the cyclic argumentation of Darwinian Evolution

[joinfree]

Is the cyclic argumentation of Darwinian Evolution (the age of fossils is measured by layers, and the age of layers is measured by the fossils) bad? It is bad, if it is sin. There are good cyclic formulations too: the time is the physical thing, what the clock measures; and the clock is the Standard Instrument of Metrology, which measures the time. More about beautiful connections between physical and living are in:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-45585.html

 

[Shemjaza]

Is the cyclic argumentation of Darwinian Evolution (the age of fossils is measured by layers, and the age of layers is measured by the fossils) bad? It is bad, if it is sin. There are good cyclic formulations too: the time is the physical thing, what the clock measures; and the clock is the Standard Instrument of Metrology, which measures the time. More about beautiful connections between physical and living are in:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-45585.html

Except layers are also measured by radiometric dating and compared to tree rings and varve remnants.

(I followed your link, but I can't see how it relates to modern dating techniques... but it did remind me to listen to Soundgarden again, so that's awesome.)

 

[Nithavela]

Neither the age of fossils nor the age of a layer is measured solely by the other metric.

The real question is, do you even care and want to learn something on here, or do you only wish to spout falsehoods withouth a care in the hopes of pushing your agenda? Only time will tell.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is the cyclic argumentation of Darwinian Evolution (the age of fossils is measured by layers, and the age of layers is measured by the fossils) bad? It is bad, if it is sin. There are good cyclic formulations too: the time is the physical thing, what the clock measures; and the clock is the Standard Instrument of Metrology, which measures the time.

The first assertion is simply incorrect as already explained.

The second assertion isn't cyclic. Time is measured by clocks. Length is measured by rulers, fallacies are measured by critical thinking.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is the cyclic argumentation of Darwinian Evolution (the age of fossils is measured by layers, and the age of layers is measured by the fossils) bad?

It's not bad or good.
It is just false.

 

[Loudmouth]

Is the cyclic argumentation of Darwinian Evolution (the age of fossils is measured by layers, and the age of layers is measured by the fossils) bad? It is bad, if it is sin. There are good cyclic formulations too: the time is the physical thing, what the clock measures; and the clock is the Standard Instrument of Metrology, which measures the time. More about beautiful connections between physical and living are in:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-45585.html

Darwinian evolution isn't used to date rocks.

Rocks are dated by their isotope content, not by the fossils found in and amongst the rocks.

 

[Mobezom]

But what if radiation was faster yesterday? Then the yesterday could have been today, which disproves Relativity! [/poe]

 

[Ophiolite]

Darwinian evolution isn't used to date rocks.

Rocks are dated by their isotope content, not by the fossils found in and amongst the rocks.

I must disagree with you. True, the absolute age of rocks is determined by measuring isotope ratios, however palaeontologists and stratigraphers routinely date rocks by their fossil assemblages and by specific diagnostic fossils. This may simply be a matter of usage, but the usage I am familiar with from the professionals is as I have outlined.

 

[USincognito]

But what if radiation was faster yesterday? Then the yesterday could have been today, which disproves Relativity! [/poe]

My favorite is where the RATE group admits there's 500 million years worth of radioactive decay in the geological record and appeal to magic to get around that fact.

 

[Papias]

Is the cyclic argumentation of Darwinian Evolution (the age of fossils is measured by layers, and the age of layers is measured by the fossils) .....

First, as has been pointed out, "Darwinian Evolution" is not geology. Geology measures the age of rocks, not "evolution".

Secondly, the age of rocks is well established by the fact that there are literally dozens of different methods, based on often completely different physical properties, that are all used to date rocks. When multiple methods are used on the same sample, they almost always give the same age.

"why do the various dating methods (including C14, K-Ar, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, obsidian, protein racecimization, speleotherms, superposition, geologic event dating, geomagnetic polarity, Pb/U, association, Rb/St, and others), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample?"


If methods are wrong, they'll give wrong answers. It seems odd to suggest that they'll happen to all give the same "wrong" answer, again and again over hundreds of samples and thousands of tests.

It's obviously measuring the actual age of the sample. The strawman argument that dating is one only on the circular reasoning of dating layers by fossils and fossils by layers is typical of the lies put out by creationist websites. Don't be fooled.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Paul Finch]

Is the cyclic argumentation of Darwinian Evolution (the age of fossils is measured by layers, and the age of layers is measured by the fossils) bad? It is bad, if it is sin.

This just shows how much damage religions can do to perfectly good brains.

 

[AV1611VET]

This just shows how much damage religions can do to perfectly good brains.

Luke 5:31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
Luke 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Are you willing to admit that you too are damaged?

 

[Paul Finch]

Luke 5:31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
Luke 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Are you willing to admit that you too are damaged?

I admit that my brain has been damaged by reality, reality and the realisation of our own mortality can be damaging to some brains, I have however learned to live with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I admit that my brain has been damaged by reality, reality and the realisation of our own mortality can be damaging to some brains, I have however learned to live with it.

Well, I'd certainly like to see you in the after life as well.

After mortality catches up with us, and the Grim Reaper says, "Your table's ready."

Put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ, and I'll see you on the other side!

 

[Paul Finch]

Well, I'd certainly like to see you in the after life as well.
After mortality catches up with us, and the Grim Reaper says, "Your table's ready."
Put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ, and I'll see you on the other side!

That's where I have a problem, I can't bring myself to believe in fairy tales so I guess I'm doomed.