Circular reasoning or not?

originally posted by: borntowatch

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.

Nope there isn't.

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

Uh... It's science, of course it is open to being questioned. That is how science works. It allows itself to be questioned.

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,

Actually that was an analogy that I was hoping you could relate to, but instead you want to take it literally...

its about the science behind dating fossils by rocks and rocks by fossils

There is no science behind making the process so overly simple. Why aren't you addressing my radiometric dating point earlier? Like I said earlier, dating rocks is a process of many different techniques being done independently and all arriving at the same answer. What you are doing is the equivalent of saying that since 2 + 2 and 1 + 3 both equal 4, then it is circular reasoning that 2 + 2 and 1 + 3 equal 4.

"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

It's a wonder that you quote things like this and while not realizing how closed minded you are.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
Yes... your reasoning is circular... but geological science is not.

It saddens me no end when someone pretends they are a Mr Science guy when they really havnt a clue what they are talking about

"These principles have been applied in Feinstratigraphie, which starts from a chronology of index fossils, and imposes them on the rocks. Each taxon represents a definite time unit and so provides an accurate, even 'infallible' date. If you doubt it, bring in a suite of good index fossils, and the specialist without asking where or in what order they were collected, will lay them out on the table in chronological order."1

"That a known fossil or recent species, or higher taxonomic group, however primitive it might appear, is an actual ancestor of some other species or group, is an assumption scientifically unjustifiable, for science never can simply assume that which it has the responsibility to demonstrate. — It is the burden of each of us to demonstrate the reasonableness of any hypothesis we might care to erect about ancestral conditions, keeping in mind that we have no ancestor alive today, that in all probability such ancestors have been dead for many tens or millions of years, and that even in the fossil record they are not accessible to us."2

"Likewise, paleontologists do their best to make sense out of the fossil record and sketch in evolutionary sequences or unfossilized morphologies without realistic hope of obtaining specific verification within the foreseeable future."3

"The abrupt appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record has been a perennial puzzle. — If we read the record rather literally, it implies that organisms of new grades of complexity arose and radiated relatively rapidly."4

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."5

"But the danger of circularity is still present. For most biologists the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is their acceptance of some theory that entails it. There is another difficulty. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation, which necessarily presupposed the non-repeatability of organic events in geologic history. There are various justifications for this assumption but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis."6

"Index fossils — are regarded as the features most reliable for accurate, long-distance correlations."7

"It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology."8

"We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation."9

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."10

"The prime difficulty with the use of presumed ancestral-descendant sequences to express phylogeny is that biostratigraphic data are often used in conjunction with morphology in the initial evaluation of relationships, which leads to obvious circularity."11

"Material bodies are finite, and no rock unit is global in extent, yet stratigraphy aims at a global classification. The particulars have to be stretched into universals somehow. Here ordinary materialism leaves off building up a system of units recognized by physical properties, to follow dialectical materialism, which starts with time units and regards the material bodies as their incomplete representatives. This is where the suspicion of circular reasoning crept in, because it seemed to the layman that the time units were abstracted from the geological column, which has been put together from rock units."13

"By mid-nineteenth century, the notion of 'universal' rock units had been dropped, but some stratigraphers still imagine a kind of global biozone as 'time units' that are supposed to be ubiquitous."14

"The theory of dialectic materialism postulates matter as the ultimate reality, not to be questioned. — Evolution is more than a useful biologic concept: it is a natural law controlling the history of all phenomena."15

"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first. — The axiom that no process can measure itself means that there is no absolute time, but this relic of the traditional mechanics persists in the common distinction between 'relative' and 'absolute' age."16

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."17


References

1 J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, January 1976, p. 51.
2 Gareth V. Nelson, "Origin and Diversification of Teleostean Fishes," Annals, New York Academy of Sciences, 1971, p. 27.
3 Donald R. Griffin, "A Possible Window on the Minds of Animals," American Scientist, Vol. 64, September-October 1976, p. 534.
4 James W. Valentine and Cathryn A. Campbell, "Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record," American Scientist, Vol. 63, November-December 1975, p. 673.
5 J.E. O'Rourke, op cit, p. 47.
6 David G. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 466.
7 J.E. O'Rourke, op cit, p. 48.
8 Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record (New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1973) p. 62.
9 Derek V. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record," Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, No. 2, 1976, p. 132.
10 Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism," Compass, Vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216.
11 B. Schaeffer, M.K. Hecht and N. Eldredge, "Phylogeny and Paleontology," Ch. 2 in Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 6 (edited by Th. Dobzhansky, M.K. Hecht and W.C. Steere; New York Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972) p. 39.
12 J.E. O'Rourke, op cit, pp. 47-55.
13 Ibid, p. 49.
14 Ibid, p. 50.
15 Ibid, p. 51.
16 Ibid, p. 54.
17 Ibid, p. 53.

*Dr. Morris is Founder and President Emeritus of ICR.
Cite this article: Henry Morris, Ph.D. 1977. Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Biology. Acts & Facts. 6 (6).

Evidence for Creation

a reply to: borntowatch

It saddens me no end when someone pretends they are a Mr Science guy when they really havnt a clue what they are talking about

Says the guy posting a source that is supposedly "scientific" yet all its references are 40+ years old.

www.youtube.com...

and a little stand up comedy for y,all

I am sure the reaction is worth the effort

a reply to: borntowatch

Intellectual Dishonesty, ICR Style

It saddens me no end when someone pretends they are a Mr Science guy when they really havnt a clue what they are talking about

So very condescending... Jesus would be proud... It saddens me no end that some religious people's confirmation bias leads them to arrogantly think that everyone else is wrong; usually when they are the ones wrong themselves.

The funny thing is you don't even have your own reasoning or arguments, you just cut and paste others thoughts (which have categorically been proven to be wrong) and claim them as your own.

Maybe try reading outside of creation sites...

Reading this (Henry Morris) is incredible in the sense that, in order to write verbiage such as this, you have to willingly turn a blind eye to 150 years of observations in palaeontology, geology, geomorphology, physics and many other disciplines that have successfully rebutted all of Dr. Morris' claims. Further, that he made some of these claims reflects a complete lack of understanding of the disciplines that he is criticising. The level of intellectual dishonesty here is breathtaking and reduces the Young Earth position to nothing more than a joke, on par with the Flat Earth Society. It is as if the ICR exists within its own bubble, not even conscious of what goes on in the outside world.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

It saddens me no end when someone pretends they are a Mr Science guy when they really havnt a clue what they are talking about

Says the guy posting a source that is supposedly "scientific" yet all its references are 40+ years old.

Yeah its old science isnt it, most probably useless and irrelevant, most probably outdated as science is updated and new discoveries are found, new research.
Can you think of any scientific theories that are around after 40 years that are still relevant, hmmm, not many

The geological time scale is nearly 200 years old and hasnt been changed in any way at all.

The Coelacanth is still an index fossil but its not extinct.....go figure

I was hoping for this rebuttal KS, you complaining about a 40 year old source and your geo time scale theory hasnt been changed in nearly 200 years
A 200 year old science with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE IN THE NATURAL WORLD UNDERPINNING YOUR RELIGION of evolution.
Brainwashed much?

Yeah my 40 year old statement about circular reasoning that hasnt ever been refuted by science (cept by your argument that I have read before and hoped would come up again) compared to nearly 200 years old science not replicated in the natural anywhere on earth, you the man.

Crikey you havnt a clue have you?

originally posted by: puzzlesphere


So very condescending... Jesus would be proud... It saddens me no end that some religious people's confirmation bias leads them to arrogantly think that everyone else is wrong; usually when they are the ones wrong themselves.

Let me try not to sound condescending but its hard not to when correcting someone.

Henry Morris is not the only scientist to make these statements

There are plenty more, do a search then besmirch all of the other scientists names who dont agree with you so you can have all the answers to suit your theory.

What is really sad is because someone has a different opinion you and your ilk go out of your way to destroy their credibility. That is openly pathetic, attack the man and not defend the science
cowardice by those who do it.

Justify the science, dont attack a person, people who do that are losing the argument and cant defend their position, pathetic.

No condescension intended.

a reply to: borntowatch

A little comedy... yes, Kent Hovind is a joke.

LINK - Kent Hovind dissected
LINK - The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You to Read
LINK - Inside the Mind of a Creationist: A Critical Analysis of Kent Hovind's “Doctoral Dissertation”

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

It saddens me no end when someone pretends they are a Mr Science guy when they really havnt a clue what they are talking about

Says the guy posting a source that is supposedly "scientific" yet all its references are 40+ years old.

Yeah its old science isnt it, most probably useless and irrelevant, most probably outdated as science is updated and new discoveries are found, new research.
Can you think of any scientific theories that are around after 40 years that are still relevant, hmmm, not many

The geological time scale is nearly 200 years old and hasnt been changed in any way at all.

Yes it has... It's changed CONSIDERABLY in the last 40 years and you are being super intellectually dishonest to suggest that it hasn't.

The Coelacanth is still an index fossil but its not extinct.....go figure

So what? It isn't the only index fossil. You'd maybe have a point if it were the only fossil that scientists used to date a strata layer, but they will use many different fossils including the makeup of the various species IN the strata.

I was hoping for this rebuttal KS, you complaining about a 40 year old source and your geo time scale theory hasnt been changed in nearly 200 years
A 200 year old science with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE IN THE NATURAL WORLD UNDERPINNING YOUR RELIGION of evolution.
Brainwashed much?

Considering that radiometric dating first came out in 1907 (108 years ago), I'd say you are clearly wrong here buddy. That is unless you subscribe to some crazy math where 108 years is greater than 200 years. Brainwashed indeed lol.

Yeah my 40 year old statement about circular reasoning that hasnt ever been refuted by science (cept by your argument that I have read before and hoped would come up again) compared to nearly 200 years old science not replicated in the natural anywhere on earth, you the man.

Crikey you havnt a clue have you?

Says the guy pushing a blatant strawman argument.

a reply to: borntowatch

Henry Morris is not the only scientist to make these statements

He's not the only one... but he is the one you quoted, hence my addressing him.

I've read a lot of creationist literature, and so far none have stood up to rigorous academic scrutiny... Instead of saying "there are lots out there... Google it", why don't you bring me one that isn't intellectually dishonest?

I haven't attacked the man at all, I presented a link to a blog by a "Christian Librarian, palaeoanthropologist, and evolutionary biologist with an all-consuming interest in apologetics and controversies in science and religion", who is calling out Henry Morris for his intellectual dishonesty... not attacking, just a considered review of his works... unfortunately his works are rubbish, as pointed out by other Christians.

Whether you like it or not, in the academic world people are judged on the quality of their literature... when their literature has blatant errors and bias, it tarnishes the author’s reputation. Many creationist academics have less than sterling reputations.

So considering that your vitriol was misplaced, does that make you pathetic? (see... I can structure my sentences to deliver an inferred condescending attack too... not very nice is it?).

I (and many others) have defended/justified/supported the science ... you and your "ilk" (again... language like that sounds comes across condescending... doesn't it?) seem unable to follow a logical argument, and when you do grasp the basic concepts it seems to create a cognitive dissonance that makes you refuse the logic and revert to dogma.

Why don't you bring me one piece of verifiable evidence that supports a young earth?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

It saddens me no end when someone pretends they are a Mr Science guy when they really havnt a clue what they are talking about

Says the guy posting a source that is supposedly "scientific" yet all its references are 40+ years old.

Yeah its old science isnt it, most probably useless and irrelevant, most probably outdated as science is updated and new discoveries are found, new research.
Can you think of any scientific theories that are around after 40 years that are still relevant, hmmm, not many

The geological time scale is nearly 200 years old and hasnt been changed in any way at all.

Yes it has... It's changed CONSIDERABLY in the last 40 years and you are being super intellectually dishonest to suggest that it hasn't.

The Coelacanth is still an index fossil but its not extinct.....go figure

So what? It isn't the only index fossil. You'd maybe have a point if it were the only fossil that scientists used to date a strata layer, but they will use many different fossils including the makeup of the various species IN the strata.

I was hoping for this rebuttal KS, you complaining about a 40 year old source and your geo time scale theory hasnt been changed in nearly 200 years
A 200 year old science with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE IN THE NATURAL WORLD UNDERPINNING YOUR RELIGION of evolution.
Brainwashed much?

Considering that radiometric dating first came out in 1907 (108 years ago), I'd say you are clearly wrong here buddy. That is unless you subscribe to some crazy math where 108 years is greater than 200 years. Brainwashed indeed lol.

Yeah my 40 year old statement about circular reasoning that hasnt ever been refuted by science (cept by your argument that I have read before and hoped would come up again) compared to nearly 200 years old science not replicated in the natural anywhere on earth, you the man.

Crikey you havnt a clue have you?

Says the guy pushing a blatant strawman argument.

Well your strawman argument was 40 years old is to old.

(Please understand I never suggested radiometric dating was nearly 200 years old, I am unfamiliar with how long its been around, I was talking the Geological time scale theory, its not radiometric dating and GTS theory is nearly 200 years old)

The principles underlying geologic (geological) time scales were later laid down by Nicholas Steno in the late 17th century. Steno argued that rock layers (or strata) are laid down in succession, and that each represents a “slice” of time. He also formulated the law of superposition, which states that any given stratum is probably older than those above it and younger than those below it. While Steno’s principles were simple, applying them to real rocks proved complex. Over the course of the 18th century geologists realized that:
Sequences of strata were often eroded, distorted, tilted, or even inverted after deposition;
Strata laid down at the same time in different areas could have entirely different appearances;
The strata of any given area represented only part of Earth’s long history.
The first serious attempts to formulate a geological time scale that could be applied anywhere on Earth were made in the late 18th century. The most influential of those early attempts (championed by Abraham Werner, among others) divided the rocks of Earth’s crust into four types: Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, and Quaternary. Each type of rock, according to the theory, formed during a specific period in Earth history. It was thus possible to speak of a “Tertiary Period” as well as of “Tertiary Rocks.” Indeed, “Tertiary” (now Paleogene and Neogene) and “Quaternary” (now Pleistocene and Holocene) remained in use as names of geological periods well into the 20th century.
The Neptunist theories popular at this time (expounded by Werner) proposed that all rocks had precipitated out of a single enormous flood. A major shift in thinking came when James Hutton presented his Theory of the Earth; or, an Investigation of the Laws Observable in the Composition, Dissolution, and Restoration of Land Upon the Globe before the Royal Society of Edinburgh in March and April 1785. It has been said that “as things appear from the perspective of the 20th century, James Hutton in those readings became the founder of en.wikipedia.org...




Radiometric dating is from 1907? No surprise and its also outdated and wrong like the Geo time scale.

The most ludicrous thing above is this statement by you

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Yes it has... It's changed CONSIDERABLY in the last 40 years and you are being super intellectually dishonest to suggest that it hasn't.

Its ludicrous because I am supposed to believe your word, back it up with evidence, show me where its been changed because my research shows it hasnt
Its ludicrous and its preaching, well I am not a brainwashed minion and I recon you have nothing but your faith in science to stand on, its baseless and invalid.
The only person being disingenuous is you by making a baseless claim backed up with naught

originally posted by: puzzlesphere

Why don't you bring me one piece of verifiable evidence that supports a young earth?

Because unlike you I am not pretending my beliefs are based on science

Why don't you bring me one piece of verifiable evidence that supports a old earth?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Cypress

It makes a lot of assumptions lol.

Here :

www.cs.unc.edu...

And your Creationist source is completely wrong - every item on that page can be refuted with hard evidence - hundreds of scientific papers published in leading journals documenting legitimate research in the field.

Your friend at that Creationist website has corrupted known science to fit his own belief system.

I can demonstrate each and every point made on that page as being a bogus interpretation of the science. But since you posted it, let's have your corroborating evidence i.e. citations (yes it is "c"itation, not "s"itation) from scientific journals which support the crap you posted.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: borntowatch

Henry Morris is not the only scientist to make these statements

He's not the only one... but he is the one you quoted, hence my addressing him.

Go read the list again, there are over 10 different scientists and you attacked just one and said i quoted just one, better sharpen your knife and go hack at all the other scientists who disagree with your beliefs in whatever you believe in

References

1 J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, January 1976, p. 51.
2 Gareth V. Nelson, "Origin and Diversification of Teleostean Fishes," Annals, New York Academy of Sciences, 1971, p. 27.
3 Donald R. Griffin, "A Possible Window on the Minds of Animals," American Scientist, Vol. 64, September-October 1976, p. 534.
4 James W. Valentine and Cathryn A. Campbell, "Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record," American Scientist, Vol. 63, November-December 1975, p. 673.
5 J.E. O'Rourke, op cit, p. 47.
6 David G. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 466.
7 J.E. O'Rourke, op cit, p. 48.
8 Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record (New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1973) p. 62.
9 Derek V. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record," Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, No. 2, 1976, p. 132.
10 Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism," Compass, Vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216.
11 B. Schaeffer, M.K. Hecht and N. Eldredge, "Phylogeny and Paleontology," Ch. 2 in Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 6 (edited by Th. Dobzhansky, M.K. Hecht and W.C. Steere; New York Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972) p. 39.
12 J.E. O'Rourke, op cit, pp. 47-55.

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

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Nope there isn't.

So all these comments by these scientists are all invalid and hold no weight yet anything they say that supports your beliefs are acceptable and true

"These principles have been applied in Feinstratigraphie, which starts from a chronology of index fossils, and imposes them on the rocks. Each taxon represents a definite time unit and so provides an accurate, even 'infallible' date. If you doubt it, bring in a suite of good index fossils, and the specialist without asking where or in what order they were collected, will lay them out on the table in chronological order."1

"That a known fossil or recent species, or higher taxonomic group, however primitive it might appear, is an actual ancestor of some other species or group, is an assumption scientifically unjustifiable, for science never can simply assume that which it has the responsibility to demonstrate. — It is the burden of each of us to demonstrate the reasonableness of any hypothesis we might care to erect about ancestral conditions, keeping in mind that we have no ancestor alive today, that in all probability such ancestors have been dead for many tens or millions of years, and that even in the fossil record they are not accessible to us."2

"Likewise, paleontologists do their best to make sense out of the fossil record and sketch in evolutionary sequences or unfossilized morphologies without realistic hope of obtaining specific verification within the foreseeable future."3

"The abrupt appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record has been a perennial puzzle. — If we read the record rather literally, it implies that organisms of new grades of complexity arose and radiated relatively rapidly."4

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."5

"But the danger of circularity is still present. For most biologists the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is their acceptance of some theory that entails it. There is another difficulty. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation, which necessarily presupposed the non-repeatability of organic events in geologic history. There are various justifications for this assumption but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis."6

"Index fossils — are regarded as the features most reliable for accurate, long-distance correlations."7

"It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology."8

"We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation."9

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."10

"The prime difficulty with the use of presumed ancestral-descendant sequences to express phylogeny is that biostratigraphic data are often used in conjunction with morphology in the initial evaluation of relationships, which leads to obvious circularity."11

"Material bodies are finite, and no rock unit is global in extent, yet stratigraphy aims at a global classification. The particulars have to be stretched into universals somehow. Here ordinary materialism leaves off building up a system of units recognized by physical properties, to follow dialectical materialism, which starts with time units and regards the material bodies as their incomplete representatives. This is where the suspicion of circular reasoning crept in, because it seemed to the layman that the time units were abstracted from the geological column, which has been put together from rock units."13

"By mid-nineteenth century, the notion of 'universal' rock units had been dropped, but some stratigraphers still imagine a kind of global biozone as 'time units' that are supposed to be ubiquitous."14

"The theory of dialectic materialism postulates matter as the ultimate reality, not to be questioned. — Evolution is more than a useful biologic concept: it is a natural law controlling the history of all phenomena."15

"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first. — The axiom that no process can measure itself means that there is no absolute time, but this relic of the traditional mechanics persists in the common distinction between 'relative' and 'absolute' age."16

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."17


References

1 J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, January 1976, p. 51.
2 Gareth V. Nelson, "Origin and Diversification of Teleostean Fishes," Annals, New York Academy of Sciences, 1971, p. 27.
3 Donald R. Griffin, "A Possible Window on the Minds of Animals," American Scientist, Vol. 64, September-October 1976, p. 534.
4 James W. Valentine and Cathryn A. Campbell, "Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record," American Scientist, Vol. 63, November-December 1975, p. 673.
5 J.E. O'Rourke, op cit, p. 47.
6 David G. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 466.
7 J.E. O'Rourke, op cit, p. 48.
8 Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record (New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1973) p. 62.
9 Derek V. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record," Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, No. 2, 1976, p. 132.
10 Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism," Compass, Vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216.
11 B. Schaeffer, M.K. Hecht and N. Eldredge, "Phylogeny and Paleontology," Ch. 2 in Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 6 (edited by Th. Dobzhansky, M.K. Hecht and W.C. Steere; New York Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972) p. 39.
12 J.E. O'Rourke, op cit, pp. 47-55.





You know they have a name for this thinking, you should watch a cool video by a man called Aron Ra, he might help you
Linky
www.abovetopsecret.com...
"a video of a talk by AronRa regarding religious people and denying facts

^Nobody's reading that wall of text.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
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..

The index fossils are first dated using multiple radiometric dating methods. Once they date the fossil they can date the strata since it is made with the same rock. They don't just assume the index fossils are right, they date them first. LMAO at circular reasoning. This is Kent Hovind reasoning and is wrong. Also Borntowatch should be ignored.

originally posted by: borntowatch
Well your strawman argument was 40 years old is to old.

(Please understand I never suggested radiometric dating was nearly 200 years old, I am unfamiliar with how long its been around, I was talking the Geological time scale theory, its not radiometric dating and GTS theory is nearly 200 years old)

The principles underlying geologic (geological) time scales were later laid down by Nicholas Steno in the late 17th century. Steno argued that rock layers (or strata) are laid down in succession, and that each represents a “slice” of time. He also formulated the law of superposition, which states that any given stratum is probably older than those above it and younger than those below it. While Steno’s principles were simple, applying them to real rocks proved complex. Over the course of the 18th century geologists realized that:
Sequences of strata were often eroded, distorted, tilted, or even inverted after deposition;
Strata laid down at the same time in different areas could have entirely different appearances;
The strata of any given area represented only part of Earth’s long history.
The first serious attempts to formulate a geological time scale that could be applied anywhere on Earth were made in the late 18th century. The most influential of those early attempts (championed by Abraham Werner, among others) divided the rocks of Earth’s crust into four types: Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, and Quaternary. Each type of rock, according to the theory, formed during a specific period in Earth history. It was thus possible to speak of a “Tertiary Period” as well as of “Tertiary Rocks.” Indeed, “Tertiary” (now Paleogene and Neogene) and “Quaternary” (now Pleistocene and Holocene) remained in use as names of geological periods well into the 20th century.
The Neptunist theories popular at this time (expounded by Werner) proposed that all rocks had precipitated out of a single enormous flood. A major shift in thinking came when James Hutton presented his Theory of the Earth; or, an Investigation of the Laws Observable in the Composition, Dissolution, and Restoration of Land Upon the Globe before the Royal Society of Edinburgh in March and April 1785. It has been said that “as things appear from the perspective of the 20th century, James Hutton in those readings became the founder of en.wikipedia.org...

The argument isn't the exact age of the geologic timescale theory, but if the theory has changed within the last 200 years. And it has. The introduction of radiometric dating to further confirm the geologic time scales is proof that it has changed. Then as radiometric dating becomes more precise, we push timescales back.

Heck the very wikipedia article you JUST quoted me goes over some old beliefs as it pertains to the geologic time scale. If you read it correctly it clearly shows that the geologic timescale theory HAS changed within 200 years.

Radiometric dating is from 1907? No surprise and its also outdated and wrong like the Geo time scale.

*eyeroll*

The most ludicrous thing above is this statement by you

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Yes it has... It's changed CONSIDERABLY in the last 40 years and you are being super intellectually dishonest to suggest that it hasn't.

Its ludicrous because I am supposed to believe your word, back it up with evidence, show me where its been changed because my research shows it hasnt
Its ludicrous and its preaching, well I am not a brainwashed minion and I recon you have nothing but your faith in science to stand on, its baseless and invalid.
The only person being disingenuous is you by making a baseless claim backed up with naught

The very article you JUST linked shows that it has changed. Here's another article that talks about it.
Divisions of Geologic Time Major Chronostratigraphic and Geochronologic Units

Since publication of a chart showing divisions of geologic time in the seventh edition of the USGS guide Suggestions to Authors (Hansen, 1991), no other time scale has been officially endorsed by the USGS. For consistent usage of time terms, the USGS Geologic Names Committee (GNC; see box for members) and the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) developed Divisions of Geologic Time (fig. 1), which represents an update containing the unit names and boundary age estimates ratified by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS). Scientists should note that other published time scales may be used, provided that these are specified and referenced (for example, Palmer, 1983; Harland and others, 1990; Haq and Eysinga, 1998; Gradstein and others, 2004; Ogg and others, 2008).

Advances in stratigraphy and geochronology require that any time scale be periodically updated. Therefore, Divisions of Geologic Time (fig. 1) is intended to be a dynamic resource that will be modified to include accepted changes of unit names and boundary age estimates. This fact sheet is a modification of USGS Fact Sheet 2007-3015 by the U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Names Committee (2007).

originally posted by: borntowatch
So all these comments by these scientists are all invalid and hold no weight yet anything they say that supports your beliefs are acceptable and true

First off, who are these "scientists" and what are their "credentials"?

References

1 J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, January 1976, p. 51.
2 Gareth V. Nelson, "Origin and Diversification of Teleostean Fishes," Annals, New York Academy of Sciences, 1971, p. 27.
3 Donald R. Griffin, "A Possible Window on the Minds of Animals," American Scientist, Vol. 64, September-October 1976, p. 534.
4 James W. Valentine and Cathryn A. Campbell, "Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record," American Scientist, Vol. 63, November-December 1975, p. 673.
5 J.E. O'Rourke, op cit, p. 47.
6 David G. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 466.
7 J.E. O'Rourke, op cit, p. 48.
8 Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record (New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1973) p. 62.
9 Derek V. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record," Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, No. 2, 1976, p. 132.
10 Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism," Compass, Vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216.
11 B. Schaeffer, M.K. Hecht and N. Eldredge, "Phylogeny and Paleontology," Ch. 2 in Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 6 (edited by Th. Dobzhansky, M.K. Hecht and W.C. Steere; New York Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972) p. 39.
12 J.E. O'Rourke, op cit, pp. 47-55.

Oh wait. It's just repushing the same 40 year old, out of date sources. Not to mention, all of those are quotes. Not a single bit of real evidence there. Science doesn't accumulate belief based on quotes but on evidence. Find some more recent evidence buddy. That crap is out of date.

You know they have a name for this thinking, you should watch a cool video by a man called Aron Ra, he might help you
Linky
www.abovetopsecret.com...
"a video of a talk by AronRa regarding religious people and denying facts

I'm not denying facts. I'm telling you that your QUOTES are 40 years old and not indicative of current science and furthermore that you haven't provided any evidence of your own. Just quotes. The fact that you are trying to educate me on confirmation bias is just ridiculous. YOU are the one presenting the strawman that geologic dating is based on circular reasoning despite me showing that it isn't the case. YOU are the one disregarding evidence that says you are wrong.

This is why I don't like talking to you anymore. I get more intellectually stimulated from talking to a wall. At least the wall doesn't say anything from ignorance.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Scientific discoveries don't always come from Scientist. In fact one that pops right into my mind is Lorenzo's Oil, was discovered by Augusto and Michaela Odone, two parents who worked their asses off to find a treatment for ALD. Science is a process that anyone can follow. Anyone can preform science. Attacking the person and the source is a logical fallacy. Attack the information. The present information that can be falsified. Its quite simple actually. I don't have the burden of proof here. I lack belief in the reliability of radiometric dating. This is a negative claim. Lets see your proofs.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Anyone can preform science

I think you mean to say, "Anyone can use scientific method". Using scientific methods, anyone should be able to recreate the results of an experiment. Anyone using scientific methods for proving a theory is acting the "scientist".

"This cake is delicious! Who's the chef?"