Here is something else that gave modern geology a scare. This is an example of how they try to use radiometric dating for their own advantage.
Well, first of all differences of opinion are relatively common amongst scientific researchers, but creationist sites like AIG seem to want to play this from both ends. Here they criticize scientists for conflicting viewpoints but state it inaccurately.
Fortunately for evolutionists, virtually any troublesome date can be Ã¢â‚¬Å“correctedÃ¢â‚¬Â by simply redating the errant specimen by the same or other dating methods until the desired age is achieved.
This implies that the two rival teams are working together to Ã¢â‚¬Å“correctÃ¢â‚¬Â the situation, when in fact they do not agree. Squabbles are being used to say that scientists can't make up their minds and will throw out data to come to a Ã¢â‚¬Å“correctÃ¢â‚¬Â solution when just the opposite has happened, two teams are holding their analysis to be more correct.
Dr. Gonzales and her colleagues at UKÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s University of Nottingham and the NERC Isotope Geosciences Laboratory have apparently accepted the challenge and are engaged in further redating of their own (it would appear that two can play this dating game). They have even set up yet another website to report their progress
This is probably made necessary by the fact that it is difficult for even evolutionists (to say nothing of creationists) to get their research published in peer-reviewed journals when it runs counter to prevailing evolutionary dogma.
It would appear that this claim is also untrue, and the Dr. Gonzales and her collaborators used multiple dating methods at the onset not a Ã¢â‚¬Å“re-datingÃ¢â‚¬Â exercise at all. The rival clam was published in a peer-reviewed journalFootprints
Ã¢â‚¬Å“If the markings are hominid foot prints, they would be most likely to be made by a hominid that existed before Homo sapiens and we consider such a possibility to be extremely remote. We conclude that the identification of any of these features as syndepositional hominid footprints is erroneous.Ã¢â‚¬Â
In other words, although the Ã¢â‚¬Å“markingsÃ¢â‚¬Â certainly look like human footprints, they can't be human footprints because they are inconsistent with prevailing evolutionary dogma.
That isn't what the quote says. It actually left the possibility that they were hominid prints, but not made at the same time as the deposition of the basaltic tuff in which the prints are purported to be found. Apparently the actual conclusion was stated in the abstract as:
Ã¢â‚¬Å“We conclude that either hominid migration into the Americas occurred very much earlier than previously believed, or that the features in question were not made by humans on recently erupted ash.Ã¢â‚¬ÂNature
This article is out of date as recent analysis of Australopithecus
fossils is in conflict with the cites claim from almost 30 years ago.
Most evolutionists believe that the extinct ape Australopithecus afarensis (commonly known as Ã¢â‚¬Å“LucyÃ¢â‚¬Â) made these footprints even though there is compelling evidence that apes of this type were long-armed knuckle walkers with heavily muscled apelike feet similar to that of a pygmy chimp (J. Stern & R. Sussman, Am. J. Phys. Anthropology 60:279Ã¢â‚¬â€œ212, 1983).
Ã¢â‚¬Å“The discovery that Australopithecus had arched feet suggests our human ancestors had already abandoned life in the treesThe ancestors of humans were walking upright more than 3m years ago, according to an analysis of a fossilised foot bone found in Ethiopia. The fossil, the fourth metatarsal bone from the species Australopithecus afarensis, shows that this forerunner of early humans had a permanently arched foot like modern humans, a key requirement for an upright gait.Arches in human feet put a spring in our step: they are stiff enough to propel us forward but flexible enough to absorb the shocks at the end of strides.Scientists already knew that A. afarensis could walk on two feet but were unsure whether the creatures climbed and grasped tree branches as well, much like their own ancestor species and modern nonhuman apes. The fourth metatarsal, described on Thursday in Science, shows that A. afarensis moved around more like modern humans.Ã¢â‚¬ÂScience News Daily
This is how modern geology works:
You are not obligated to read all of these articles, geology is not a field that I really pay much attention to because I'm already aware of the great bias that had a hand in creating the model.
So because of your strong bias you don't pay much attention to actually learning how the study of geology is really conducted, but only post a link making many false claims about the actual field of geology?
A wrong definition is used here:
The doctrine that present-day processes acting at similar rates as observed today account for the change evident in the geologic record.Ã¢â‚¬Â
The similar rates part is not correct in any definition a modern geologist would use. You will only find such a definition being set forward by creationists, as what is believed by those they disagree with...so it is a straw man.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Despite the confidence in index fossils, there is much criticism of their useÃ¢â‚¬â€from both creationists and evolutionists. Slight differences in shell shape or structure are used to assign the shell to a new species, despite the variation apparent within a single living species today..
Another problem with index fossils is that, rather than being proof of evolution, evolution is already assumed to have occurred. The changes in features in index fossils of different periods are assumed to be caused by evolution, and the presence of different organisms in different periods is then used to support biological evolution. This is a case of using an assumption to prove the assumption is trueÃ¢â‚¬â€circular reasoning by any measure.Ã¢â‚¬Å“
Oh dear, the inevitable straw man argument I have found to be so common in creationist explanations of geology and associated science. If variations are found in shell shape and a new species is assigned, it is a new index fossil. This is not done because a feature is different from the majority but within a range in variation, but with consistently different features.
Evolution is not used to determine the use of index fossils. William Smith most certainly did not use this, a concept he did not think about when he basically used fossils in this way for the first time. His practice has continued. Whether or not anyone uses the presence of fossils in succeeding strata to support evolution is irrelevant, and thrown in here as a red herring to help set up the straw man. As evolution is not an assumption upon which the fossils are selected. this claim of circular reasoning is a blatant straw man.
The mistaken claims in this piece are really too numerous to be worth much time mentioning. Most have come up in other threads are been well refuted.