Dating Fossils?

Now how do scientists come to the conclusion that fossils are millions of years old? Let's build up to this with a few other points real fast.

The ica stones are highly argued over, maybe a hoax, but one reason it is so disputed. It can't be dated. It's a rock, and there is no organic material on it. In other words you can't date the age of a rock, or rock layers like in geology. It needs something within the rock.

Now that means that they cannot use the geologic column to date the fossils because it is impossible to date the rocks. If people try to say they just carbon date the fossils, or some other dating method that is a lie, there are limitations of a few, at most, hundred thousand years (if you believe in an old earth). So knowing that there is no scientific basis, through dating the fossils or the rocks, how do they figure out the age? Index fossils and the geologic column. The fossils date the rocks, and the rocks date the fossils. Circular reasoning.

Dating Fossils?myspace commentes

I dated a fossil for awhile. Then I married her.

Dating Fossils?myspace images myspace.com

my parents always warned me about dating fossils
Where do you guys get stuff like this?
You're confusing yourself again.
try the science section
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Try actually learning how radiometric dating is done, especially for geologic strata before posting questions like this. In other words, go back to science class and try again, son.

Edit:

"You say innumberable isotypes can be used, yet I imagine that several of the issues I mentioned with carbon dating also arise with them. If not why would carbon dating still be the most popular? And how can rocks be older than other rocks? Where did the new, young rocks come from?"

The reason people keep telling you that you fail at understanding what you are talking about is because you make comments like this. Even a few weeks at your local community college physical anthropology class will clear up all of these questions, but you aren't interested in that, are you? You seem a lot more interested in just cherry-picking whatever testimony you can find that supports your theory and to hell with the rest. Well, I'd hate to burst your bubble, but that isn't how science works. In science, you base your conclusions on evidence, not the other way around.
not a science buff are you?
Religion is based on faith.. The dinosaurs were here long ago.

Evolution as a theory has some truth but cannot explain everything - per a couple recent Popes in fact.

A Catholic..
Actually, you can radiometrically date rocks that have no organic residue on them.

Carbon dating is not the only form of radiometric dating.
Carbon dating is useless to date fossils.

Fossils are dated relative to one another by their position in the Geologic Column, and the strata of the Geologic Column are likewise.

Absolute dating of both is done using radiochronology of various types, which have been cross-checked with one another and by the relative dating by layer of strata.
Clearly you need to put down the religious text and pick up a science book.. Your understanding of carbon dating is so lacking it is laughable...
The fact that you have posed this question in the R and S section speaks volumes about your intent, you dishonest little twit!
Did you read the rest of the article? The Ica stones ARE fakes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones

Changing the subject does not make the claims about them legitimate. Carbon dating and stratum dating are useful tools, and though imperfect, provide consistent data across the aggregate of paleological discoveries. There is nothing that vindicates "young earth" hypotheses.
Actually, you can date the rocks, using numerous isotopes other than carbon. The problem is that it is uninformative. The rocks could have been around for millions or billions of years, but what you want to know is when they are carved.

As for your assertion that the dating of the geologic column is circular reasoning, that is an oft repeated Creationist lie. Do not cite the O'Rourke article. It is often quote mined for the question he poses, then answers later in the article. There are a variety of means of dating strata. The rocks are dated and double checked against the fossils. Where the fossils can be dated (fossils aren't as easy to date), they are check against the rocks in their stratum. It is solid science. All Creationists are left with to refute it is lies.

ADDENDUM:

Apparently, you have never heard of a volcano. Numerous rocks are formed from volcanoes, including andesite. It's very clear that you have no idea what you are talking about if you don't even know the geology of the Ica stones. I can see that you get your info from children's books.

The other three pitfalls you cite are trivial.

1) Not every object is in a condition to be dated. Careful measures are taken to see that samples are datable.

3) Different parts of things are different ages. The zircon crystals in some rocks are older than the rocks they are trapped in. The zircon crystal are one age throughout, the rest of the rock is the same age throughout.

4) This is just a repeat of 1. While it is not circular reasoning, per se, you are just rewording it. You are guilty of what you failed to demonstrate, but assert.