Proof that evolution is the only answer

originally posted by: Masterjaden
what you seem to be incapable of understanding is that a lack of ability to see all that time prevents the theory from being falsifiable am absolute requirement for legitimate science.

That makes no sense. How does time make it not falsifiable? To falsify evolution, all one would have to do is find a fossil out of place, or study a genome that doesn't have random mutations from generation to generation. It is definitely falsifiable, but out of the million+ fossils studied, not one has been out of place (ie human in dinosaur layer, primate in cambrian layer, etc).

I don't care what you observe and test and experiment unless the their of evolution requiring immense time changes you are NOT doing science about evolutionary theory but are merely doing science that examines the mechanisms that are purported to lead to evolution based on evolutionary theory.

Did you not just say "I understand the theory of evolution. small changes accumulate. yep,I understand it."

What stops the accumulation of small genetic changes? Answer the question. Evolution is observable in real time via more than one experiment. Logic dictates that the changes will continue to accumulate given more time. It's not rocket science or advanced calculus. It's the very simple concept of accumulation that you don't comprehend.

According to you evolution is just a guess until somebody can sit down and watch a population of organisms for millions of years. Sorry, bud, there is plenty of evidence to confirm this, you don't need to watch 1 million years of evolution to understand it.

the above logic is sound so until you can validly prove one or more of the above premises wrong, you fail.

I demonstrated other ways that evolution is falsifiable. You fail because you think watching it live for a million years straight is the only way to verify it. LMAO. Go back to preaching, science is clearly not your thing.

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: namelesss
Did you ever see the series premier of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine? If not, you might want to check it out. It's a pretty good episode.

Thank you for the reference.
Dumbass here has yet to figure out how to connect the audio from computer to TV monitor.
I 'internet' in silence. (sigh)

The reason that, ultimately, evolution will fail as a 'Universal theory' is the same reason that 'creation' fails. Both deal with 'beginnings' and temporal 'progression'...

Like a movie, motion, and the 'time' that defines 'motion' is an illusion!
Just like the 'moving' characters in the flick...

How can 'evolution' even exist, other than as a theory explaining an illusion.

I'm not convinced time is an illusion. If I look at a red apple, is the color an illusion? Someone who's color blind may not see it the same way. Someone who's completely blind would definitely not see it as I do. Even I would have a different perception in the dark; but in the light I can still guess which apple I'd prefer based on what I see. To me that's perception, rather than illusion.

What you 'perceive' IS an illusion, a tasty, crisp, sweet, nourishing... illusion, a dream, a beautiful nightmare!
It feeds the illusion of 'your body'.

Every Perspective is unique, every moment of Universal existence!
Quantum physics demonstrates that it is not an apple until some Perspective see it as such.
There is no distinction between the 'observer' and the 'observed'!
It is your apple because that's how you perceive it.
You perceive 'feelings/thoughts' of juicy and crisp.
You perceive all this as you take a bite.
Every moment of that 'process' happens synchronously.
If you look at the pile of movie frames piled on the table, you have no clue what the movie is about.
There needs to be a certain Perspective' to make anything of the 'movie cloud'.

Example;
'Point to the left'.
Easy.
Note where you are pointing.
Now turn 1 degree and point to the left.
Again note the results.
Now another degree, etc...
And another 1/4 of a degree...
Turn in every possible direction, on every possible axis!
It turns out that every direction is 'left', 'left' is a 'cloud needing a particular Perspective to have any 'direction' at all!
Now point to the 'right'!
Same drill!
Note that the exact same cloud of 'left', is also, at the same moment, a cloud of 'right'!
And a cloud of 'up'!
And a cloud of 'down'...
Do the experiment!

The only 'distinctions' that can even be called 'left' or 'right', OR 'up' and 'down'... are a matter of Perspective!

Ultimately, We are One (unchanging (motionless), all inclusive) 'Cloud'/Reality!!

So, is time really an illusion; or just a perception?

Yes!
The Universe exists for a single Planck moment.
It is neither 'movment' (which Zeno proved impossible so many centuries ago; See: Scientific Enlightenment, Div. One Book 2: Human Enlightenment of the First Axial 2.B.1. A genealogy of the philosophic enlightenment in classical Greece Chapter 9: Zeno's paradoxes of motion (and the logical hints at the new physics)

www.oocities.org...

copyright © 2003, 2004, 2006 by L. C. C.), nor is there sufficient duration for 'time' to exist. Especially since we need not hypothesize 'time' to explain a non-existent 'motion'!
Philosophically examined, both 'motion' and the 'time' necessary for the illusion of 'motion' to exist, are impossible, always ending in paradox, a sure sign of error!

If time is a perception (as I believe it to be),

We 'perceive' mirages in the desert, no?
Do mirages exist? Of course.
Do they have the physical Reality that we are so busy 'perceiving'? Of course not.
The closer that we examine anything, all we find is Mind/Consciousness; 'quantum information waves' that require We Perspectives to 'collapse' those 'possibility waves', that 'undifferentiated potential'(!!!) into an apple, or ourselves.

I don't see why evolution, or even creationism, would fail as theories.

Because they both lead to paradox, no matter which way that you examine them!
So if they logically cannot exist as we perceive them, we either live in denial, or we accept that what we perceive is not quite reflective of any Reality beyond mere 'appearances'.
Logic tells us that what we are seeing in the desert is a mirage, so we don't make the headlong dash!
How many 'headlong dashes' are we futilely making in our 'beliefs' in 'time/motion'?

Evolution doesn't deny the existence of things in the past, it just posits a relationship between ancestors and decedents. If I understand you correctly, when you say all that exist is here now, you're not saying we're nothing more than Boltzmann Brains right?

Evolution does not deny the 'past', I Am! *__-
Existence IS the 'Singularity!
Again, if the ultimate indivisable (Planck) moment contains NO 'duration, no 'time', the endless strand of moments that we appear to be experiencing, all in total still equals zero! Or just the entire pile, not perceived linearly still = 0.
No 'time'.

"It is not the eye that perceives light and color, nor the ear that perceives sound, nor the brain that perceives thought!" - Book of Fudd

"We are all unique Conscious Perspectives (Souls) perceiving the One (unchanging, ALL inclusive) Reality, every moment of existence!"

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - The First Law of Soul Dynamics (Book of Fudd)

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be completely defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

As for the B's Brain; it says here; www.reddit.com...

"One of the interesting conclusions of the idea of thermodynamic equilibrium is that while it's possible for a system in equilibrium to move into a non-equilibrium state"

Yet it is not possible for the equilibrium of the Whole, the One, to ever be other than Perfect.
Perhaps the sum total of all 'systems' (movement over time) is no, in OurSelf a 'system'?

"Every kind of partial and transitory disequilibrium must perforce contribute towards the great equilibrium of the whole.." - Rene' Guenon

And all 'apparent disequilibrium', is merely indicative of our ignorance beyond our noses/Perspectives, and the duality of thought.

a reply to: VP740
Continued;

If our current level of organization, having many self-aware entities, is a result of a random fluctuation...

And yet, it isn't.
There is no 'random', no 'probability', other than as a feature of our extremely truncated unique Perspectives.
We say that we will 'probably' find that parking space on Tues eve. We 'probably' won't on Saturday.
It is only 'probably' when you are unaware of all the moments and Perspectives happening all over the place!
I can 'see', as clear as you are looking at your monitor, events that you'd consider (cue spooky music) the 'future'.
To me, it's all Now, and the evidence is that the parking place I saw, directly in front of the restaurant on Saturday evening, three days before we even left the house, was there exactly as I see it!
It happens to us all, at times, but not understanding the synchronicity of moments, there are no other good theories.

I sent you a PM.

I'll go see if I got it... Thanks for making me read about Boltzman and his brain, and for your thoughts.
A real Gedanken experiment (B's Brain), but some assumptions fail in the theory.
And, again, evolution is an excellent theory considering that the data set is based on the results of an illusion of necessarily limited and unique Perspective!
Thoughts theorizing about the content of thoughts...

"...scientists are condemned by their unexamined assumptions to study the nature of mirrors only by cataloging and investigating everything that mirrors can reflect. It is an endless process that never makes progress, that never reaches closure, that generates endless debate between those who have seen different reflected images, and whose enduring product is voluminous descriptions of particular phenomena." - The Adapted Mind

tat tvam asi (en.wikipedia.org...)

originally posted by: namelesss
a reply to: VP740
Continued;

If our current level of organization, having many self-aware entities, is a result of a random fluctuation...

And yet, it isn't.
There is no 'random', no 'probability', other than as a feature of our extremely truncated unique Perspectives.
We say that we will 'probably' find that parking space on Tues eve. We 'probably' won't on Saturday.
It is only 'probably' when you are unaware of all the moments and Perspectives happening all over the place!
I can 'see', as clear as you are looking at your monitor, events that you'd consider (cue spooky music) the 'future'.
To me, it's all Now, and the evidence is that the parking place I saw, directly in front of the restaurant on Saturday evening, three days before we even left the house, was there exactly as I see it!
It happens to us all, at times, but not understanding the synchronicity of moments, there are no other good theories.

I sent you a PM.

I'll go see if I got it... Thanks for making me read about Boltzman and his brain, and for your thoughts.
A real Gedanken experiment (B's Brain), but some assumptions fail in the theory.
And, again, evolution is an excellent theory considering that the data set is based on the results of an illusion of necessarily limited and unique Perspective!
Thoughts theorizing about the content of thoughts...

"...scientists are condemned by their unexamined assumptions to study the nature of mirrors only by cataloging and investigating everything that mirrors can reflect. It is an endless process that never makes progress, that never reaches closure, that generates endless debate between those who have seen different reflected images, and whose enduring product is voluminous descriptions of particular phenomena." - The Adapted Mind

tat tvam asi (en.wikipedia.org...)

2 fascinating posts in a row thanks! Your last quote reminded me of a thought I had the other day that may or may not be relevant.

I imagined if Truth was light, and individual perspectives were mirrors, then the end result is always a different reflection even though it all originated from the same source.

originally posted by: sputniksteve

2 fascinating posts in a row thanks! Your last quote reminded me of a thought I had the other day that may or may not be relevant.

I imagined if Truth was light, and individual perspectives were mirrors, then the end result is always a different reflection even though it all originated from the same source.

You're welcome!
Thank you for the kind words.
I feel gratified when someone actually finds meaning in the words/Perspective that I share!
And as for the next part...

'Truth' doesn't have to be anything in particular, Truth is One, ALL inclusive!

We are all unique Conscious Perspectives (Souls) who uniquely perceive the One Truth/Reality every unique moment of Universal existence!

By Jove, I thinks that you are getting it!!

tat tvam asi (en.wikipedia.org...)

originally posted by: UB2120
a reply to: cooperton

If you believe that the only life in the universe is on this planet, then I can understand your position. Even though we don't have hard evidence of life on other planets (yet) the concept that we are the only life in the universe is just something I can't bring myself to believe. The universe is just too massive. Also to me, the concept that "life" spontaneously developed on this, and only this planet by chance is a much greater leap of faith than the concept of a universe teeming with life and that all life originated from God. Also, God does not do all things himself and I think a lot of people look at it that way which does make the concept of God much harder to understand. He has created a vast number of beings who do much of this work on his behalf. He also created the universal laws that govern how the universe operates on a physical level.

Part of the problem on our planet was the disruption of the cultivation of civilization early on in our planetary history. All planets that harbor life of the mortal type are fostered from the earliest days of life. Initially that fostering is just on a physical level until a type of life with the potential of higher development appears. Then the cultivation of civilization is started. On a planet where everything goes according to plan it is common knowledge that other worlds exist with life.

I believe strongly in extradimensional beings which reside in realms of consciousness that are not always visible to humans. Whether or not there is physical life beyond our home I think is erroneous at this point because most have yet to discover the purpose of life on this planet, let alone life on other planets.

They are also taught that once born into the universe we have the potential to progress/ascend from a mortal existence to one that is spirit like.

This is an integral teaching in Christian, Greek and Hindu philosophy. Plato believed that this world was like a receptacle (petri dish so-to-speak) that allowed the development of souls in a tutorial-world that introduced the new conscious child into their inheritance of a illimitable Spiritual existence. The same idea in Christianity is being born of the Spirit - The Son of Man within us all. Jesus came so we could have life, and have it to the full (pleroma) by teaching us the laws on how to be reborn into a Spiritual perspective of Being.

...All evolutionary creature life is beset by certain inevitabilities.

The problem with involving evolutionary theory with any belief in a higher purpose is that evolution is based on random mutation, not consciously directed mutations. If you find trouble dismissing this old anchor that is ok for now, but for a complete understanding of who we are it is best to realize the fallacious core of evolutionary theory and why we are more than the random mutated offspring of rudimentary lifeforms. Our spiritual origin is not from bestial lineage, but from the Consciousness of the Living God.

Consider the following:

Is courage — strength of character — desirable? Then must man be reared in an environment which necessitates grappling with hardships and reacting to disappointments.

Is altruism — service of one’s fellows — desirable? Then must life experience provide for encountering situations of social inequality.

Is hope — the grandeur of trust — desirable? Then human existence must constantly be confronted with insecurities and recurrent uncertainties.

Is faith — the supreme assertion of human thought — desirable? Then must the mind of man find itself in that troublesome predicament where it ever knows less than it can believe.

Is the love of truth and the willingness to go wherever it leads, desirable? Then must man grow up in a world where error is present and falsehood always possible.

Is idealism — the approaching concept of the divine — desirable? Then must man struggle in an environment of relative goodness and beauty, surroundings stimulative of the irrepressible reach for better things.

Is loyalty — devotion to highest duty — desirable? Then must man carry on amid the possibilities of betrayal and desertion. The valor of devotion to duty consists in the implied danger of default.

Is unselfishness — the spirit of self-forgetfulness — desirable? Then must mortal man live face to face with the incessant clamoring of an inescapable self for recognition and honor. Man could not dynamically choose the divine life if there were no self-life to forsake. Man could never lay saving hold on righteousness if there were no potential evil to exalt and differentiate the good by contrast.

Is pleasure — the satisfaction of happiness — desirable? Then must man live in a world where the alternative of pain and the likelihood of suffering are ever-present experiential possibilities.

A seed must first grow in darkness before it emerges into the light. Adam and Eve were attempts at planting fully mature plants into conscious living, but they could not handle the curiosity of their free will. The contemporary model we are presented with regarding the multiplication of consciousness (i.e. children to a Spirit Father and a Mother Earth) requires us to be raised in our own darkness before we learn how to seek out the light. We are given the choice. The crown of Life will be given to anyone who overcomes. and as the Essenes wrote:

"For he who walks with the Angels

Shall learn to soar

Above the clouds,

And his home shall be

In the Eternal Sea

Where stands the sacred Tree of Life.

Do not wait for death

To reveal the great mystery;

If you know not your Heavenly Father

While your feet tread the dusty soil,

There shall be naught but shadows for thee

In the life that is to come.

Here and now

Is the mystery revealed.

Here and now

Is the curtain lifted."

a reply to: Barcs

They have found fossils out of place, do you not understand that dating of the rock strata is all based on WHAT fossils are found in said strata and then dating of the fossils are based on what strata they're found in...do you see the problem there????

If you don't you have to revisit basic logic.

Jaden

a reply to: Barcs

Again, it depends on what your definition of evolution is. To say that drastic changes happen over large quantities of time is simply conjecture of the highest order at best, and religious dogma at the least.

You can't witness small insignificant changes and then say oh well, that means that reptiles and birds shared a common ancestor. At least you can't without introducing an element of religious belief, because the evidence simply is NOT there for that type of drastic change.

Yes there is evidence for evolutionary theory, but to subscribe to it as fact or even the most likely reality is simply farcical.

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

Post references, not vague comments youngling. When you are talking about evidence, one has to be able to see it, to make comment

a reply to: peter vlar

That's the thing. I NEVER claimed that you can't gain from pseudo science or inferential science. I simply stated that the study of evolutionary theory is NOT empirical science.

There are many pseudo sciences that are beneficial to study. I would even go so far as to say that without the study of pseudo sciences we would be stuck in long ago dismissed paradigms.

The problem I have is when people moronically and erroneously conclude that paradigms are fact and indisputable.

That's so far out of the realm of scientific endeavor as to be laughable.

Jaden

a reply to: UB2120

I never mentioned adaptation/evolution, I mentioned evolutionary theory which includes aspects that go beyond adaptation... FAR beyond adaptation as is observed and testable.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Barcs

They have found fossils out of place,

So you can provide citations supporting your claims? Or are we to just take your word for it?

do you not understand that dating of the rock strata is all based on WHAT fossils are found in said strata and then dating of the fossils are based on what strata they're found in...do you see the problem there????

The only problem is your overdramatic simplification of the concept of index fossils.

If you don't you have to revisit basic logic.

Jaden

Perhaps geology 101 wouldn't be the worst investment of your time then.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: peter vlar

That's the thing. I NEVER claimed that you can't gain from pseudo science or inferential science. I simply stated that the study of evolutionary theory is NOT empirical science.

You can claim whatever you fancy. That doesn't make your claims accurate or based in fact.

There are many pseudo sciences that are beneficial to study. I would even go so far as to say that without the study of pseudo sciences we would be stuck in long ago dismissed paradigms.

Except that MES has a solid foundation in biology and genetics. It's a real science despite your protestations.

The problem I have is when people moronically and erroneously conclude that paradigms are fact and indisputable.

It's got to be almost as annoying as when the scientifically illiterate refuse to educate themselves because it conflicts with a faith based belief with zero empiricism to support it and then claim that the most thoroughly evidenced scientific theory in existence is just a pseudoscientific paradigm. Your entire position is a joke and you haven't attempts to support your blind rhetoric. I'm still trying to determine if you're legitimately confused or a troll.

That's so far out of the realm of scientific endeavor as to be laughable.

Jaden

Based on your posts, you wouldn't know real science if it gave you a lap dance and then the Eucharist.

Double post

originally posted by: Masterjaden
They have found fossils out of place, do you not understand that dating of the rock strata is all based on WHAT fossils are found in said strata and then dating of the fossils are based on what strata they're found in...do you see the problem there????

That's just misinformation, I think Hovind tries this one.
If you find a fossil who's evolutionary history you know it gives you a timeframe for the rock strata.
If you find a fossil you aren't aware of you would need to test the rock strata with one of various dating techniques non fossil specific.

You should be impressed that our knowledge of geology and biology are so precise we can use them interchangeably for dating purposes.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Barcs

They have found fossils out of place, do you not understand that dating of the rock strata is all based on WHAT fossils are found in said strata and then dating of the fossils are based on what strata they're found in...do you see the problem there????

Pure rhetoric. The problem I see, is with you spreading lies about geology. That isn't close to how it works with fossil dating, you heard it at some propaganda site and blindly believed it. That claim was made by Kent Hovind like 15 yeas ago.

I await your list of out of place fossils to prove us all wrong. And please be sure they are backed by evidence, not just claims on a propaganda site. Good luck.

Again, it depends on what your definition of evolution is. To say that drastic changes happen over large quantities of time is simply conjecture of the highest order at best, and religious dogma at the least.

I define evolution as per the theory of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. No room for mixing that up. Genetic mutations and natural selection leading to the increase in frequency of certain traits within a population. This is slam dunk proven. Genetic mutations accumulate. Please tell me you have more than this garbage. I already lost one coffee from your posts, I'm not losing another.

To counter a theory in science you need evidence that conflicts or you need evidence of an alternative theory. Do you have either one?

You can't witness small insignificant changes and then say oh well, that means that reptiles and birds shared a common ancestor. At least you can't without introducing an element of religious belief, because the evidence simply is NOT there for that type of drastic change.

You don't have to sit back and watch evolution for 1 million years to prove that it's real. Evolution is the accumulation of small changes, which we witness directly. We can verify the bigger changes via the fossil record and geological column, and by mapping genomes of related species.

Anyway, you need evidence, so I will await this. If you can prove evolution is just a guess, then you'll win a nobel prize. But something tells me you are just parroting creationist propaganda. Find me a single scientific site that verifies any claim you have made.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Barcs

They have found fossils out of place, do you not understand that dating of the rock strata is all based on WHAT fossils are found in said strata and then dating of the fossils are based on what strata they're found in...do you see the problem there????

If you don't you have to revisit basic logic.

Jaden

Wrong. Fossil dating has come a long way since your outdated description of the methodology. Read below:


Electron Spin Resonance dating of the Late Quaternary megafauna fossils from
Baixa Grande, Bahia, Brazil
Ricardo da Costa Ribeiro a, Angela Kino#a b,c, Ana Maria Graciano Figueiredo d,
Ismar de Souza Carvalho a, Oswaldo Baffa b,*
a Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Geociências e Departamento de Geologia, Rio de Janeiro-RJ, Brazil
b Departamento de Física, Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras, Universidade de São Paulo, 14040-901 Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil
c Universidade Sagrado Coração, Bauru-SP, Brazil
d Instituto de Pesquisas Energéticas e Nucleares (IPEN), São Paulo-SP, Brazil

www.ipen.br...

a b s t r a c t

Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) spectroscopy was applied to date megafauna fossil teeth of Stegomastodon
waringi and Toxodontinae (two teeth) found in Baixa Grande, Bahia, Brazil. The CO2

signal with spectroscopic
features gt ¼ 2.0018 and g// ¼ 1.9973 used for ESR dating was detected in all fossil enamel. The
additive method was employed to construct the dose response curve and to calculate the Equivalent
Dose (De). Neutron Activation Analysis of enamel, dentine and soil where the samples were buried was
used to determine the main radioisotopes concentration. These data were used in the conversion of De
into age, using the ROSY ESR dating software. The results of age obtained were 50  10 ka for S. waringi,
and 43  8 ka and 9  2 ka for Toxodontinae teeth. Although Late Quaternary fossils from the extinct
South American megafauna are relatively common in Brazilian’s Northeast region, few geochronological
studies were conducted. Thus dating samples found in this region will allow a better time and space
understanding of that fauna.

Research paper
Direct UeTh dating of vertebrate fossils with minimum sampling
destruction and application to museum specimens
Gilbert J. Price*, Yue-xing Feng, Jian-xin Zhao, Gregory E. Webb
School of Earth Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia 4072, Queensland, Australia

www.sciencedirect.com...

a b s t r a c t
Although vertebrate fossils are commonly abundant in museum palaeontological collections, they are
only rarely accompanied by contextual data (e.g., stratigraphic and taphonomic information) that
allow them to be placed independently into reliable temporal frameworks critical for testing significant
evolutionary and extinction hypotheses. Moreover, where critical samples do exist in such collections,
sampling for direct geochronological analyses becomes a significant concern, especially where
such sampling is destructive in nature. Here we apply a direct fossil dating, micro-drilling sampling
approach that minimises damage to and destruction of precious museum specimens. We carried out a
systematic UeTh dating study (n ¼ 28 ages) of an isolated museum specimen of the extinct Palorchestes
azael (megafaunal ‘marsupial tapir’) originally collected in 1977 from Tea Tree Cave, Chillagoe, northeastern
Australia. We obtained 21 UeTh ages and constructed 230Th-age profiles across three teeth
exposed in cross-section, using micro-drilling and thermal ionisation mass spectrometry. Individual
sample masses were as little as 0.18 mg (U concentration 33e82 ppm), meaning that the sampling
resulted in only minimal destruction of the specimen. The results show no evidence of U leaching,
suggesting that the dates represent reliable minimum ages. For independent age control, we also dated
calcite that had encrusted the sample (thus, providing a minimum age; n ¼ 6) and an older calcite clast
that had been reworked into the surrounding breccia at the time of burial (thus, providing a maximum
age; n ¼ 1). UeTh ages of the teeth are older than the calcite overgrowths and younger than the
reworked calcite, consistent with their demonstrable relative age relationships. Collectively, the results
unequivocally bracket the age of the fossil between 199.1  8.9 ka and 137.4  1.1 ka (2s), adding another
rare datum to inform the timing and geographic distribution of last occurrences of the species. The
benefits of our dating approach of museum fossil specimens are threefold: 1) it is minimally destructive
even compared with laser-ablation method; 2) the use of U vs. apparent age approach allows direct
testing for potential U leaching as occasionally seen in fossil dating; and 3) the combination of fossil and
associated speleothem dating provides the most robust means of securely bracketing the age of fossils
that lack firm stratigraphic control.

How do they find out how old rocks are... I mean, shouldn't they all be the same age?

a reply to: AshFan

www.universetoday.com...

originally posted by: AshFan
How do they find out how old rocks are... I mean, shouldn't they all be the same age?

No - depends on the origin - some rocks are actually meteorites. Others are igneous (volcanic in origin), metamorphic (under the ground) and sedimentary (formed from sand and particles). They can be formed at various times in history including the present time.

Depending on the mineral content, radiographic/isotopic dating is probably the most used dating method.