rossum
Well-known member
But your problem is that those were not the same flood, but many different floods years apart. If there was one Flood, then all land animal species should have a genetic bottleneck at the date of the flood. Where is your evidence of a simultaneous genetic bottleneck in kangaroos and armadillos?They sure do....and the bible mentions a flood...whee they can go look at the sediment strata and the flood buried plants and animals and in many locations see that they were deposited in a flood.
Polystrate fossils happen in some circumstances, such as volcanic eruptions. Other fossils are not polystrate and did not happnen in those conditions. If a flood causes polystrate fossils, then you need to show that all fossils, wherever found, are polystrate.They find polystrate fossils....which PROVE that sediment deposits don't have to take millions of years to accumulate around an object. (That's just one example of many)
Your source is lying by omission here. Ask yourself why scientists want to spend money on dating a rock when they already know the date? They weren't trying to date the lava, they were asking a different question: "Does potassium-argon dating work on pillow lavas?" The answer to that question was "no it does not" because, as you said, the dating gave an incorrect result in that situation. Your source did not bother to explain that, did it?They have samples of lava...that they know the exact dates they flowed because they were recorded in history by the eyewitness of men....and those dates are often radiometrically dated as being much, much older.
You didn't even bother to read the likely reference your source used:
Submarine pillow basalts from Kilauea Volcano contain excess radiogenic argon-40 and give anomalously high potassium-argon ages. Glassy rims of pillows show a systematic increase in radiogenic argon-40 with depth, and a pillow from a depth of 2590 meters shows a decrease in radiogenic argon-40 inward from the pillow rim. The data indicate that the amount of excess radiogenic argon-40 is a direct function of both hydrostatic pressure and rate of cooling, and that many submarine basalts are not suitable for potassium-argon dating.
That "not suitable for potassium-argon dating" was the reason for the study. It is an example of science cross-checking its methods.
Where is your evidence that biomaterial cannot last 65+ my? We know that biomaterial can last for more than 10,000 years. Why don't all fossils have preserved biomaterial if the Young Earth timescale is correct? Where is your 10,000 year old biomaterial from trilobites?I've mentioned the biomaterial in some dino fossils that could not have survived the 65+ MY's...which clearly shows an age dating problem for the evo-minded.
YEC makes a lot of claims but cannot provide the supporting evidence of trilobite biomaterial or an armadillo genetic bottleneck.
You have a Bronze Age text and no supporting evidence.