Right Divider
Body part
:rotfl:
Every dating system is based on some assumptions. To treat those as some absolute knowledge is wrong. But I understand your commitment to your belief system.
I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
Every dating system is based on some assumptions. To treat those as some absolute knowledge is wrong. But I understand your commitment to your belief system.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Eh, it wouldn't matter to me if the universe is billions of years old or a few thousand. Science doesn't formulate theories on mere assumptions which you are surely aware of?
genuineoriginal
New member
Here is the quote from the article I referenced.
| "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." https://www.icr.org/article/circular-reasoning-evolutionary-biology/ |
Here is the quote from the original article.
| "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." http://www.ajsonline.org/content/276/1/47.full.pdf+html |
Here is what your talkorigins.org article claims:
[2] Not all creationist quote miners cut the sentence off halfway and put an inappropriate period in the quote. Here are some sites that have the entire sentence: www.creationism.org: 12 Quotes from Leading Evolutionists, The Parent Company: Section 3: Quotations from Scientists, and The Revolution Against Evolution: Uniformitarianism and the Geologic Column. |
As you can see, the article I posted from icr.org does not cut the sentence off halfway, but has the entire sentence.
So, your statement that J.E. O'Rourke "wasn't even quoted properly" is false.
Right Divider
Body part
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
What?
No, they aren't. There may be a certain amount of leeway where it comes to the absolute figure down to the actual number of years but the consensus of the universe being billions of years old is not mere "assumption". Heck, even in creationism there's no exact figure as long as it doesn't exceed 10,000 years or thereabouts.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You think that helps the case? There was no reason to cut any of Rourke and the article went into detail as to why. Hardly a reliable source and surely you must have something a bit more recent than 1976?
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, they are.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
When it comes to science, you're an idiot
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
So, you think that science is based on assumptions? That the age of the universe is little more than some untested hunch?
Okie dokie then...
How does evolution in any spiritually conscious mind be considered? God is not a manipulator of his creation, he is a creator and would not allow any other power by chance to manipulate His creation. Why would He allow His image to be changed? It amazes me how a repeated lie has changed the profession of some that claim to be a christian. Man was created in God's image!
Gen_1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen_1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
of course
All science, all thought is based on assumptions
a good scientist recognizes this and tries to minimize their effect on his work
genuineoriginal
New member
You believe that the truth changes into a non-truth if it is not repeated by someone new every year?
| The appeal to novelty (also called argumentum ad novitatem) is a fallacy in which one prematurely claims that an idea or proposal is correct or superior, exclusively because it is new and modern. |
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No, not necessarily. The theory of evolution is hardly "new" by the same standard and has undergone modifications through the years by way of. Some cobbled together article with an obvious agenda to attempt to undermine it hardly counts as "truth" no matter when it was written. I would have thought there might be something a bit more recent though.
genuineoriginal
New member
The circular dating is a problem.
The rock layers are given ages based on the assumed age of the fossils in them.
The fossils are given ages based on the assumed age of the rock layers they are found in.
There is no "truth" to the ages assigned.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Sure, some quack scientists decided to play with some rocks and determined their age with a roll of some dice and hoped it would fly.
The age of the universe was determined by a game of backgammon as well.
lain:
genuineoriginal
New member
You are mocking science. :chuckle:Sure, some quack scientists decided to play with some rocks and determined their age with a roll of some dice and hoped it would fly.
The age of the universe was determined by a game of backgammon as well.
TLDR version: Scientists made up millions of years for the fossil record before any radiometric dating provided confirmation bias.
| How paleontologists tell time The geological time scale is used by geologists and paleontologists to measure the history of the Earth and life. It is based on the fossils found in rocks of different ages and on radiometric dating of the rocks. Sedimentary rocks (made from mud, sand, gravel or fossil shells) and volcanic lava flows are laid down in layers or beds. They build up over time so that that the layers at the bottom of the pile are older than the ones at the top. Geologists call this simple observation the Principle of Superposition, and it is most important way of working out the order of rocks in time. Ordering of rocks (and the fossils that they contain) in time from oldest to youngest is called relative age dating. Once the rocks are placed in order from oldest to youngest, we also know the relative ages of the fossils that we collect from them. Relative age dating tells us which fossils are older and which fossils are younger. It does not tell us the age of the fossils. If rocks in different places contain the same fossil species, they must be similar in age. Tracing of rocks and fossils from one place to another is called correlation. We cannot be sure if the rock layers with the same fossils are identical in age. We can say that the rocks formed during the time in which the fossil species lived. |
| Biostratigraphy or paleontologic stratigraphy is based on fossil evidence in the rock layers. Strata from widespread locations containing the same fossil fauna and flora are said to be correlatable in time. Biologic stratigraphy was based on William Smith's principle of faunal succession, which predated, and was one of the first and most powerful lines of evidence for, biological evolution. It provides strong evidence for the formation (speciation) and extinction of species. The geologic time scale was developed during the 19th century, based on the evidence of biologic stratigraphy and faunal succession. |
| Dating of time scales When William Smith and Sir Charles Lyell first recognized that rock strata represented successive time periods, time scales could be estimated only very imprecisely since estimates of rates of change were uncertain. While creationists had been proposing dates of around six or seven thousand years for the age of Earth based on the Bible, early geologists were suggesting millions of years for geologic periods, and some were even suggesting a virtually infinite age for Earth. Geologists and paleontologists constructed the geologic table based on the relative positions of different strata and fossils, and estimated the time scales based on studying rates of various kinds of weathering, erosion, sedimentation, and lithification. |
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Alate_One
Well-known member
You're making assumptions about my church and you're wrong. They very much hold to a physical death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They simply believe, as I do, that nature was also given by God and studying nature (science) in some cases helps us interpret scripture when it is ambiguous.
What's important about Genesis is that God made the universe. How is not clearly spelled out. Looking at Genesis differently does NOT lead to rejecting all miracles in scripture. Any more than when people realized the earth wasn't the center of the universe. You should stop fighting against reality and worry about what's really important.
Alate_One
Well-known member
This is true. And this is why saying "rock dating is based on assumptions" isn't a way to discredit radiometric dating.
Radiometric dating does give consistent values, it is always a range of values and not absolute. But plenty of other data tell you that the earth is far more than a few thousand years old.
You don't need numbers attached to Siccar point to tell you a pattern like that takes more than a few thousand years to form.
That which you assert without evidence we are justified in ignoring without reason.