I was recently chastised by a local paleontologist for sayin...

I was recently chastised by a local paleontologist for saying that the rock surrounding a fossil is older than the fossil. Since the fossil rock is part of the earth and the earth is millions of years older than the first life forms, am I right or wrong?

The material that the fossil is in (matrix)is sedimentary and would have been soft when the fossil specimen was covered by it. The fossil and matrix both are formed at the same time. The sediment could be a new (volcanic ash) or thousands of years older then the fossil specimen (covered by flood material. The matrix and fossil are formed at the same time, that is what preserves the fossil.

I look at it like this........sedmentary rocks are either formed from the silicates of decomposed invertebrates on the sea floor or from an igneous or metamorphic rock that has been broken down by the elements of nature. A "rock" is formed from a mixture of minerals with these sediments and possibly some plant material. A "stone" can be a mineral in it`s pure form as in the familiar clear quartz crystal making it a stone not a rock."Gemstone" is the other classification and we are all familiar with them. So no doubt in my mind the rock is older in it`s origin. It`s beginning in life happened long before that of a creature who was covered by this sediment soon after death. If not covered quickly it would be subject to the elements and scavengers. And there would be no fossil.

I agree with Morel.
The individual grains of quartz in a sandstone matrix are older than the fossils they surround, yes. But they are just sand and mud at the time of deposition, not stone. And mineral matrices like flint only crystallize long after sedimentation.

So although it may be composed of older components, the stone itself is younger than the creatures preserved within.

A rock is liable to go thru many metamorphisms by the time you get it. So though it may not have been in a solid form when the fossil material met it`s demise it is still older. If that same rock had not been weathered or broken when discovered the fossil would never be exposed. Therefor since a rock is an ever changing form when left to nature it is older than the fossil. And which came first.........the chicken or the egg?

All things in nature are recycled, nothing is truthfully destroyed, it is changed into something else( metamorphic ) . To say that a rock is older then the fossil that it contains is incorrect, the minerals that make up the fossilized material in the first place were recycled, the animal consumed plant or animal flesh to live. The did not consume any new element to live, the simply recycled what they have eaten. Beings all thing then are equal then, what we have is a place in time that the material that make up the matrix and the fossilized material have been joined together to give us a snap shot of a time that they were joined together.

I agree morel. The matrix could be newer, equal, or older than the fossil depending what happened before or after the fossil was formed. But all minerals are made of other things, with their age unknown. Testing the matrix vs. fossil is not always accurate because part of the fossil leaches into the matrix and part of the matrix leaches into the fossil. This would mean that they both really were created at the time of this process unless one was later moved into the mixture and neither has changed since. It's like when was life really created, when all the materials were formed or when they combined into a new form. No matter what the paleontologist stated, the only real way to test the sample is to test everything in the area where the fossil was found. Otherwise what he stated would be not a logical assumption or basicly an uneducated opinion on his part. I see a lot of educated people thinking they know something only to miss out on a major amount of potential by having this attitude. There is so much to learn and if you close your mind by what is already known then you cannot learn new stuff. I still have much to learn and hope my mind never gets narrow again. I spent too much of my life thinking I knew more than I did. I am just begining to see That was wrong. What we don't know can hurt us if we are not acknowledging it's existance.

On that point Morel I agree and agree totally with Rickymouse on this. My whole point of replying was to point out that the "paleontologist" was wrong to say what he said and to have the gall to chastise someone for speaking words he disagrees with. A degree on paper does not outrank lessons learned away from the halls of the university in life. It truly is a chicken and the egg argument because opinion could be stated strongly on both points. Being able to voice our thoughts is what makes our nation great. And this website gives us that tool. Thanks guys. Oh and one more thing.........WHO DAT!? Love them Saints!

Its a shame when someone belittles another for their thoughts or comments. By doing so it slows or stops the learning process.
When I was taking my 400 level English class for my BA, our main book of study was the Scarlet letter My instructor who had her master degree in English and had written her 300 + page Theseus on the book. Prior to taking the class I had read it many times over the years and had a much different thoughts of the meninges and outcome of the book then what she had, my grades suffered because I would not reflect her thoughts of the book, in any of my papers or tests.
On the last day of class, she broke down crying in front of the whole class, when she threw her Theseus into the trash. She had finally realized that all of the premises that she had based all of her study on was false.
We all learn until the day we died, I have found that many things I have believed or have been thought have been wrong and the only thing I can do is to try to correct my wrong thinking and to do what is right, no matter what others may say or think.

Well said Morel. Life gives us all differing views with our upbringing and view on life itself. There are many fools out there who believe they have all the answers and belittle all who disagree with thier views. I started as a carpenter at the age of 18. I am now 50 and will be the first to tell you that I learn new tricks and methods everytime I work with an experienced person in the trade. The same holds true in life. Thanks for being able to have a discussion in place of an arguement. Thats why I enjoy this site.

I was a builder and had quite a few people working with me over the years. I have held jobs of authority over workers for at least 25 years. Lots of times I had young workers with good ideas and more efficient ways. I listened and learned but sometimes had to continue telling them to do it my way. The reason was that I had become accustomed to doing things in a certain sequence so I knew the pattern and had inadvertantly lost the knowledge of why I did it that way. I know a lot about many professions and since the brain only can store so much information, I had to dump the knowledge and memorize a patern that accentuated memory recalls at the time I needed them. As you get older it is hard to break this learned pattern which triggers sequences of memories. Even though some of their ideas were extremely good, I could not adopt lots of them into my work practices and accomplish the total project in a reasonable time without errors. I explained to the workers that I know what to do but have forgot why I do it anymore since I have gotten older. Since I had knowledge of the whole job and the ability to be 10 steps ahead, which they lacked the ability or desire to do, They learned not to question my ways after I made them fix their mistakes. It helps to be the owner of the company sometimes. I understand why the older people let you make your own mistakes when you are young. They are waiting to see how long it will take the young to realize how easy life really is if they would just watch the old people and pay attention to what they are doing. ...Talk about off topic.... But I can't go fossil hunting till april. TOO MUCH SNOW