A Quick Case of Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Biology – P2ALM
God created as is. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email.
- Circular reasoning???.
- hong kong christian online dating!
- Is There Circular Logic in Fossil Dating?.
Notify me of new posts via email. After addressing how radiometric dating can show the age of rocks without addressing any of its flaws the set-up , it shows this diagram: What's on your mind? The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain.
Even some of the most devout and well known evolutionists are honest when confronting this problem. The highly respected coauthor of the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria , Dr. There is no gradual ascension of life forms in the rock layers. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that , Ten years after Dr. Gould of Harvard; he was reconsidering his position and wrote: There is no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from.
And this poses something of a problem: Eldredge, Niles, Time Frames: Simon and Schuster, , p. Evolutionists do not use any form of modern technology to determine of the age of sedimentary rock layers.
- amish girl hookup.
- A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims?
- swedish dating culture.
This may be confirmed by simply quoting the noted Canadian geologist, and past President of the Canadian Geological Society, Dr. One honest evolutionary believing geologist admits to all the problems and he tells us how evolutionists may overcome all these objections to their use of circular reasoning in determining the ages for the sedimentary layers and fossils that are in the ground. He presents his solution for all to see in the prestigious magazine, The American Journal of Science.
The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. Are you intelligent lay people? Then you have long suspected this problem - right? He goes on to say: Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales. You have got to love that sentence which is made up of pure pschobabble. What are his final solutions?
What were his final solutions? First, the public should not be concerned about this problem even though it does exist. Third, just be honest and admit it all, but hope no one is really paying attention to what you are saying. Fourth, pragmatic reasoning may be used to justify anything that you want to believe. How often have we all wanted to avoid a problem in our lives by using pragmatic reasoning?
Why, yes, that is the delusion that solves all their problems! An Educational Missionary Organization. Constantly renewed, constantly stretched, constantly renewed once more. Due to expansion, the second law will never see total fruition. It's like the speed of light. You can get infinately closer to the goal, but you will never attain it. To sum things up your throwing out the established LAWS of thermodynamics in order to invalidate my arguments. The rocks are dated by the fossils, but the fossils are dated by the rocks??? A common creationist talking point, but a baseless one.
Geologists have ways of avoiding circularity, which they used long before radiometric dating became practical. They use principles called stratigraphic laws:.
Recognizing the Beast System: Analyzing World Trends and Events Through the Lens of Bible Prophecy
None of these have any connection with biological evolution, and faunal succession requires no hypotheses about what evolved from what. Thus, brachiopods were common in the Paleozoic, and bivalves common afterwards, but bivalves had not evolved from brachiopods -- the two had coexisted over geological time, and their latest common ancestor was some late-Precambrian primtive lophotrochozoan. I think that's more than enough for our purposes, OP. The rest is poetry, imagination. Just because two sets of data compliment each other does not automatically make them into circular logic.
In this case, there are several sets of data that create an unbroken line of reasoning and thus are really linear. For example, I don't think that anyone has a large problem with setting up a chronology by non-controversial methods which are easily confirmed. Tree rings come to mind here. They can be carbon dated and analyzed for clues as to the sequence of weather from one year to the next.
Many different trees from one area can then be lined up to establish a chronology going back as far as decent sections of trees can be found.
Fence posts are an especially important piece of data as they can take us back as far as people have been building fences. Pretty much to the beginning of agriculture. Past that, there are varves. Every stream and lake has them as they are the source for sedimentary rock. Since organic matter gets layered in as they form, again, carbon dating is possible and that takes us back as far as carbon dating goes.
Generally a bit over 50, years is reasonable. Given a large enough sample, dates ca be obtained out past , years. From this point, we take layers of sedimentary rock and compare them from one sample to another. This leads us to stratigraphic dating as Ieptrich described so well. Then we have at least 15 different radiometric decay series, each usable of some range of years. So we don't simply use two reinforcing data sets. We use about 20 data sets that each valid over some range of dates and each overlaps at least one other data set for enough of the past that we have a fairly continuous chain of chronology.
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free. However "Faunal Succession" as you call it is almost certainly critical to understanding the fossil record - to say nothing about major extinction events! Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'.
By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally. Contact Download Shows Rules. The Rational Response Squad A place for activist atheists to unite. To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty. Create new account Request new password. June 8, - 1:
Related fossil dating circular reasoning
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved