Circular Reasoning

[RickG]

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)

That is the best description of circular reasoning as described in the OP I have seen so far. However, radiometric dating does belong in the OP because it destroys the circular reasoning argument.

First of all understand what an index fossil is. An index fossil defines a specific range of geologic time. That is, they are only found in specific layers of strata within specific time periods and nowhere else. Thus specific geologic periods and their age can be recognized from an index fossil. This is what is called "Relative" dating, because a relative age spans a block to time, or time between an upper and lower age. Conversely, "Absolute" dating does provide a specific age along with a stated statistical margin of error (+/- "x" amount of years).

What destroys the circular reasoning argument is that the strata is dated either through radiometric or non-radiometric means to give an absolute age in which an index fossil is found. So, by knowing the absolute age of the strata, the age of the index fossil is then known, but only within the span of the existence of the index fossil.

That is not circular reasoning in the context described in the YEC literature.

 

[RickG]

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 course in sedimentology and stratigraphy would go a long way in helping resolve your misunderstanding concerning the thickness of sedimentary layers. What must be understood is that there are many different types of sedimentation and erosion which all factor into the process. Your comment "that every ruin over 1,000 years old is almost invariably buried 10 feet or more below the surface" is not only a generalization, it is false. Geologic sediments are not dated by their thickness.

 

[juvenissun]

That is the best description of circular reasoning as described in the OP I have seen so far. However, radiometric dating does belong in the OP because it destroys the circular reasoning argument.

First of all understand what an index fossil is. An index fossil defines a specific range of geologic time. That is, they are only found in specific layers of strata within specific time periods and nowhere else. Thus specific geologic periods and their age can be recognized from an index fossil. This is what is called "Relative" dating, because a relative age spans a block to time, or time between an upper and lower age. Conversely, "Absolute" dating does provide a specific age along with a stated statistical margin of error (+/- "x" amount of years).

What destroys the circular reasoning argument is that the strata is dated either through radiometric or non-radiometric means to give an absolute age in which an index fossil is found. So, by knowing the absolute age of the strata, the age of the index fossil is then known, but only within the span of the existence of the index fossil.

That is not circular reasoning in the context described in the YEC literature.

Once you cite anything about absolute dating, you are off the topic of you OP.
The geologic time scale has been well established way before the radiometric dating became practical. It was entirely established by the circular reasoning method. The later radiometric dating does not invalidate the established scale.

You totally fail to understand HOW and WHY does the circular reasoning work.

Mind your business. Geology is not your place.

 

[juvenissun]

A course in sedimentology and stratigraphy would go a long way in helping resolve your misunderstanding concerning the thickness of sedimentary layers. What must be understood is that there are many different types of sedimentation and erosion which all factor into the process. Your comment "that every ruin over 1,000 years old is almost invariably buried 10 feet or more below the surface" is not only a generalization, it is false. Geologic sediments are not dated by their thickness.

But, can you explain the FAST rate of deposition?
Of course, you don't have to. It is not a thread for that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But, can you explain the FAST rate of deposition?
Of course, you don't have to. It is not a thread for that.

But there was no fast deposition. Creationists cannot explain how sediments would be well sorted. That has to be done by your side. Worse yet you cannot explain erosional features. I can see why you did not participate in my Goosenecks challenge.

 

[RickG]

Once you cite anything about absolute dating, you are off the topic of you OP.
The geologic time scale has been well established way before the radiometric dating became practical. It was entirely established by the circular reasoning method. The later radiometric dating does not invalidate the established scale.

The geologic column was established, not its age.

You totally fail to understand HOW and WHY does the circular reasoning work.

According to YECism, rocks date the fossils and fossils date the rocks. What YECism ignores what I have already explained. The strata containing the fossils are dated first, by whether you are willing to accept it or not, radiometric dating methods. By knowing the age of the strata the age of the fossils are known. The YEC view is circular. The actual geologic view is not.

Mind your business. Geology is not your place.

Oh really? You might want to check my profile under the about me.

 

[lasthero]

Mind your business. Geology is not your place.

It amazes me that you can write this and not have your head explode.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

OK

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.

So, the Roman Coliseum is buried under 10 ft or more of sediment? Really? You should let the Italians know. Were the pyramids buried under sediment or sand? Sediment must form and then rock must form from the sediment, to get sedimentary rock. That is were fossils are found, not under dirt, sand, or mud. Also, age is not determined by how much sedimentary rock is over a fossil.

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.

Show us all the sedimentary rock formed in a mere 1000 years. Rock is what we are talking about.

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, NO, NO!! Geologists do not date sedimentary rock based on how long it was supposed to form!!

You just make this stuff up based on your weird assumptions.

 

[dad]

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.

The question is circular reasoning in dating. It is the epitome of being circular to assume that the forces now governing atoms were in place in Noah's day when you cannot prove it. You are basically saying 'we know that radionuclides decayed because they now decay'.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The question is circular reasoning in dating. It is the epitome of being circular to assume that the forces now governing atoms were in place in Noah's day when you cannot prove it. You are basically saying 'we know that radionuclides decayed because they now decay'.

Ah, but that's not circular. That's linear.

You are, of course, conveniently overlooking the direct measurement of radioactive decay in distant astronomical objects, such as supernova remnants. Dispite observing decay that happened billions of years in the past the decay happens in the same time frames then as now here on earth.

You are, of course, conveniently overlooking the direct analysis of radiometric dating such as by carbon 14 dating compared with other direct means of dating such as counting tree rings or counting annual lake bottom sediment layers or annual snow layers in ice cores; these also show radiometric dating methods work just fine.

In fact, in your method, all evidence is overlooked regardless of what it reveals because you make your conclusions absent all connections with evidence.

 

[dad]

Ah, but that's not circular. That's linear.

No it is starting at an assumption that is unproven and going round and round.

You are, of course, conveniently overlooking the direct measurement of radioactive decay in distant astronomical objects, such as supernova remnants.

No. We can talk about that also if you like though. What about it?

"Much of the "light curve," or graph of luminosity as a function of time, after the explosion of a Type II Supernova such as SN 1987A is dominated by radioactive decay processes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A


" While bolometers do exist, they cannot be used to measure even the apparent brightness of a star because they are insufficiently sensitive across the electromagnetic spectrum and because most wavelengths do not reach the surface of the Earth. In practice bolometric magnitudes are measured by taking measurements at certain wavelengths and constructing a model of the total spectrum that is most likely to match those measurements. In some cases, the process of estimation is extreme, with luminosities being calculated when less than 1% of the energy output is observed, for example with a hot Wolf-Rayet star observed only in the infra-red."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity



That brings up the question how much time, and from where is that seen or known? The time bit is here! So we see decay in our time.

But that may be a bit too in depth for the thread.

Dispite observing decay that happened billions of years in the past the decay happens in the same time frames then as now here on earth.

I'll say it happens in the same time frame as earth! Exactly the same as the time is here.

You are, of course, conveniently overlooking the direct analysis of radiometric dating such as by carbon 14 dating compared with other direct means of dating such as counting tree rings or counting annual lake bottom sediment layers or annual snow layers in ice cores; these also show radiometric dating methods work just fine.

Not at all. Trees grew in weeks in the former nature recorded in the bible, so rings cannot collaborate anything, nor ice cores that formed fast. Etc.

In fact, in your method, all evidence is overlooked regardless of what it reveals because you make your conclusions absent all connections with evidence.

Tree rings exist. Nothing to overlook except your obsessive imposition of belief onto evidences high and low!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No it is starting at an assumption that is unproven and going round and round.

A mental feat you employ frequently; but its rather transparent.

No. We can talk about that also if you like though. What about it?

"Much of the "light curve," or graph of luminosity as a function of time, after the explosion of a Type II Supernova such as SN 1987A is dominated by radioactive decay processes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A


" While bolometers do exist, they cannot be used to measure even the apparent brightness of a star because they are insufficiently sensitive across the electromagnetic spectrum and because most wavelengths do not reach the surface of the Earth. In practice bolometric magnitudes are measured by taking measurements at certain wavelengths and constructing a model of the total spectrum that is most likely to match those measurements. In some cases, the process of estimation is extreme, with luminosities being calculated when less than 1% of the energy output is observed, for example with a hot Wolf-Rayet star observed only in the infra-red."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity

What are you rambling about? The 1987 supernova distance is firmly established by light echo size. Its decay curve was therefore observed to take place from a time measured in hundreds of thousands of years.

Not at all. Trees grew in weeks in the former nature recorded in the bible, so rings cannot collaborate anything, nor ice cores that formed fast. Etc.
Tree rings exist. Nothing to overlook except your obsessive imposition of belief onto evidences high and low!

Talk about sheer speculation! Here's something that's not speculation.

You still have that vestigial coccyx.

 

[juvenissun]

The geologic column was established, not its age.


According to YECism, rocks date the fossils and fossils date the rocks. What YECism ignores what I have already explained. The strata containing the fossils are dated first, by whether you are willing to accept it or not, radiometric dating methods. By knowing the age of the strata the age of the fossils are known. The YEC view is circular. The actual geologic view is not.

This could be my final contribution to your thread:

The geologic time scale IS established by a circular reasoning. And it IS justified. No radiometric dating is needed.

Hope you can understand it. If not, I will see if you are humble enough to ask why.

 

[dad]

A mental feat you employ frequently; but its rather transparent.

Thanks. It is clear that either you do or don't.

What are you rambling about? The 1987 supernova distance is firmly established by light echo size.

No. Sorry. The distance depends on time, no matter how you shake it. Just look into it. Otherwise, post the basis for any method and learn why distance is not known.

Its decay curve was therefore observed to take place from a time measured in hundreds of thousands of years.

"Therefore"? Bingo. You pile your conclusions on a broken precept. Thanks for that.

Talk about sheer speculation! Here's something that's not speculation.

You still have that vestigial coccyx.

At least I don't have a coccyx obsession.

 

[RickG]

This could be my final contribution to your thread:

The geologic time scale IS established by a circular reasoning. And it IS justified. No radiometric dating is needed.

Hope you can understand it. If not, I will see if you are humble enough to ask why.

You keep misapplying the OP. According to YEC claims fossils date the rocks and rocks date the fossils. Therefore, geologists just make up the dates.

And no, the geologic time scale is not established by circular reasoning. It is established through direct "absolute" dating methods.

 

[JacksBratt]

Talk about sheer speculation! Here's something that's not speculation.

You still have that vestigial coccyx.

Medical research has shown that the muscles which help us sit or stand, all gain their ability to move us only because they are attached to our fully functional and necessary so called ‘tail bone’ which of course means that human beings do not actually have a useless or even vestigial “tail bone”! The coccyx is fully functional part of the system of bones, ligaments and muscles of the pelvis, that protects and supports the pelvic organs, and contributes to our upright stance and walking. It provides stable anchorage points for ligaments and muscles which is an essential function of all bones. Without this – we don’t move. Bones must never be considered in isolation, since they are part of an integrated musculoskeletal system that supports and protects body organs, and enables us to move.


I hope it isn't "off topic" to point out a post that is based on incorrect information.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Medical research has shown that the muscles which help us sit or stand, all gain their ability to move us only because they are attached to our fully functional and necessary so called ‘tail bone’ which of course means that human beings do not actually have a useless or even vestigial “tail bone”! The coccyx is fully functional part of the system of bones, ligaments and muscles of the pelvis, that protects and supports the pelvic organs, and contributes to our upright stance and walking. It provides stable anchorage points for ligaments and muscles which is an essential function of all bones. Without this – we don’t move. Bones must never be considered in isolation, since they are part of an integrated musculoskeletal system that supports and protects body organs, and enables us to move.


I hope it isn't "off topic" to point out a post that is based on incorrect information.

Oooo, the coccyx is so useful, it must be designed! Makes one wonder how all those monkeys that actually have tails get along without one. Please explain that for me.

 

[Loudmouth]

Medical research has shown that the muscles which help us sit or stand, all gain their ability to move us only because they are attached to our fully functional and necessary so called ‘tail bone’ which of course means that human beings do not actually have a useless or even vestigial “tail bone”!

You can use a broken computer as a paper weight. That doesn't mean that the broken computer is functional. You need to learn the difference between functioning and doing something.

More importantly, why do we only see vestigial organs that match the proposed evolutionary history of these species? We never seen mammals with vestigial feathers, or birds with vestigial mammary glands.

 

[Astrophile]

" While bolometers do exist, they cannot be used to measure even the apparent brightness of a star because they are insufficiently sensitive across the electromagnetic spectrum and because most wavelengths do not reach the surface of the Earth. In practice bolometric magnitudes are measured by taking measurements at certain wavelengths and constructing a model of the total spectrum that is most likely to match those measurements. In some cases, the process of estimation is extreme, with luminosities being calculated when less than 1% of the energy output is observed, for example with a hot Wolf-Rayet star observed only in the infra-red."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity

You are making the mistake of treating an extreme case as if it was typical. For most stars, of spectral types A to early K, the correction required to obtain the bolometric magnitude from the visual magnitude is less than 60% of the visual flux, or to put it another way, the luminosity is calculated with more than 60% of the total energy output being observed. Also, models of radiative transfer in stellar atmospheres are now accurate enough for there to be good agreement on the bolometric corrections as a function of spectral type. Wolf-Rayet stars are among the most extreme stars that exist, and one cannot treat them in the same way as ordinary stars.

 

[dad]

You are making the mistake of treating an extreme case as if it was typical. For most stars, of spectral types A to early K, the correction required to obtain the bolometric magnitude from the visual magnitude is less than 60% of the visual flux, or to put it another way, the luminosity is calculated with more than 60% of the total energy output being observed.

"A star's luminosity can be determined from two stellar characteristics: size and effective temperature.[3] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity


To know size we need distance. For that we need time.

When they determine temperature, size is important also I think. They use a black body to determine things about a star also. Even leaving time aside for a moment, a black body assumes a physical only universe.

"A black body (also, blackbody) is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, .."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body


"In physics, a physical body or physical object (sometimes simply called a body or object) is an identifiable collection of matter, which may be more or less constrained to move together by translation or rotation, in 3-dimensional space."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_body

If time were not there, or were different, and if there were some spiritual element we know nothing about in space, then forget that business of a physical body in 3D space!!

Face it, you have a belief system run wild.

Also, models of radiative transfer in stellar atmospheres are now accurate enough for there to be good agreement on the bolometric corrections as a function of spectral type. Wolf-Rayet stars are among the most extreme stars that exist, and one cannot treat them in the same way as ordinary stars.

Show a model of 'radiative transfer in stellar atmosphere'!