"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

[Astrophile]

Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Biology
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

Evidence for Creation

"Creationists have long insisted that the main evidence for evolution — the fossil record — involves a serious case of circular reasoning. That is, the fossil evidence that life has evolved from simple to complex forms over the geological ages depends on the geological ages of the specific rocks in which these fossils are found. The rocks, however, are assigned geologic ages based on the fossil assemblages which they contain.

The fossils, in turn, are arranged on the basis of their assumed evolutionary relationships. Thus the main evidence for evolution is based on the assumption of evolution.

A significant development of recent years has been the fact that many evolutionary geologists are now also recognizing this problem. They no longer ignore it or pass it off with a sarcastic denial, but admit that it is a real problem which deserves a serious answer. ..."

No, this is incorrect. Geologists in the late 18th and early 19th centuries observed a succession of rock formations, which were always in the same order. They also observed that each rock formation had its characteristic fossils, and that these fossils could be used to identify rock formations. The relative ages of the rocks and the fossils were determined from which rocks and fossils were at the bottom of the succession (and so were deposited first) and which were at the top, not from which fossils were more complex.

There was no necessity for evolutionary relationships between fossils, or even for the fossils to be the remains of living things; if the rocks had contained layers of glass or ceramic beads of different sizes, shapes and colours, they could have been used to identify the rock formations and to establish the order of the succession.

In fact, 18th and early 19th century geologists saw the fossil record in terms of replacement rather than evolution. To use an analogy, the Pope or the American President is not the son or daughter of his or her predecessor (i.e. replacement), whereas the king or queen of England is usually the son or daughter of their predecessor (i.e evolution). To use another analogy, the Native American languages of pre-Columbian America were replaced by European languages; the Latin language of ancient Rome evolved into modern Italian. Stratigraphy would still be valid if the old catastrophist theory had been correct, if all the living things of, for example, the Permian period had been wiped out without leaving any descendants, and God had created a new set of animals and plants at the beginning of the Triassic period to replace them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will never be defeated. Get over it kid.

All dates of science are embedded age dates! They embed evidence with their antiChrist belief system.

You have been defeated countless times, you are the one that needs to get over it.

And you just stated that you believe in a lying God. There are groups such as Biologos that are Christians and accept the reality of evolution that openly claim the reason they believe that evolution is correct is that otherwise one ultimately has to have the belief that you just stated. Also scientists do not "embed evidence". Nor are scientists "antiChrist". Now you have just made a false accusation that you cannot support. Hmm, what commandment did you just break there?

 

[RickG]

If the premise is faulty, the conclusion is on a shaky foundation.

“The premise that the processes affecting the earth today are the same as in the past is the basis for determining how sedimentary features in the rock record were formed. …

The scientific basis of this is the principle of uniformitarianism, which states that the sediments within ancient sedimentary rocks were deposited in the same way as sediments which are being deposited at the Earth's surface today. …

Ref.: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sedimentology

“Based on the rule of superposition —that is, the lower the strata, the older the fossil—creatures thought to have evolved first are considered to be the oldest and are placed at the bottom of the geologic column and creatures thought to have evolved later are placed higher up on the geologic column. Paleontologists simply guess how long it would take for one fossil animal to evolve into another, and then date the fossils and rocks accordingly.

Again, evolution is assumed as a basis or premise for this dating technique.

This has led many competent scientists to object to what is termed circular reasoning. Evolutionists maintain the age of index fossils is validated by the superposition of rock strata and the age of rock strata is validated by index fossils. Isn’t this circular reasoning based on the assumption of evolution and uniformitarianism? …

If uniformity theory over many millions of years were true, rock layers and formations would be uniformly deposited regionally and globally. In reality, this is not the case. The typical situation in geology is that only a few rock formations are superposed (that is, younger rock layers placed over older rock layers). Most often, rock formations are inverted, folded, inserted, repeated, or missing, and fossils are in reverse order from that demanded by evolution. Such inconsistencies are found throughout the world and are completely consistent with catastrophic geologic processes (that is, earthquakes, volcanism, flood, sedimentation, orogeny, and erosion) occurring within a short period of time. …”

Ref.: http://www.creationsciencetoday.com/24-Standard_Geologic_Column.html

How Reliable is the Geologic Column?

“Back in November of 2010, we posted two articles on the discovery of the oldest fossil shrimp: ‘Remarkably Preserved’ Shrimp Is 350 Million Years Old?, ‘Oldest’ Fossil Shrimp?. In those articles we discussed how this one fossil shrimp extended its known fossil range by 115 million years (evolution date) and how finely preserved it was. Today I want to take a quick look at what this fossil and others really tell us about the evolutionary interpretation of the geological column.

Currently sedimentary rocks are extremely difficult to date by any radioisotopic method. Therefore, the prevailing method of dating sedimentary strata is by what fossils are found in what particular layer

Ref.: http://creationrevolution.com/how-reliable-is-the-geologic-column/

Hi Nic, rather than respond to each opinion you posted, I'm going to respond primarily in general, as much of it is related. And before I begin, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not presenting an argument for evolution, nor do I wish to discuss evolution. So please keep that in mind.

The first thing I wish to point out is that "uniformitarianism" is not based on evolution nor is it in any respect circular reasoning. The concept of uniformitarianism precedes the concept evolution.

Second, the use of index fossils not only has nothing to do with evolution, it is not circular reasoning. An index fossil is a fossil of either fauna or flora that is found only in specific layers of strata and no where else, and geologically speaking, over a relatively short period of time. Index fossils are not dated directly. The sedimentary strata in which they are found is dated. And because these fossils are found over a range of strata there is a range of dates, an upper and lower date. That is the fossil is not found before a certain date nor after a certain date. This is what is called a relative date. Thus if we find a specific fossil (index fossil), we know that the strata in which we find it is of a specific relative date (range of dates). Now again, keep in mind that the strata is dated not the fossil. This is in no way circular reasoning because we have a specific relative date obtained completely independent of the fossil. This is a very important concept I want to you understand. Please ask questions if you are not sure of what I am describing.

Third, you have seemed to pose a question as to whether we know sedimentation occurred the same in the past as we see in the present. Is there any support for such a suggestion? No, none in the least. Conversely, we see the same (many various types) of sedimentation throughout the geologic column regardless of age. Now if you will, recall a previous conversation we had when you asked if I was a geologist. No, I do not consider myself a geologist as my specific academic background was Earth Science. Actually they are very much the same as academic specialties become more and more diversified. My area included three main disciplines, Geology, Oceanography, and Climatology. All three of those are interrelated and connected on the most part through "Sedimentology" and "Sedimentary Petrology", as the physical structure, and chemistry are the roots to understanding those processes. Most of my professional career (now retired) was as a research chemist and process engineer in private industry. I mention this because through the understanding of the physical properties and reactions of chemistry, one understands that if physical properties were different at anytime in the past, they would be easily identifiable. Take a look at the periodic table. Each element has a specific structure completely different from any other element, and within each element we find different structures of the same element, which are isotopes. For example take Carbon; there are 15 known isotopes of carbon, but only three of them occur naturally. Two of the natural isotopes (12C and 13C) and stable and one is unstable (14C). The thing all carbon atoms have in common is the number of "protons". Regardless of the isotope, they all have 6 protons. It is the neutrons that are different, which for the three I previously mentioned would be 6,7 & 8 respectively. What I am getting at is that each isotope under specific conditions always have the same bonding properties with other atoms, and we see the same properties in all layers of strata regardless of age. If there had been some change in the past, we would see this (physical) change in the properties of chemical compounds. Again, they are the same regardless of age.

Last, you mentioned that sedimentary rocks are difficult to date by any radioisotopic method. Of course the idea of that statement is to infer that dating sedimentary rocks is unreliable. Is dating sedimentary rocks difficult? Well, its not something that would be done in a high school chemistry lab, but in a geochemical lab, the many available methods for dating sedimentary material is not unreliable. In fact those methods are quite robust and improving all the time as new information, techniques, and instrumentation becomes available. One such technique is the topic of a thread I currently have which the young earth crowd seems to be avoiding. Its called Atomic Trap Trace Analysis (ATTA). One method there uses the ratios of 81K/85K (Krypton). The uniqueness of this method is that any contamination is completely irrelevant, as the process measures individual atoms.

 

[RickG]

A significant development of recent years has been the fact that many evolutionary geologists are now also recognizing this problem. They no longer ignore it or pass it off with a sarcastic denial, but admit that it (circular reasoning) is a real problem which deserves a serious answer. ..."

Just gotta love made up terms by YEC sources: "evolutionary geologist". Wow! Just wow. As for "circular reasoning". There is no circular reasoning with index fossils. The only circular thing about it is the misrepresentation by YEC proponents, of what an index fossil is and how it is dated.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

But actual red blood cells were not found.

“It seemed utterly impossible—organic remains were not supposed to survive the fossilization process—but test after test indicated that the spherical structures were indeed red blood cells from a 67-million-year-old …

Schweitzer and her colleagues have continued to amass support for their interpretation. The latest evidence comes from a molecular analysis of what look to be bone cells, or osteocytes, from T. rex and Brachylophosaurus canadensis. …

Furthermore, using a technique called mass spectrometry, the investigators found amino acid sequences of proteins in extracts of the dinosaur bone that matched sequences from proteins called actin, tubulin and histone4 that are present in the cells of all animals. …

Ref.: http://www.nature.com/news/molecula...ontroversial-claim-for-dinosaur-cells-1.11637

 

[Loudmouth]

I will never be defeated. Get over it kid.

All dates of science are embedded age dates! They embed evidence with their antiChrist belief system.

Then what features would 65 million year old rocks have that these rocks are missing?

 

[RickG]

“It seemed utterly impossible—organic remains were not supposed to survive the fossilization process—but test after test indicated that the spherical structures were indeed red blood cells from a 67-million-year-old …

Schweitzer and her colleagues have continued to amass support for their interpretation. The latest evidence comes from a molecular analysis of what look to be bone cells, or osteocytes, from T. rex and Brachylophosaurus canadensis. …

Furthermore, using a technique called mass spectrometry, the investigators found amino acid sequences of proteins in extracts of the dinosaur bone that matched sequences from proteins called actin, tubulin and histone4 that are present in the cells of all animals. …

Ref.: http://www.nature.com/news/molecula...ontroversial-claim-for-dinosaur-cells-1.11637

There's nothing like the original source(s). Here'a link to a number of open access papers by Dr. Mary Schweitzer.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~mhschwei/Research.html

 

[Loudmouth]

“It seemed utterly impossible—organic remains were not supposed to survive the fossilization process—but test after test indicated that the spherical structures were indeed red blood cells from a 67-million-year-old …

Schweitzer and her colleagues have continued to amass support for their interpretation. The latest evidence comes from a molecular analysis of what look to be bone cells, or osteocytes, from T. rex and Brachylophosaurus canadensis. …

Furthermore, using a technique called mass spectrometry, the investigators found amino acid sequences of proteins in extracts of the dinosaur bone that matched sequences from proteins called actin, tubulin and histone4 that are present in the cells of all animals. …

Ref.: http://www.nature.com/news/molecula...ontroversial-claim-for-dinosaur-cells-1.11637

At one time, heavier than air flying craft seemed utterly impossible. That doesn't mean that airplanes use magic.

 

[dad]

Then what features would 65 million year old rocks have that these rocks are missing?

The isotopes in rocks left over from being created that way, which you misread as age related, are fine, thank you very much. Only the sick religion needs to go.

 

[dad]

And you just stated that you believe in a lying God.

Let me clear up your purposeful misunderstanding. I believe in a True God..Jesus, who created it all. I also believe He gave us Scripture. Hows them apples?

There are groups such as Biologos that are Christians and accept the reality of evolution that openly claim the reason they believe that evolution is correct is that otherwise one ultimately has to have the belief that you just stated.

People that wear the christian tee shirt or hat can believe many things. Obama believes in drone terror. Many 'christian' leaders and lawmakers believe in warmongering in places like the US. Hitler believed in killing Jews and others. Popes murdered millions. Etc etc. I do not care what people believe, I am more concerned with what God says. They must match that, or stand exposed as frauds.

Also scientists do not "embed evidence".

Yes that is ALL they do!! They embed their wicked assumptions and beliefs onto all evidences and theories they can maniacally get hold of! Fanatics.

Nor are scientists "antiChrist".

Jesus created the world, so anyone that claims He did not is against the Creator, who is Christ. That is well termed anti Christ.

Might as well face reality here. Time is short.

 

[Subduction Zone]

“It seemed utterly impossible—organic remains were not supposed to survive the fossilization process—but test after test indicated that the spherical structures were indeed red blood cells from a 67-million-year-old …

Schweitzer and her colleagues have continued to amass support for their interpretation. The latest evidence comes from a molecular analysis of what look to be bone cells, or osteocytes, from T. rex and Brachylophosaurus canadensis. …

Furthermore, using a technique called mass spectrometry, the investigators found amino acid sequences of proteins in extracts of the dinosaur bone that matched sequences from proteins called actin, tubulin and histone4 that are present in the cells of all animals. …

Ref.: http://www.nature.com/news/molecula...ontroversial-claim-for-dinosaur-cells-1.11637

Using a quote mine in a reply is dishonest. It is a form of lying. Why did you edit out the next sentence in that reply?

" At best remnants of blood cells were found, the article that you used said exactly that."

I followed that with a quote from the article that you linked that supported me.

And yes, Scweitzer was amazed when she found collagen. So what? She thought it was not possible but the fossils showed that she was wrong. If you are tying to make a point try to state it clearly. This is no way to debate. Make your claim, use quotes from the article that supports your claim.

 

[RickG]

The isotopes in rocks left over from being created that way, which you misread as age related, are fine, thank you very much. Only the sick religion needs to go.

And how are the isotopes missing? By what means?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me clear up your purposeful misunderstanding. I believe in a True God..Jesus, who created it all. I also believe He gave us Scripture. Hows them apples?

You can believe whatever you want to believe, that has no bearing on this debate.

People that wear the christian tee shirt or hat can believe many things. Obama believes in drone terror. Many 'christian' leaders and lawmakers believe in warmongering in places like the US. Hitler believed in killing Jews and others. Popes murdered millions. Etc etc. I do not care what people believe, I am more concerned with what God says. They must match that, or stand exposed as frauds.

But you don't know what "God says". You have only the Bible and as you know that book has hundreds of errors, ranging from self contradictions, bad science, incredibly evil morals of the God of the Old Testament, errant history and of course failed prophecies. To call that the "word of God" is blasphemous to say the least.

Yes that is ALL they do!! They embed their wicked assumptions and beliefs onto all evidences and theories they can maniacally get hold of! Fanatics.

If you can't prove that you just broke the Ninth Commandment by bearing false witness against your neighbor.

Jesus created the world, so anyone that claims He did not is against the Creator, who is Christ. That is well termed anti Christ.

Even if this is true you have no idea how it was done. You keep trying to tell Jesus how he had to make the world. Again, this is a blasphemous view point.

Might as well face reality here. Time is short.

I already have. When will you?

 

[dad]

And how are the isotopes missing? By what means?

Missing? None are missing are they? Science does claim many are missing, but that's another story. Another story they can't prove by the way!

 

[dad]

You can believe whatever you want to believe, that has no bearing on this debate.



But you don't know what "God says". You have only the Bible and as you know that book has hundreds of errors, ranging from self contradictions, bad science, incredibly evil morals of the God of the Old Testament, errant history and of course failed prophecies. To call that the "word of God" is blasphemous to say the least.



If you can't prove that you just broke the Ninth Commandment by bearing false witness against your neighbor.



Even if this is true you have no idea how it was done. You keep trying to tell Jesus how he had to make the world. Again, this is a blasphemous view point.



I already have. When will you?

So to reiterate, the so called science that claims creation was some other way than Christ, is anti Christ blather. As for your opinion of God's word, get over yourself, who cares??

 

[Nic Samojluk]

For someone that assaulted creation in Genesis

I did not assault creation but rather your interpretation of the story of creation. Jesus Christ did believe in the story of Adam & Eve, and I do too.

“God’s creation of human beings in his own image and the historic fall of our first parents are not minor parts of the biblical account we may conveniently remove. For if we deny that Adam is historical, what reason do we have to believe in a historical fall? And if the fall is not historical, then God did not make humans perfect, but sinful. We are left with a totally different understanding of sin, grace, and the cross. We might as well throw our confessional documents away. …”

Ref.: http://www.thebanner.org/departments/2012/07/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist

 

[JasonClark]

So to reiterate, the so called science that claims creation was some other way than Christ, is anti Christ blather. As for your opinion of God's word, get over yourself, who cares??

That's everyone else's argument in a nutshell, who cares?

 

[Nic Samojluk]

But life is only a few thousand years old?

Young Life, Old Earth

“Suggesting the universe didn’t exist until 6,000 years before the present lacks support of both Scripture and science. The Genesis account depicts the creation of life, and its supporting ecosystem, not the origin of matter—much less the concurrent beginning of the entire universe! …

The Bible specifically pictures the existence of a chunk of water-covered matter, “formless and empty,” floating in cosmic “darkness” 1 existing at the beginning of the recent week when God commanded the creation of life and the transformation of inert matter into a perfect, vibrantly alive Blue Planet. …

There is no place in the Genesis narrative, from day one through day seven, referencing the specific creation of matter, water, energy, space, or angels—much less the beginning of the entire universe. Suggesting otherwise diverts attention from the Bible’s big picture focus on the miraculous creation of life on earth. ..."

Ref.: http://genesisfile.com/?page_id=429

 

[Loudmouth]

So to reiterate, the so called science that claims creation was some other way than Christ, is anti Christ blather. As for your opinion of God's word, get over yourself, who cares??

You can't show us one shred of evidence that is inconsistent with an old earth or evolution. What does that tell you?

 

[Loudmouth]

The isotopes in rocks left over from being created that way, which you misread as age related, are fine, thank you very much. Only the sick religion needs to go.

Why would they be exactly the ratios that an old earth would produce? Why would K/Ar dating give the same dates as Rb/Sr and U/Pb dating?