Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[AV1611VET]

The bottom line is, YEC's have a phobia to staying on topic and having to actually discuss the science.

Is it science that made them a YEC in the first place?

It depends upon your definition of a YEC. Perhaps asking a YEC would be a better approach, or maybe a good thread for you to start.

Let's use your definition.

 

[RickG]

Let's use your definition.

A definition needs to specify a specific period of time because what was defined as YEC 100, 50, or 30 years ago to present makes all the difference. Early YECs used the knowledge of the day and had an honorable intentions. Today it is almost entirely based on the deliberate misrepresentation of science.

 

[lifepsyop]

Why would evolution need to be part of the discussion, when debating dating methods?

Because secular geochronologists believe that certain fossil assemblages are primary indicators of different geologic ages, i.e. evolutionary models of when different types of life "evolved". I don't know why you have to ask since this is so obvious.

 

[HitchSlap]

Because secular geochronologists believe that certain fossil assemblages are primary indicators of different geologic ages, i.e. evolutionary models of when different types of life "evolved". I don't know why you have to ask since this is so obvious.

There aren't any non-secular geochronologists. All you have are geochonologists. And they all say the earth is 4.54 byo +/-

 

[RickG]

Because secular geochronologists believe that certain fossil assemblages are primary indicators of different geologic ages, i.e. evolutionary models of when different types of life "evolved". I don't know why you have to ask since this is so obvious.

Actually that is an area of paleontology, not geochronology. And what you are talking about are index fossils which are specific species fossils of relatively geologic time that are found in strata, whether a single layer or many layers of strata, withing a range of dates and nowhere else. Thus by finding and recognizing a specific fossilized species, one knows the relative age of the fossil, which is generally a range of several million years, with the exception of being able to have index fossils of much less time from the Quaternary forward.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Because secular geochronologists believe that certain fossil assemblages are primary indicators of different geologic ages, i.e. evolutionary models of when different types of life "evolved". I don't know why you have to ask since this is so obvious.

And so wrong. certain fossil assemblages can aid dating, but are not the primary indicators.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because secular geochronologists believe that certain fossil assemblages are primary indicators of different geologic ages, i.e. evolutionary models of when different types of life "evolved". I don't know why you have to ask since this is so obvious.

Then how do they date meteorites and moon rocks?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And so wrong. certain fossil assemblages can aid dating, but are not the primary indicators.

Certain fossil data may if one admits it - also falsify such beliefs. No one ever looked for soft tissue on 95 million year old dinosaurs, because they knew it could not survive that long. Then when it is discovered quite by accident - the science that said it was impossible now suddenly decides it is possible. Instead of just accepting that those fossils are not as old as one believes and we don't have to pretend in magic processes. So we don't have to pretend those fossils have more carbon 14 than they are supposed to have. Fossils rgat date well within the accuracy of that process - consistently.

 

[Loudmouth]

Certain fossil data may if one admits it - also falsify such beliefs. No one ever looked for soft tissue on 95 million year old dinosaurs, because they knew it could not survive that long. Then when it is discovered quite by accident - the science that said it was impossible now suddenly decides it is possible. Instead of just accepting that those fossils are not as old as one believes and we don't have to pretend in magic processes. So we don't have to pretend those fossils have more carbon 14 than they are supposed to have. Fossils rgat date well within the accuracy of that process - consistently.

Why don't you accept that soft tissue can be preserved for that long?

 

[crjmurray]

Certain fossil data may if one admits it - also falsify such beliefs. No one ever looked for soft tissue on 95 million year old dinosaurs, because they knew it could not survive that long. Then when it is discovered quite by accident - the science that said it was impossible now suddenly decides it is possible. Instead of just accepting that those fossils are not as old as one believes and we don't have to pretend in magic processes. So we don't have to pretend those fossils have more carbon 14 than they are supposed to have. Fossils rgat date well within the accuracy of that process - consistently.

Who said it was impossible? Are you making that up?

 

[RickG]

Certain fossil data may if one admits it - also falsify such beliefs. No one ever looked for soft tissue on 95 million year old dinosaurs, because they knew it could not survive that long. Then when it is discovered quite by accident - the science that said it was impossible now suddenly decides it is possible. Instead of just accepting that those fossils are not as old as one believes and we don't have to pretend in magic processes. So we don't have to pretend those fossils have more carbon 14 than they are supposed to have. Fossils rgat date well within the accuracy of that process - consistently.

Two things Jseeker.

1. There was no soft tissue in the T-Rex bone Dr. Schweitzer had. It was solid fossilized rock. The soft tissue is a result of placing a piece of the bone in a cleaning solution to remove to remove dirt and debris. In doing this the minerals were dissolved leaving the soft collagen tissue. Was this a surprise and never before seen? Yes. Does this make the dinosaur bone less than 6,000 years in age? No! It's still 95 million years old. All it means is that we still have a lot to lean about the fossilization process. Nothing more.

2. There is no pretending in 14C in fossils where it should not be. There can be 14C in rocks and fossils of millions of years old. What is different is that this 14C is "in situ" 14C, not the cosmogenic 14C used to date late Pleistocene and Holocene fossils or objects. Furthermore, this in situ 14C can be easily separated and quantified from the cosmogenic 14C. I have described this process several times already in the CF and most likely early in this thread as well.

Please do not continue to make those false accusations.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Evolution is off topic to old-earth dating models? Are you joking?

So should we take your silence on the matter of RickG's challenge as a concession that you don't think you can hold your own in a formal debate on dating methods?

 

[The Cadet]

Because secular geochronologists believe that certain fossil assemblages are primary indicators of different geologic ages, i.e. evolutionary models of when different types of life "evolved". I don't know why you have to ask since this is so obvious.

So in addition to the oldest rocks found, which were dated without any such fossils, I think we'd all appreciate an answer to Loudmouth's questions about moon rocks and asteroids (which not only contain no fossil material but also cannot even be cross-checked against known dates on earth!). Because it seems to blow a huge hole in your theory that we use fossils to date rocks. And given that this whole discussion of radiometric dating arose when I asked why you questioned the old earth model, and that the rocks that really offer us a truly old boundary for the earth don't have fossils in them, it seems like a very bizarre dodge to make.

 

[crjmurray]

So in addition to the oldest rocks found, which were dated without any such fossils, I think we'd all appreciate an answer to Loudmouth's questions about moon rocks and asteroids (which not only contain no fossil material but also cannot even be cross-checked against known dates on earth!). Because it seems to blow a huge hole in your theory that we use fossils to date rocks. And given that this whole discussion of radiometric dating arose when I asked why you questioned the old earth model, and that the rocks that really offer us a truly old boundary for the earth don't have fossils in them, it seems like a very bizarre dodge to make.

Are you telling me we don't date asteroids with space fossils?

 

[lifepsyop]

Actually that is an area of paleontology, not geochronology. And what you are talking about are index fossils which are specific species fossils of relatively geologic time that are found in strata, whether a single layer or many layers of strata, withing a range of dates and nowhere else. Thus by finding and recognizing a specific fossilized species, one knows the relative age of the fossil, which is generally a range of several million years, with the exception of being able to have index fossils of much less time from the Quaternary forward.

How are fossils 'not an area' of geochronology when basic criteria informs that dated samples should be gathered from rock layers identified by specific fossil content?

 

[The Cadet]

How are fossils 'not an area' of geochronology when basic criteria informs that dated samples should be gathered from rock layers identified by specific fossil content?

HOW DO WE DATE SPACE ROCKS.

 

[AV1611VET]

HOW DO WE DATE SPACE ROCKS.

Probably from the point of origination.

Then they date the point of origination from the space rocks.

 

[HitchSlap]

Probably from the point of origination.

Then they date the point of origination from the space rocks.

And all because we don't classify Pluto as a planet any longer.
Pobrocito.

 

[RickG]

How are fossils 'not an area' of geochronology when basic criteria informs that dated samples should be gathered from rock layers identified by specific fossil content?

No. Dating the strata through through either radiometric or non-radiometric dating methods is geochronology. Recognizing a specific species of a fossil to be found only between two previously dated layers of strata is a correlation, not a dating method. The upper and lower dates are obtained from the strata, not the fossil. If you send an "index fossil" to a geochronology lab and ask them to date it, they will send it back with a cordial, but very direct letter, stating that you need to see a paleontologist.

 

[lifepsyop]

No. Dating the strata through through either radiometric or non-radiometric dating methods is geochronology. Recognizing a specific species of a fossil to be found only between two previously dated layers of strata is a correlation, not a dating method. The upper and lower dates are obtained from the strata, not the fossil. If you send an "index fossil" to a geochronology lab and ask them to date it, they will send it back with a cordial, but very direct letter, stating that you need to see a paleontologist.

Clearly, I didn't say anything about using an actual fossil as a sample to be dated in a lab.

I said fossils are interpreted as indicators representing geologic ages (i.e. evolutionary stages). Anyone attempting to resolve a deep-time dating scheme around, say, the transition from dinosaur fossils to 'higher' mammal fossils, is totally committed in their faith that the biostratigraphical sequence represents a transition of millions of years of evolutionary progression.

Geochronologists do not ever consider whether it is possible that there may be no significant time difference between dinosaur and 'higher' mammal fossil assemblages. This would be a blasphemy as it would negate evolutionary time. The fossils *have* to represent respective "ages" and any data indicating otherwise would automatically be interpreted as error. They approach the problem fully committed to the evolutionary faith, and their mission to resolve the 'millions of years' dating schemes.