It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Circular reasoning or not?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Just figured I'd ask the ATS community what they think about index fossils and the dating of rock strata. An index fossil is a fossil used to define and identify geologic periods. These fossils determine the age of the rock strata and then the fossils in that rock strata are determined to be as old as the rock? But wait the fossils determine the age of the rock strata then the rock strata verifies the age of the fossils??? Seems blatantly circular and fallacious...or maybe I have just misunderstood the subject I suppose we will see..




posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Wha.....index fossils???
Index fossils to date rocks, isnt that just stupid
and then are you saying they use rocks to date fossils, isnt that stupid as well?

I think you must be joking.
Another stupid thing is the geological time scale, its 200 year old science that cant be seen in nature, its non existent but its still used by scientists as fact

Anyone who accepts that sort of science must have a faith, zealousness akin to a fundamentalist christian who believes in literal 6 day creation. Thats hardcore religious belief

edit on b2015Sun, 05 Apr 2015 20:12:20 -050043020150pm302015-04-05T20:12:20-05:00 by borntowatch because: put in a smiley face so the usual suspects dont blow an artery or suffer a tantrum. Have a cookie guys



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLambk

Radiometric dating and yes it is more than reliable



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cypress
a reply to: ServantOfTheLambk

Radiometric dating and yes it is more than reliable


i can take that as a religious faith statement. testify brother

I bet you read that in a scientific text called the new scientific testament for followers of the inerrant truth

www.cs.unc.edu...



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Cypress

It makes a lot of assumptions lol.

Here :




www.cs.unc.edu...



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Lol you gave him the same source.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cypress
a reply to: ServantOfTheLambk

Radiometric dating and yes it is more than reliable

It's 100% reliable .. assuming you have all the pieces for the equation. The problem is that there are two pieces that are unknown, and one must be given an assumed value. There are many time periods where radiometric dating only works if you have already decided that is the date you want.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You mean radiometric half lives are quantifiable? *Shock horror*



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Fossils and rock layers aren't the only way they determine the age of the Earth. Not that the age of the Earth is necessarily what the OP is about.
edit on 4-5-2015 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You could at least cite a non creationist science source neighbor
Naughty naughty

Lets try a more modern one eh? Link
edit on 6-4-2015 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 06:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You could at least cite a non creationist science source neighbor
Naughty naughty

Lets try a more modern one eh? Link


Why cant I site whatever I like, its as valid as a made up site that states there is no circular reasoning in aging the earth or that c14 is accurate.

You dont get to decide what I site, its my choice, feel free to ignore it.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

First off the website you produced is nothing like the one I presented you. My source came from a university. If you don't like the information attack the information not the source as where it came from has nothing to do with the validity of that claim.

The link you presented seems to just be describing how radiometric dating works. The article I posted focuses specifically on its issues. I know cognitive dissonance must be hard to get passed but science isn't always as up to speed as we'd like.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Yeah when it comes to the scientific method and scientific discoveries, creationists and 'creation science' are great sources...



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It looks like circular reasoning if you boil it down so simply. But in reality, there are many different things used to date rocks and fossils. It's not a process of one verifying the other. It's a process of a whole bunch of different approaches coming up with the same answer. For instance, you left out radiometric dating. You can radiometric date either a rock or a fossil depending on the isotope you are using.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Well if you want to actually be intellectually HONEST about what you are citing and not trying to push made up propaganda, then it behooves you to cite material that says exactly what science says. Of course you ARE technically right. You can source anything you want, but that is on you if you want to look foolish and uninformed. Would you think it is ok to quote the Quaran to critique the Bible?



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Yeah when it comes to the scientific method and scientific discoveries, creationists and 'creation science' are great sources...


Yeah when it comes to the scientific method and scientific discoveries, you will never get a hardened fundamentalist to acknowledge the faults in their chosen religion, be it creation or evolution.

Lets call evolution what it is, a religion that cant be questioned



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Yeah when it comes to the scientific method and scientific discoveries, creationists and 'creation science' are great sources...


Yeah when it comes to the scientific method and scientific discoveries, you will never get a hardened fundamentalist to acknowledge the faults in their chosen religion, be it creation or evolution.

Lets call evolution what it is, a religion that cant be questioned


Thankyou for making my point for me...
edit on 6-4-2015 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Yes... your reasoning is circular... but geological science is not.

ServantOfTheLamb and borntowatch... the Abbot and Costello of the creation forum... a regular comedy act when it comes to understanding evolution or science in general.

You have misunderstood the subject... or maybe more correctly is you are selectively concentrating on only two geological concepts and ignoring many other contributing factors. You are juxtaposing the two subjects together to suggest that there is a circular logic conflict, when the reality is that the ages of fossils and strata aren't used to arbitrarily justify each other... as said earlier, there are many dating methods used, independent of each other, that each reach their own ages... then when results from different techniques are compared we piece together a geological timescale.

As better methods and more data is collected over time, our geological models will be revised and refined... so far every method ever used has agreed in broad terms with each other, which suggests we are on the right track.

The real question is… what's your underlying premise in this thread? What exactly are you angling at?

Is it really a question about how some fossils are used to support the age of certain strata... or that in other situations certain strata are used to determine the age of fossils? Do you actually want to understand how the geological timescale is scientifically established, updated and detailed over time? Do you want to move past centuries old arguments and engage with more modern research, techniques and literature?

We don't have a perfect picture yet (science never claims it does... which is why it's not faith based) but the general ages, major geological periods and when various ecological populations existed is fairly well understood.

Do you accept the age of the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, as verified by thousands of independent researchers over the last few centuries?

What exactly is your angle?

LINK - Addressing the fallacious creationist claim of circular reasoning in geology.
LINK - Explaining the Geological Timescale
edit on 6-4-2015 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

Well if you want to actually be intellectually HONEST about what you are citing and not trying to push made up propaganda, then it behooves you to cite material that says exactly what science says. Of course you ARE technically right. You can source anything you want, but that is on you if you want to look foolish and uninformed. Would you think it is ok to quote the Quaran to critique the Bible?



Citing not
siting

So krazyshot, sincerely do you believe that there is NO circular reasoning in geological dating.

Do you sincerely think the science of dating the earths age is beyond reproach, beyond question.

Irrespective of the Koran and bible, leave it out, stop directing the thread, deal witgh the issue, circular reasoning.
Why is it every time you show up you make it about religion, its about the science behind dating fossils by rocks and rocks by fossils

"We can forgive a child
who is afraid of the dark.
The real tragedy of life
is when men are afraid
of the light." -- Plato



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
ServantOfTheLamb and borntowatch... the Abbot and Costello of the creation forum... a regular comedy act when it comes to understanding evolution or science in general.


Well thank you very much! coffee will now surely ruin this keyboard....





top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join