As I said before, C-14 is a *really* useless way to date volcanic rocks. They do not contain carbon that has been in the atmosphere in the last 50,000 years. Therefore, C-14 is irrelevant to the dating of Mt. St. Helens or any other volcanic flow.
But carbon 14 is commonly used in dating sedimentary rock fossils.
But you do find fossils in volcanic rock. Here are some fossils (including tree casts) formed recently in Hawaii:
Hawaii’s Amazing Lava Fossils
If you think that is cheating, the Petrified Forest formed when volcanic ash deposits covered downed trees:
I did define the differences between the three forms of rock and did state that petrified "fossils" are found in metamorphic rock. But I guess you missed that.
Animals can get buried in annual flood deposits.
Just because there may millions of years between the dating of individual layers does not mean that each layer took millions of years to form. I would recommend some basic geology.
So let me get this strait. We're talking about the Grand Canyon now. You are saying that bottom rock layer "A" was laid down quickly and than bottom rock layer "B" was laid down millions of years later?
In millions of years, rock layer "A" would have eroded before rock layer "B" was laid down. But that's not what we see in the Grand Canyon. We see strait flat layers of sedimentary rock laid right on top of each other.
You want to "recommend some basic geology". LOL I would recommend you just go take a look at some pictures of the Grand Canyon. What you see in that canyon doesn't match what you are saying!
See above. Petrified wood is a *FOSSIL*. That's why it looks like a dead plant. (Fossils can also exist in metamorphic rock that was in the sedimentary rock that was heated by magma (not lava). )
So is this how they think the petrified forests in Hawaii were formed? Can't say I'm sure how that would work seeing how Hawaii was formed by volcanos. I don't even know if / how much sedimentary rock on Hawaii. I assume there must be in places, as erosion would create sentiment from the lava flows. Hawaii has beaches; which the sand had to have come from somewhere. Much of Hawaii is lava flows though.
And Yes, I could see cooled lava flows growing trees on top of them. (There's trees there now.) and volcanic ash that was cool enough to bury trees that could have become petrified from the heat of magma from subsequent eruptions.
A similar thing happened in Pompeii. The pyroclastic flow (which is mostly deadly gasses that come down the side of the volcano before the ash that's blown into the atmosphere falls back to earth); killed the inhabitants, but the ash that fell later, was cool enough to bury the city without destroying it. That eruption made "fossil casts" of the people who died.
(Note that these lava flows were dated by argon dating methods.)
I'd have to do some research as to whether or not there are issues with argon gas dating like carbon 14 dating has.
Modern sand dunes *move*. That's what dunes do. Why would you expect a fossil in a current dune?
LOL Because you said sedimentary rock layers are laid down in the past just as they are today and you used sand dunes as an example of that.
What was the point of this paragraph? Oh, yeah, I said it was geology that first identified the earth as much older than 10,000 years. (The topic of the thread, you know.) What does the first discovery of dinosaurs or early work on evolution have to do with the discoveries of geology a century before?
The discoveries of geology were not "a century before". "Geology" prior to 1840 (which is contemporary to Darwin's life) basically consisted of finding rock ore that had metal that could be smelted to make tools and weapons.
Yeah, people found bones prior to 1840. The Chinese called them "dragon bones" and Europeans generally believed they were bones of human giants. There was no "science of geology" and certainly not one related to dinosaur bone hunting prior to 1840.
Nuclear physics predates 1938 and its purpose was to understand the nature of the atomic nucleus. Then more stuff you don't understand...
The differentiated science of nuclear physics started in 1938. The organization of it into its own science started in 1935. Yeah, discoveries were made about the structure of atoms about the turn of the 20th century and back into the 1880's they were playing around with x-ray machines. But "nuclear physics" prior to 1935 was pretty much part of the physics field.
WWII is really what brought it into its own standing.
But that of course is if you believe what Wikipedia says; which isn't always "spot on".
Nuclear physics - Wikipedia
You are the one who asked about mapping the coast of Antartica and I gave you several examples. One of how they mapped the coast in our time (using satellites) and evidence that Antartica hasn't always been covered in glaciers. Because apparently there are ancient maps that have an accurate depiction of it's coast line (without the ice).
