Notes on carbon dating
Your chances are 6.2 billion to one of getting the right order for all thirteen.And, when you consider that each period can also be divided into "upper, middle, and lower," the odds of arranging them in the correct order by pure chance become astronomical. It has correctly placed the Cambrian between the Precambrian and the Ordovician, the Ordovician between the Cambrian and the Silurian, the Silurian between the Ordovician and the Devonian, and so forth.
That is, an index fossil corresponded to a very specific point in the geologic column.The depth of burial, itself, has little to do with our mystery.In some parts of the world the Cretaceous is found deeper than is the Cambrian in other parts of the world.By the 1830's Adam Sedgwick and Roderick Murchison established a correlation between the various types of fossils and the rock formations in the British Isles.It was found that certain fossils, now referred to as index fossils, were restricted to a narrow zone of strata.It's just one of the tricks that have been used to make the work a little more precise. I believe he has confused the use of index fossils with evolution.
One creationist editor, who is more mellow than his unfortunate statement suggests, phrased the argument thus: Unfortunately the geologists date the rocks as the paleontologists tell them to. That passage might have come out of one of Henry Morris' books, except that Morris usually avoids crude slander. Hovind is not aware of the fact that by 1815 the broad outlines of the geologic column from Paleozoic times onward had been worked out by people who were mostly geologists.
The depth at which either is found can vary dramatically.
In the Grand Canyon area the Cambrian lies beneath a huge column of strata; in California's Mojave Desert portions of the Cambrian are exposed at the surface.
By 1830 Lyell's famous textbook, Principles of Geology, came out. Such was the age of the great creationist geologists!
The principle of faunal succession in the geologic record was established by direct observation as early as 1799 by William Smith.
(See Topic A1 for claims of bad dates.) Creationists, on the other hand, must explain to us how sediment and rock laid down in a mere year can yield such fantastic, orderly differences in radiometric ages.