beefcalf wrote: Hey, Quasimodo, just a quick update...
Your reply got me wondering, but because of intermittent 3G along Interstate 10, and the lateness of the hour, I didn't have a chance to recheck until this morning (and since I'm getting old, there was a distinct chance my memory might have failed me).
I'm not certain what it was you were disagreeing with, but after digging through all the references I could find online, I'm pretty comfortable with my original assessment. I would probably note that I was light on some details, so that may be where the disconnect is.
I should add at this point that the process of bracketing, that is, finding igneous rock layers higher and lower and dating those, is not typically done for each fossil, but is done to identify the age of each rock layer. Since rock layers are much like tree rings, once you've identified a sequence in the rock strata, and you've radiometrically dated them, you don't necessarily need to repeat that dating process when you find that same rock layer hundreds or thousands of miles away. One well-known rock layer that has been dated is the K-T boundary. If you find a fossil immediately above or below the K-T boundary, you don't have to go to the expense of radiometrically dating the rock layers because you already know that hundreds of previous tests have shown it to be ~65 million years old.
Hope this clears up any confusion.
ETA: One more correction: where I said that only igneous rocks can be dated, I need to be clear that layers of volcanic ash are also suitable for the same purpose.
My apologies, beefcalf! You were on the highway and I was nodding off and heading for bed. I misread your post. You are quite right. Sorry to put you through the trouble of looking it up.
I'll be more careful not to disagree with you before checking it out myself. :)
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
I thought Radiometric Dating was a hook up site for single geologists...
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Drifting wrote:I thought Radiometric Dating was a hook up site for single geologists...
LOL! I hear the dating site really rocks.
Stone me!
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Here again, you missed the context of the doctrine I quoted which places the physical creation outside what is considered the "Time" of the Lord's dealing with man.
The Book of Abraham creation account even has the physical creation as watching the elements "until they obeyed". Very good stuff for Big Bang/Evolution.
Also, in additional answer to Samantabhadra's "Eternity" does not have duration" statement. We already have a scriptural precedent in LDS theology where such DOES have a finite duration (D&C 19:6-12). And then there is the mathematical concept of larger and smaller infinities, etc.
Sorry bcspace, in LDS terminology, temporal = pertaining to the physical state
Sorry. But you'll have to square with the doctrine I just quoted, namely that the physical creation was occuring before the time period mentioned in D&C 77's explanation of Revelation.
bcspace wrote: Sorry. But you'll have to square with the doctrine I just quoted, namely that the physical creation was occuring before the time period mentioned in D&C 77's explanation of Revelation.
Doesn't seem to have anything to do with this issue.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Sorry. But you'll have to square with the doctrine I just quoted, namely that the physical creation was occuring before the time period mentioned in D&C 77's explanation of Revelation.
Doesn't seem to have anything to do with this issue.
Good. Then you agree that the OP's take on D&C 77 is contrary to official LDS doctrine.
Buffalo wrote: D&C 77 explicitly gives the age of the physical earth as 7,000 years old. I agree that this is contrary to bcspace's private doctrine.
God was speaking as a man.
D&C 77: 6 6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals? A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.