Circular Reasoning

[RickG]

Such as belief???

You know you just contradicted yourself don't you? There is only one way to know that there have been variations of 14C in the past, and that is the ability to detect it through physical evidence and to quantify those amounts of variation.

And you are making the claim that it is known throughout all of recorded geological history? This is what I am to take from this???? You only discovered this anomaly from a few thousand years ago a few years ago. But know what happened claimed billions of years ago with certainty? Somehow I doubt this.

That's not even as close a comparison as apples to oranges is. Yes we can know what happened billions of years ago. There are entire fields of geology that do this; Geochemistry, Igneous and Metamorphic Petrology.

So any claimed accuracy beyond is merely wishful thinking?

Not at all wishful thinking. It's just a recognition that beyond a certain point (limits of the calibration curve) results may not be quite as accurate. All radiometric dating methods have their age limits due to the half-life of the radionuclide. When maximium reliable limits are reached other isotopes with longer half-lives come into play. That is not a problem, it is an asset.

Yet didn't you just state it was fixed at the time of death above? Now it comes from other sources?

Yes I did. What you are ignoring is that the half-life age dating limit of 14C only goes back only a little over 100,000 years, not the 65 million plus years when the dinosaurs became extinct. You are also ignoring that I explained earlier that any 14C that may be found in any dinosaur fossil is not of cosmogenic origin, rather that of being produced in close approximation of Uranium or Thorium, which can produce 14C from 14N. Even your Wiki source explains this.

Carbon-14 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or instead of contamination which seemingly can occur anywhere but in fossils, your dating is just plain incorrect.

Contamination is easily detectable.


[2uote]No you won't, you'll just participate in avoidance and ad hominem attacks as demonstrated consistently.

I thought you would decline as formal debates are moderated with specific rules which you are currently not following.

Fermi's interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"is an explanation of the beta decay, proposed by Enrico Fermi in 1933."

Weak interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"it was assumed to be a universal law. However, in the mid-1950s Chen Ning Yang and Tsung-Dao Lee suggested that the weak interaction might violate this law. Chien Shiung Wu and collaborators in 1957 discovered that the weak interaction violates parity, earning Yang and Lee the 1957 Nobel Prize in Physics."

So please show me where radiocarbon dating was revised to match current theory after 1957 when Fermi's theory of Beta Decay was found to violate symmetry????

No claims, just facts please.[/quote]

You are the one with claims. Claims that appear to support your position, but what is lacking is all the information in your sources you appear to be deliberately leaving out that show your claims to be false. You also keep re-posting claims, even though I have shown where you are wrong, as if I have not addressed them. Among those is the nonsense with Fermi. What Fermi did not know about Beta decay does not affect radiometric dating in the least.

 

[dad]

I can testify first hand that this complaint has no merit.

They are rabidly anti Christ in that the squash it in the name of so called science. The truth cannot enter in. That likely wouldn't affect you.

 

[dad]

As the "Creation Science" literature is by misrepresenting the way in which index fossils provide a means of "relative dating". And by doing that, they are only degrading the Christian faith.

Who cares about relative dating, when it all happened in less than 7000 years? What really degrades christian faith in my opinion, is cozying up to the so called science lies, and sleeping with the enemy.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Who cares about relative dating, when it all happened in less than 7000 years? What really degrades christian faith in my opinion, is cozying up to the so called science lies, and sleeping with the enemy.

The above assertion that all evidence for evolution is based on science lies was made by a human with a coccyx. He wouldn't have that except he is descended from an earlier species that actually had a tail.

 

[dad]

The above assertion that all evidence for evolution is based on science lies was made by a human with a coccyx. He wouldn't have that except he is descended from an earlier species that actually had a tail.

You seem fixated on tails. Tails are not evidence of coming from monkeys.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You seem fixated on tails. Tails are not evidence of coming from monkeys.

Not tails. Your coccyx, which is a vestige of a tail. Since it is a vestige of a tail, the only reason its there at all is our evolutionary past, which includes a previous species that actually had a tail.

The coccyx is there, telling its tale of a tail whether you believe it or not.

 

[dad]

Not tails. Your coccyx, which is a vestige of a tail. Since it is a vestige of a tail, the only reason its there at all is our evolutionary past, which includes a previous species that actually had a tail.

So? If God created us with a tail why would we care? Or, if we adapted and grew one sometime later, so what? Or, if it were something else at one time other than a tail, such as some appendage of sensuality or whatever...so what? You see a little thingie that we do not now use and start giving the glory to 'evolution'. You do not speak from a standpoint of knowledge. When man descends so low that he no longer gives God the credit for creation, his brain is largely vestigial!

The coccyx is there, telling its tale of a tail whether you believe it or not.

Who cares? If Noah or Adam had a tail, or whatever, that doesn't help you.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So? If God created us with a tail why would we care? Or, if we adapted and grew one sometime later, so what?

Oh, I have misjudged you. You believe in evolution after all!

 

[dad]

Oh, I have misjudged you. You believe in evolution after all!

Of course God created Adam and Eve and animals 6200 years ago (or whatever) WITH THE ABILITY TO ADAPT AND EVOLVE, AND IT HAD TO BE RAPID EVOLVING.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Of course God created Adam and Eve and animals 6200 years ago (or whatever) WITH THE ABILITY TO ADAPT AND EVOLVE, AND IT HAD TO BE RAPID EVOLVING.

You have an interesting approach to making scientific discoveries. Just make up what you want.

Real scientists remain constrained by the evidence.

 

[dad]

You have an interesting approach to making scientific discoveries. Just make up what you want.

Real scientists remain constrained by the evidence.

Great, so what is the evidence that evolution happened at the same rate and the same way? Be constrained by that.

There is no evidence the nature and laws were the dame therefore the life processes for that time are not known in detail as you seem to mistakenly think.

 

[RickG]

Who cares about relative dating, when it all happened in less than 7000 years? What really degrades christian faith in my opinion, is cozying up to the so called science lies, and sleeping with the enemy.

It's the topic of this thread. I think it would be nice to address the actual question I posed in the OP. Forum rules to ask participants to stay on topic when posting do they not.

 

[juvenissun]

It's the topic of this thread. I think it would be nice to address the actual question I posed in the OP. Forum rules to ask participants to stay on topic when posting do they not.

I am not sure you yourself will stay on topic. We will see:

Fossi sequence is determined by rock sequence.
After a sequence of fossils is established, then ...
Rock sequence is determined by fossil sequence.

If that is not a circular reasoning, what is it?

(Don't try to touch the issue of radiometric dating. It does not belong to the OP)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The kicker is that index fossils must be of a limited age range. No one doubts that fossils found below them are older - or that fossils found above them are younger. This is not being disputed at all.

My problem is that every ruin over 1,000 years old is almost invariably buried 10 feet or more below the surface, yet supposedly this layering takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years to occur. Yet we see direct evidence before our eyes of layering occuring in just a thousand years of sufficient scope to bury entire ruins to a depth of 10 feet or more. The direct evidence we can observe within known timelines completely invalidates those claims of age for layering.

They can not rationally explain why I should accept it takes a million years to lay down a few feet of sediment when we see the same thing occurring in a mere 1,000 years? There is no rational explanation that can discount the evidence we see before our very eyes in the timeline we know has occurred. Anything else is just wishful thinking.

 

[juvenissun]

The kicker is that index fossils must be of a limited age range. No one doubts that fossils found below them are older - or that fossils found above them are younger. This is not being disputed at all.

My problem is that every ruin over 1,000 years old is almost invariably buried 10 feet or more below the surface, yet supposedly this layering takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years to occur. Yet we see direct evidence before our eyes of layering occuring in just a thousand years of sufficient scope to bury entire ruins to a depth of 10 feet or more. The direct evidence we can observe within known timelines completely invalidates those claims of age for layering.

They can not rationally explain why I should accept it takes a million years to lay down a few feet of sediment when we see the same thing occurring in a mere 1,000 years? There is no rational explanation that can discount the evidence we see before our very eyes in the timeline we know has occurred. Anything else is just wishful thinking.

A pretty good question. I just wonder who is smart enough to give an answer.
However, I must say that your question is not that much related to the OP. It is a different problem.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A pretty good question. I just wonder who is smart enough to give an answer.
However, I must say that your question is not that much related to the OP. It is a different problem.

Is it???? Is not those layers the reason they say they are of the age they claim???? And therefore because of the layers the earth must be of so and so age???? And those fossils must be of so and so age because they are found in this layer which must have taken so and so time to form????

 

[juvenissun]

Is it???? Is not those layers the reason they say they are of the age they claim???? And therefore because of the layers the earth must be of so and so age???? And those fossils must be of so and so age because they are found in this layer which must have taken so and so time to form????

No. The argument has nothing to do with "age". It is only about "sequence".
Very little argument about age. Those who pull in the argument of age do not understand what does the OP mean.

 

[lifepsyop]

"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 have observed a rather stunning example of this. I went into quite a bit of detail on it in this thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t7813806/

Basically, within the context of an evolutionary model, a rock formation had been "dated" as Triassic with multiple lines of correlating data. (radiometric dates, paleomagnetic markers, fossils) This had been settled in the scientific community for decades.

Then someone found fossil tracks of birds capable of flight in the same rock formation. At first it didn't seem like a big deal because they tried to say it was some kind of theropod dinosaur that simply looked like a bird, but closer examination revealed they were essentially indistinguishable from modern bird tracks.

The evolutionists could not deal with birds in the Triassic so they had no choice but to change the age of the rock formation. They basically discarded all other lines of evidence (including other radiometric data) and went with a new Uranium-Lead date that pushed the rocks into the Jurassic. (God knows how many different methods and samples they had to try before rescuing an acceptable "date")

To me, this perfectly captures the evolutionary mindset. All discoveries must be made to conform to the evolutionary creation narrative.

In general, index fossils will have highest priority, because if there is a conflict with radiometric dating methods, then those can be blamed on contamination and forgotten.

Fossil beds can also be said to have traveled into "younger" or "older" rock formations during past tectonic events to explain away discrepancies.

When you start with the conclusion that the Evolutionary model is an unquestionable truth (as all evolutionists do), then there really is quite a lot of room for fudge-factoring.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No. The argument has nothing to do with "age". It is only about "sequence".
Very little argument about age. Those who pull in the argument of age do not understand what does the OP mean.

I am not sure you understand how they date fossils.

Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable

"Geologists have established a set of principles that can be applied to sedimentary and volcanic rocks that are exposed at the Earth's surface to determine the relative ages of geological events preserved in the rock record. For example, in the rocks exposed in the walls of the Grand Canyon (Figure 1) there are many horizontal layers, which are called strata. The study of strata is called stratigraphy, and using a few basic principles, it is possible to work out the relative ages of rocks."

So once again, we find the facts don't match the theory you are claiming, or the methods. But because you want to ignore this aspect which no one can answer - of course now suddenly strata is irrelevant to the dating process - even if it is in actuality the primary dating method.

Dinosaur Fossil Dating - Enchanted Learning Software

"1. The oldest method is stratigraphy, studying how deeply a fossil is buried. Dinosaur fossils are usually found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock layers (strata) are formed episodically as earth is deposited horizontally over time. Newer layers are formed on top of older layers, pressurizing them into rocks. Paleontologists can estimate the amount of time that has passed since the stratum containing the fossil was formed. Generally, deeper rocks and fossils are older than those found above them"

How many more of your science's own claims must one produce to show reliance on strata is of primary importance in dating fossils???

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I have observed a rather stunning example of this. I went into quite a bit of detail on it in this thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t7813806/

Basically, within the context of an evolutionary model, a rock formation had been "dated" as Triassic with multiple lines of correlating data. (radiometric dates, paleomagnetic markers, fossils) This had been settled in the scientific community for decades.

Then someone found fossil tracks of birds capable of flight in the same rock formation. At first it didn't seem like a big deal because they tried to say it was some kind of theropod dinosaur that simply looked like a bird, but closer examination revealed they were essentially indistinguishable from modern bird tracks.

The evolutionists could not deal with birds in the Triassic so they had no choice but to change the age of the rock formation. They basically discarded all other lines of evidence (including other radiometric data) and went with a new Uranium-Lead date that pushed the rocks into the Jurassic. (God knows how many different methods and samples they had to try before rescuing an acceptable "date")

To me, this perfectly captures the evolutionary mindset. All discoveries must be made to conform to the evolutionary creation narrative.

In general, index fossils will have highest priority, because if there is a conflict with radiometric dating methods, then those can be blamed on contamination and forgotten.

Fossil beds can also be said to have traveled into "younger" or "older" rock formations during past tectonic events to explain away discrepancies.

When you start with the conclusion that the Evolutionary model is an unquestionable truth (as all evolutionists do), then there really is quite a lot of room for fudge-factoring.

Yes - wee see that all the time as every scientists wants his version of events to be the one.

Archaeology: Date with history : Nature News & Comment

20, no 30,000 years - no 33. Such accuracy yet people can't agree on the dates of bone less than the claimed accuracy range? a 10-13,000 year error rate in just under 35,000 years?

And notice that almost all of those fossil beds are in sedimentary rock. Of which every dating method they know of can't be used, even if those sediments are made from the very rocks they claim to be able to date.

And all these dinosaurs were washed up into one area - but none were buried on non-sedimentary rock? It seems conveinent that all of them were buried in sedimentary rock. Some in ash layers - but we know the addition of carbon through contamination can drastically alter dating.

Sedimentary rocks which make up 75% of the earth's surface. Rocks that can be dated just weathered and placed in a new location - and is now no longer able to be dated. Does weathering cause radioactive isotopes to no longer have a half-life in billions of years? Does a smaller sample have less of a half-life than a larger rock?

Since sedimentary rock is the claimed weathering of other rock - a process we know takes a long time - then shouldn't sedimentary rocks all be ancient? Or does layering not occur like they believe it does and by the processes they believe it does?

Ages are determined by the rock layer - the rock layer by their "beliefs" of how long layering takes. Which we know for a fact is in error: above posts.

Yet now suddenly - they don't want to consider their primary dating method when the observable evidence points out the error of their beliefs. This sedimentary layering occurs in a mere few thousand years - as observed by real world evidence in timelines we can judge with relative accuracy.