no one at all, except Christian Fundamentalists, believes in creationism. \nUnfortunately creationists sound impressive to the ignorant and the gullible, and the English speaking world has both these types in abundance.
584737
If you do your research you will see that the concept of time in mens eyes compared to Gods eyes are probably two very different things!\nwe are told to go to the fossil record for final, conclusive proof that evolution really did take place. You might imagine we would find a succession of fossils, for example, starting with shellfish, in which the hard shell gradually turns into a covering of scales, while part of it turns inside and grows into a backbone. At the same time, successive fossils would be developing a pair of eyes and a pair of gills at one end and a finny tail at the other. Finally, lo and behold, we would have a fish!\n\nBut a fish would not stay a fish. Coming on up in the geologic column of sediments, we would expect to find fish changing their fins into legs, with feet and toes growing out of them, and their gills into lungs. Higher up, we would no longer find their fossilized remains in old seabeds but buried in dry land deposits. And in other fish, their forefins would be changing into wings and their back ones into legs with claws. Their scales would change to feathers and they would grow a horny beak around their mouth. And, presto! the magic of evolution would have given us reptiles and birds. So we could line up intermediate forms exhibiting transitional features between every ancestral species and each type of their progeny.\n\nIs that what we really find? Of course not! That would be an evolutionist’s dream. Darwin himself was the first to bemoan the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. But he was hopeful that time would supply the transitional forms between species—missing links, they came to be called. These would vindicate his faith in the process of evolution by natural selection.\n\nBut these hopes have not been realized. What does the record actually show? Each new kind of plant or animal—fern, shrub, tree, fish, reptile, insect, bird, or mammal—appears suddenly in the geologic column. Beginning immediately above the lifeless sediments of the Azoic era, the Cambrian layer carries an abundance of fossil crustaceans and shellfish, in great variety, already fully developed. Plants with woody stems appear suddenly in the mid-Paleozoic. Fossil wood has not been found in lower strata but is abundant in all later ages. Large collections of insect fossils have been found in upper Paleozoic rocks, fully developed and in great diversity, but none have been found in earlier strata. Early in the Cenozoic era, modern types of mammals make a sudden appearance; there is no record of their evolution from earlier types.\n\nThis is the repeated testimony of the fossil record: Sudden appearance of new kinds of plants and animals—no precursors. Does this not suggest, to the unprejudiced observer, the creation of these new kinds in successive ages, rather than continuous evolution?\n\nPermanence of Species\n\nBiologists have devised an elaborate system for classifying different species. Naturalists continue to find species that are different from those already classified, and those are fitted in between the others. Extinct species, represented by fossils, also have been assigned places in the classification. Different fossils continue to turn up that have to be put between others in the system. The evolutionists call these transitional species, a word that implies a temporary existence, during which it falls between an older species and a new one that is to appear. Even calling them transitional reveals a bias in logic. A neutral expression would be “intermediate” forms.\n\nMuch emphasis is put on the search for these “transitional” forms. As an example they point to the lungfish, which has gills for taking in oxygen when in water and also a bladder that serves as a lung for breathing when out of water. This is supposed to have marked a stage in evolution between fish and reptile. But there is a snag in the logic. The lungfish did not change into a reptile. It is still living today, the same
165331
"The Tertiary covers roughly the time span between the demise of the dinosaurs and beginning of the most recent ice age. At the beginning of the period mammal replaced reptiles as the dominant animals. Each epoch of the Tertiary was marked by striking developments in mammalian life. The earliest recognizable hominoid relatives of humans, Proconsul and Australopithecus, appeared. Modern types of birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates either were already numerous at the beginning of the period or appeared early in its history. Modern families of flowering plants evolved. Marine invertebrates and non-mammal marine vertebrates experienced only modest evolution."
1060626
NOT with carbon dating. \n\nCarbon dating is only useful back to about 50-60,000 years, and only a few types of fossils both fall into that age range and contain carbon. Many fossils DO NOT CONTAIN CARBON and most do not contain any radioactive carbon because they are too old. \n\nThe short answer is that if you know the age of the rock it came out of, or if you can identify the particular species, you know how old it is based on previous work. But how do we find this out the first time? \n\nThe simple answer is that different types of radiometric dating are used. Isotopes exist for many different elements that are radioactive and have known rates of decay as they slowly become stable isotopes. Uranium has several different isotopes that given enough time will decay to become lead, mercury, or thallium. There are many intermediate steps (each one a different element or isotope) along the way. One decay path of Uranium goes all the way to produce Helium. Using a mass spectrometer the atoms of each of these elements present can be counted and analyzed. \n\nMany other radiometric methods exist, and all have different time frames in which they are useful, as well as certain applications that they are best suited for. Examples of other isotopes that are used are Potassium-Argon, Argon-argon, Rubidium-Strontium, rare earth elements, Strontium, fission track dating, and isotopes of oxygen, nitrogen and sulphur. \n\nThe thing you must realize is that in most cases these methods are not applied to a FOSSIL, but instead are used to date the rock the fossil is found in. It is a complicated system of understanding and correlating the rock strata, combined with isotopic dating, paleomagnetic dating and other fossil assemblages.\n\nFossil assemblages are groups of fossils that are found together, and when a new fossil is found that is within a group that is already understood it is a reasonable conclusion to decide that it is a similar age. \n\nPaleomagnetism is used in some applications. The earth's magnetic field has reversed itself many times, and between reversals has what are called excursions where the poles move around and change strength. By building a record of these changes from the rock record, the strata that a fossil comes from can be dated with relatively good precision. For instance I have used this method, combined with volcanic ash deposits dated using Potassium-Argon dating to derive a 2 million year old date within a 100,000 year range.   \n\nAs more and more is known about particular fossils the fossils themselves can become part of the age correlation. If a specific fossil has never been found below a certain horizon in the rock record, then it can be assumed that fossils found deeper in the strata are older, and by careful observation it is possible to narrow down the age ranges using known rock formations, and observations of depositional events such as unconformities (places in the rock record where 'time' is missing either by a period of no deposition or by a period of erosion). \n\nIt is not a straightforward process, and can involve many years of investigation and debate within the scientific community. It is generally not considered to be concluded until it has been verified by many different methods and correlations. One piece of evidence is generally not considered enough to prove an age conclusively. Even then as advances are made in analytical techniques such as mass spectrometry, revisions are sometimes made. Keep in mind also that the ages assigned to fossils are not exact, but may have a range of several million years.
26194
"they" don't because they don't really know.  when early paleontologists started reconstructing dinosaur fossils, there was not much known about forensic biology.  our understanding of the way bones fit together and the biomechanics of all those little bumps and ridges on the bones was not very complete, and so when the skeletons were reconstructed they ended looking more like lizards than birds, mostly due to the missing information being filled in by the early scientists' prejudices and assumptions.\n\na lot of the recent work on dinosaurs that asserts their bird-like characteristics (feathers, warm blooded, etc) are inferred from the bone structure and are pretty far-removed from the physical evidence.  the notion that dinosaurs are like birds is controversial because it's new, and all people (including scientists) take time to accept something that upsets the conventional wisdom.  it is good science and probably correct, but without any direct evidence it is pretty well impossible to know for sure.\n\nhowever some very-detailed fossils discovered recently in china appear to actually have feathers!  so this is pretty exciting and very good evidence for the notion of birdlike dinosaurs.  nevertheless people remain a) reluctant to change their views and b) uninformed about recent developments in paleontology.  most folks in the public are informed by books from their childhood and movies like 'jurassic park'.  the public takes a long time to come around to new discoveries in science, particularly when they challenge older models and when a field is changing rapidly.  it is also considered fairly irresponsible to present a controversial and barely-tested theory as "fact" by journalists and museum curators.  when the controversy in the scientific community settles down and a consensus is reached, then public education in museums and articles can begin and popular belief will change.
520870
fifth epoch of the Cenozoic era of geologic time
1016560
Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the mineralized or otherwise preserved remains or traces (such as footprints) of animals, plants, and other organisms. The totality of fossils and their placement in fossiliferous (fossil-containing) rock formations and sedimentary layers (strata) is known as the fossil record. The study of fossils is called paleontology.\n\n \nFossil fish of the genus KnightiaFossilization is actually a rare occurrence because most components of formerly-living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment such as at the bottom of a lake. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.\n\nFossils usually consist of traces of the remains of the organism itself. However, fossils may also consist of the marks left behind by the organism while it was alive, such as the footprint or feces of a dinosaur or reptile. These types of fossil are called trace fossils (or ichnofossils) as opposed to body fossils. Finally, past life leaves some markers that cannot be seen but can be detected in the form of chemical signals; these are known as chemical fossils or biomarkers.\n\nFossil sites with exceptional preservation are known as Lagerstätten. These formations may have resulted from carcass burial in an anoxic environment with minimal bacteria, thus delaying decomposition. Lagerstätten span geological time from the Cambrian. Examples are the Cambrian Maotianshan shales and Burgess Shale, the Devonian Hunsrück Slates, the Jurassic Solnhofen limestone, and the Carboniferous Mazon Creek localities.\n\nThe oldest known structured fossils are most likely stromatolites. Now understood to be formed by the entrapment of sediment by mucous-like sheets of cyanobacteria[1], the oldest of these formations dates from 3.5 billion years ago. Even older deposits (3.8 billion years old) of heavy carbon that are indicative of even earlier life are currently proposed as the remains of the earliest known life on Earth.
457200
Chronicling the duration of geologic eras via the strata of earth formations.
1023108
The fossil history is false. The scientists don't know what they are talking about. Radiometric dating is flawed. Everything is a lie except the Bible. I am trying out the other side of this argument. It's pretty weak I must say.
701759
Geologic column - the imaginary but also the real-life staking of geologic ages represented in rocks, oldest to youngest.\n\nmineralized - bone/shell etc. is replaced, part by part, from organic to mineral components\n\nmould - hole in rock where organism used to be\n\ncast - filled in hole
173408
Yes, or at least from some predatory archosaurs. There are currently two strong theories, each with their supporters: birds are dinosaurs (Padian, Chiappe, etc.), or birds are non-dinosaur archosaurs (Feduccia).\n\nIf they evolved within the Dinosauria, as much evidence seems to show (see link), then according to a cladistic classification they ARE dinosaurs (the same way that we are Sarcopterygians, even if we're not fish-like anymore).
636880
No, they have ice cores from it that go back 100,000 years. Its edges were a little less icy up to about 600 years ago.
704239
No, the Earth is much much older.  This is why the Bible is not to be taken literally.  If anything, we were meant to eventually point out these inconsistencies.  The truth is that the dinosaurs existed a long time ago (dragons) and were created to be just another amazing addition to life here on Earth.\n\nThe dinosaurs existed at a time when gravity as we experience it now was attenuated, and we experience much muss less of it.  This is how dinosaurs like the ultrasaur and massive bids like the teratorn were able to walk and fly around without collapsing under their own weight.
389680
Hey, iloveicecream103, why don't YOU read a book about science, then talk to us about Genesis, if you still can.\n\nFossil layers show change over time.  The lowest layers have species the least like modern species.  As you progress up the fossil record, each layer is consistently more and more like modern organisms.  Creationists have no explanation for this.  They haven't even bothered trying.\n\nComing up the fossil record, you see forms changing over time.  Clams are preceded by animals like clams, but with their shells united.  Before mammals, mammal-like reptiles.  Before reptiles, reptile-like amphibians.  Before amphibians, amphibian-like fish.  Creationists have no explanation for this either, but they have made a few wasted efforts.\n\nThe transitions evolution expects occur.  Creationists can pretend they aren't *really* transitions, they just *look* like transitions, but that's just like a child yelling "DOES NOT" to win an argument.\n\nCreationists especially need to pretend that no transitions between humans and other apes appear.  They claim that all fossils are obviously human or obviously ape.  However, if you examine the claims of multiple creationists, you'll find they disagree on which are "obviously" which.  If it was so freaking obvious, shouldn't they be able to agree?  At least a little?  Here's a chart:\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html\n\nThe only thing obvious about it is that the skulls obviously cannot be considered one or the other and must be seen as transitions by any open-minded person.\n\nThe transitions that evolution doesn't want do not occur.  At no point in the fossil record do we find mammal/birds.  At no point do we find any direct transitions between amphibians and mammals.  We don't find any cat/humans either.  Any of these things, if discovered, would scrap evolutionary theory overnight.  Creationists have yet to explain why God made only species that look like they could have evolved.\n\nEven without any notion of progress or change over time in the fossil record, it's sorting would be an embarrassment to creationists.\n\nScientists respect the fossil record and accept it on its own terms.  If oak trees appear on top of tree ferns, oak trees came after tree ferns.  Creationists need to impose explanations to account for their claims that everything existed together at once, but these do not flow naturally from the evidence.  For instance, they have no explanation for why oak trees are found above tree ferns.\n\nCreationists have three explanations for fossil sorting, none of them works at all.\n\n1.  They like to claim that fossils are sorted by which species could outrun the rising floodwaters (they blame Noah’s' flood for everything they can't explain).  This would mean that moles and sloths can run faster than velociraptors, Oak trees and mangroves can run faster than velociraptors as well.  Velociraptors run at the same speed as tree ferns.  It is also useless for explaining why ichthyosaurs and dolphins are never found together.\n\n2.  They claim that different species occur in different ecological zones, thus would form in different layers.  This fails again.  Mangroves are found in the lowest ecological zone of any flowering plants, but the highest levels of the fossil record.  Oak trees are found high with mangroves, instead of low in the plains.  Tree ferns should be found with oaks.  Moles should be beneath velociraptors again, and ichthyosaurs should, again, be found with dolphins.\n\n3.  They claim that the mechanical action of the flood should sort things.  Well, it should.  Too bad such sorting doesn't look at all like what is seen.  Mangroves sink, for example.  So do waterlogged oaks.  Moles are bullet shaped and would sink faster than light-boned velociraptors.  Dolphins and ichthyosaurs should, again, be found together.\n\nCreationists have lots of explanations for fossil so