• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Circular Reasoning

Status
Not open for further replies.

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
"Circular reasoning" is one of the claims made in the Creation Science community concerning "Relative" dating methods used by geologists. An example is: Rocks date the fossils and fossils date the rocks.

What I wish to do in this thread is to have a discussion with those who support the circular reasoning claim. In doing this I want you know how it is justified.
 

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
40,402
30,160
Pacific Northwest
✟855,671.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
"Circular reasoning" is one of the claims made in the Creation Science community concerning "Relative" dating methods used by geologists. An example is: Rocks date the fossils and fossils date the rocks.

What I wish to do in this thread is to have a discussion with those who support the circular reasoning claim. In doing this I want you know how it is justified.

I'd think anyone who is capable of reading the Wikipedia page on radiometric dating could pretty squarely defeat this particular Creationist argument.

-CrptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟200,004.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
"Circular reasoning" is one of the claims made in the Creation Science community concerning "Relative" dating methods used by geologists. An example is: Rocks date the fossils and fossils date the rocks.

What I wish to do in this thread is to have a discussion with those who support the circular reasoning claim. In doing this I want you know how it is justified.


Fossils can only be dated by the rock layer they are found in.

Fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Paleontology seeks to map out how life evolved across geologic time. A substantial hurdle is the difficulty of working out fossil ages. Beds that preserve fossils typically lack the radioactive elements needed for radiometric dating. This technique is our only means of giving rocks greater than about 50 million years old an absolute age, and can be accurate to within 0.5% or better"

Yet fossil bearing rocks cannot be used to date the fossils - as they typically lack the radioactive elements needed. Fossils themselves can not be used for dating purposes - nor the rocks they are found in. Only any volcanic rock can be used.

"Radioactive elements are common only in rocks with a volcanic origin, and so the only fossil-bearing rocks that can be dated radiometrically are volcanic ash layers, which may provide termini for the intervening sediments."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#cite_note-Martin2000-16
Which brings up other difficulties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction

" In 1933, Enrico Fermi proposed the first theory of the weak interaction, known as Fermi's interaction. He suggested that beta decay could be explained by a four-fermion interaction, involving a contact force with no range."

Fermi's interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Fermi's four-fermion theory describes the weak interaction remarkably well. Unfortunately, the calculated cross-section grows as the square of the energy
15fa28cb3101588970ef2aa1a7d73122.png
, making it unlikely that the theory is valid at energies much higher than about 100 GeV. The solution is to replace the four-fermion contact interaction by a more complete theory (UV completion)—an exchange of a W or Z boson as explained in the electroweak theory."

Yet sadly - radiocarbon dating was based upon Fermi's theory and never revised when the electroweak theory was.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟200,004.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
"Circular reasoning" is one of the claims made in the Creation Science community concerning "Relative" dating methods used by geologists. An example is: Rocks date the fossils and fossils date the rocks.

What I wish to do in this thread is to have a discussion with those who support the circular reasoning claim. In doing this I want you know how it is justified.


Fossils can only be dated by the rock layer they are found in.

Fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Paleontology seeks to map out how life evolved across geologic time. A substantial hurdle is the difficulty of working out fossil ages. Beds that preserve fossils typically lack the radioactive elements needed for radiometric dating. This technique is our only means of giving rocks greater than about 50 million years old an absolute age, and can be accurate to within 0.5% or better"

Yet fossil bearing rocks cannot be used to date the fossils - as they typically lack the radioactive elements needed. Fossils themselves can not be used for dating purposes - nor the rocks they are found in. Only any volcanic rock can be used.

"Radioactive elements are common only in rocks with a volcanic origin, and so the only fossil-bearing rocks that can be dated radiometrically are volcanic ash layers, which may provide termini for the intervening sediments."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#cite_note-Martin2000-16
Which brings up other difficulties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction

" In 1933, Enrico Fermi proposed the first theory of the weak interaction, known as Fermi's interaction. He suggested that beta decay could be explained by a four-fermion interaction, involving a contact force with no range."

Fermi's interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Fermi's four-fermion theory describes the weak interaction remarkably well. Unfortunately, the calculated cross-section grows as the square of the energy
15fa28cb3101588970ef2aa1a7d73122.png
, making it unlikely that the theory is valid at energies much higher than about 100 GeV. The solution is to replace the four-fermion contact interaction by a more complete theory (UV completion)—an exchange of a W or Z boson as explained in the electroweak theory."

Parity (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Yet sadly - radiocarbon dating was based upon Fermi's theory and never revised when the electroweak theory was.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟200,004.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
"Circular reasoning" is one of the claims made in the Creation Science community concerning "Relative" dating methods used by geologists. An example is: Rocks date the fossils and fossils date the rocks.

What I wish to do in this thread is to have a discussion with those who support the circular reasoning claim. In doing this I want you know how it is justified.


Fossils can only be dated by the rock layer they are found in.

Fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Paleontology seeks to map out how life evolved across geologic time. A substantial hurdle is the difficulty of working out fossil ages. Beds that preserve fossils typically lack the radioactive elements needed for radiometric dating. This technique is our only means of giving rocks greater than about 50 million years old an absolute age, and can be accurate to within 0.5% or better"

Yet fossil bearing rocks cannot be used to date the fossils - as they typically lack the radioactive elements needed. Fossils themselves can not be used for dating purposes - nor the rocks they are found in. Only any volcanic rock can be used.

"Radioactive elements are common only in rocks with a volcanic origin, and so the only fossil-bearing rocks that can be dated radiometrically are volcanic ash layers, which may provide termini for the intervening sediments."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#cite_note-Martin2000-16
Which brings up other difficulties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction

" In 1933, Enrico Fermi proposed the first theory of the weak interaction, known as Fermi's interaction. He suggested that beta decay could be explained by a four-fermion interaction, involving a contact force with no range."

Fermi's interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Fermi's four-fermion theory describes the weak interaction remarkably well. Unfortunately, the calculated cross-section grows as the square of the energy
15fa28cb3101588970ef2aa1a7d73122.png
, making it unlikely that the theory is valid at energies much higher than about 100 GeV. The solution is to replace the four-fermion contact interaction by a more complete theory (UV completion)—an exchange of a W or Z boson as explained in the electroweak theory."

Parity (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Yet sadly - radiocarbon dating was based upon Fermi's theory and never revised when the electroweak theory was because of parity violations.
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Justatruthseeker, for some reason when I hit the quote button on your post it comes up blank. I have no idea why this happens unless there is some function I'm not aware of that allows one to prevent another from quoting them. Nevertheless, I will respond to your post (#3) in general.

It is true that fossils cannot be dated directly, with the exceptions of those with chitinous shells, which also has specific limitations. However, that is why the age of fossils is given a relative age, not an absolute age as is done with rocks of igneous origin.

And as you correctly mentioned, sedimentary rock in which the fossils are contained cannot be dated directly. That is why a relative age is given to fossils. But first, lets define the difference between absolute and relative age.

Absolute age is the age of a rock or substance where an absolute age can be determined usually by radiometric means, but there are also some non-radiometric dating methods as well that yield absolute ages. It is also important to keep in mind that with absolute ages that they are reported with a margin of error statistically determined from the test results. Thus plus/minus so many years.

With relative ages, as you also covered, sedimentary strata is dated by igneous rock within those layers. Thus the age of any specific sedimentary layer is determined to be within an upper and lower limit, therefore, it is called a relative age.

Now, one thing you mention was Fermi's beta decay (1933) as being a problem, especially with radiocarbon dating. Indeed it is not. Fermi only described the process of beta decay. The fact is beta decay happens and it is directly measurable. In radiocarbon dating there are two main processes. One is to count beta particles in a sample which measures 14C activity and requires a significant size sample. The other, which is employed today at a much greater extent is Accelerator Mass Sepectromety (AMS), which doesn't count beta particles, rather it measures the ratio between 14C, 13C and 12C.

Moving on, finding igneous material to date in sedimentary strata is not difficult to utilize today as it was in the earlier days of radiometric dating. With improved instrumentation and new techniques continuously growing, samples with took much material to be processed can now be only a few milligrams. Thus, particles of volcanic ash deposited by volcanic eruptions of only a few milligrams can now be dated, and there are few places on earth where such particles are not found is sedimentary strata.

As for a fossil being used to data strata this is where the term "index" fossil is applied. Fossils which are only found in specific types of strata which has been previously radiometrically dated (the strata that is) only exist in that strata of that age, therefore their age is a relative value or "relative age" of that strata or range of strata in which they may overlap.
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
How about triple posting. I think you might
want to ask the Moderators to zap the other two.

My guess it's probably a CF problem. When I click the quote button on his original and duplicate posts, it doesn't quote anything, just a blank page. However when I click the quote button on his post recognizing the duplicates it works. Go figure. :)
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Yet sadly - radiocarbon dating was based upon Fermi's theory and never revised when the electroweak theory was because of parity violations.

I am curious as to how you come to that conclusion. Do you have a source for it? None of the links you provided suggested anything of the sort. In fact the link of Weak interaction supports it. I am thinking perhaps the discussion concerning Fermi's rejection by the journal Nature where they note that they rejected his original research for being "too speculative" may have confused you. "Nature later admitted that the rejection was one of the great editorial blunders in its history".
 
Upvote 0

whois

rational
Mar 7, 2015
2,523
119
✟3,336.00
Faith
Non-Denom
My guess it's probably a CF problem. When I click the quote button on his original and duplicate posts, it doesn't quote anything, just a blank page. However when I click the quote button on his post recognizing the duplicates it works. Go figure. :)
i've noticed the same thing in regards to some posts.
i have also noticed that i cannot edit some of my own posts, clicking on edit returns a blank box.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
circular reasoning:
interpreting the fossil record in terms of evolution, then using that interpretation as proof.

You do not seem to understand scientific testing. One of the first steps in developing a scientific idea is to devise a testable hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis must be testable and it should have some predictable powers. The maker of the hypothesis must think of some observable events that would falsify the hypothesis if it was wrong. The classic example is that of a Cambrian bunny rabbit. Finding such would almost certainly be the end of the theory of evolution unless one could give evidence that time travel is real. This is not circular reasoning.

If evolution was wrong creationists should be able to come up with some clear examples of how the theory fails. To date they have not done so.

Meanwhile creationists have not done their homework. To claim that they have an idea that is supported by science they need a testable hypothesis of creation. One does not need to reproduce the creation event or even explain how it happened. They only need to have a hypothesis that explains the observed evidence. That would include the present diversity of life, the fossil record, DNA and why the many other nested hierarchies in life. To date I have not seen one testable hypothesis of creation. That means by definition that creationist viewpoints are not scientific.
 
Upvote 0

whois

rational
Mar 7, 2015
2,523
119
✟3,336.00
Faith
Non-Denom
You do not seem to understand scientific testing. One of the first steps in developing a scientific idea is to devise a testable hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis must be testable and it should have some predictable powers. The maker of the hypothesis must think of some observable events that would falsify the hypothesis if it was wrong. The classic example is that of a Cambrian bunny rabbit. Finding such would almost certainly be the end of the theory of evolution unless one could give evidence that time travel is real. This is not circular reasoning.

If evolution was wrong creationists should be able to come up with some clear examples of how the theory fails. To date they have not done so.

Meanwhile creationists have not done their homework. To claim that they have an idea that is supported by science they need a testable hypothesis of creation. One does not need to reproduce the creation event or even explain how it happened. They only need to have a hypothesis that explains the observed evidence. That would include the present diversity of life, the fossil record, DNA and why the many other nested hierarchies in life. To date I have not seen one testable hypothesis of creation. That means by definition that creationist viewpoints are not scientific.
this hasn't got anything to do with creationism or creationist.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
radiometric dating methods and assumptions:
Radiometric Dating Methods
Sorry, but your writer is not fully aware of what is assumed in dating methods.

For example it is not an assumption that there is no radiometric argon when a biotite crystal forms since that inert gas would be naturally excluded from the crystal. Many of the so called assumptions are not assumptions, but based upon reason.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
:idea:
this hasn't got anything to do with creationism or creationist.

Are you claiming that there is no science behind creationism? If so you are correct. Creationism is not a scientific belief. That is why not even most Christians believe it worldwide.
 
Upvote 0

whois

rational
Mar 7, 2015
2,523
119
✟3,336.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Sorry, but your writer is not fully aware of what is assumed in dating methods.

For example it is not an assumption that there is no radiometric argon when a biotite crystal forms since that inert gas would be naturally excluded from the crystal. Many of the so called assumptions are not assumptions, but based upon reason.
based on reason?
and you don't call that an assumption?
seriously?
it's reasonable to assume . . .
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.