Great thread. Would read again
Post Reply
1 of 1
Dating Fossils and Rocks with Circular Reasoning
1,646 Views |
22 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by PacifistAg
mark.mathews
Joined:
Sep 6, 2015
Posts:
177
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I am proud of the 1000 views in 24 hours on the "Creation Science vs. Berkeley" thread. Christians please continue to educate yourselves over special creation vs. uniformitarianism.
You will find special creation has the superior explanation for our universe and that uniformitarianism is based on false logic as you will see in this thread.
Ignore the devoted atheists on these threads. They have bought into the delusion, blinding their eyes to facts and ultimately the truth. Remember we war against spiritual wickedness in high places, not against flesh and blood or cyber bullying.
Peace brethren.
You will find special creation has the superior explanation for our universe and that uniformitarianism is based on false logic as you will see in this thread.
Ignore the devoted atheists on these threads. They have bought into the delusion, blinding their eyes to facts and ultimately the truth. Remember we war against spiritual wickedness in high places, not against flesh and blood or cyber bullying.
Peace brethren.
"Circular reasoning" is a method of false logic, by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this." It is also called "reasoning in a circle." Over a hundred years ago it was described by the phrase, circulus in probando, which is Latin for "a circle in a proof."
As we will see below, geologists admit that this circular reasoning exists as a fundamental pillar of geological faith. For example, in a 1979 interview with *Dr. Donald Fisher, the state paleontologist for New York, Luther Sunderland, asked him: "How do you date fossils?" His reply: "By the Cambrian rocks in which they were found." Sunderland then asked him if this were not circular reasoning, and *Fisher replied, "Of course, how else are you going to do it?" (Bible Science Newsletter, December 1986, p. 6.)
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/12fos11.htm
As we will see below, geologists admit that this circular reasoning exists as a fundamental pillar of geological faith. For example, in a 1979 interview with *Dr. Donald Fisher, the state paleontologist for New York, Luther Sunderland, asked him: "How do you date fossils?" His reply: "By the Cambrian rocks in which they were found." Sunderland then asked him if this were not circular reasoning, and *Fisher replied, "Of course, how else are you going to do it?" (Bible Science Newsletter, December 1986, p. 6.)
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/12fos11.htm
You know how you demonstrate that the fossil record is unreliable? Find a species that is far too advanced for a period in the layers for that time period. We're still waiting.
Paleontology is verified independently of just the strata. Likewise, the relationship of the strata can be verified without index fossils. They are just convenient markers that support one another.
Paleontology is verified independently of just the strata. Likewise, the relationship of the strata can be verified without index fossils. They are just convenient markers that support one another.
"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. 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."*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 53.
I personally defer to honest scientists who admit the flaws in their system. Not atheists defending their fundamentally flawed beliefs.
"Given the fact of evolution one would expect the fossils to document a gradual and steady change from the ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead he or she finds gaps in every phyletic series." -Ernst Mayr, Former Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, What Evolution Is 2001 p.14
I personally defer to honest scientists who admit the flaws in their system. Not atheists defending their fundamentally flawed beliefs.
"Given the fact of evolution one would expect the fossils to document a gradual and steady change from the ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead he or she finds gaps in every phyletic series." -Ernst Mayr, Former Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, What Evolution Is 2001 p.14
That's essentially your OP. You've already had two replies to that very issue. Why are you just restating what you've already said rather than rebutting the responses?
quote:
That's essentially your OP. You've already had two replies to that very issue. Why are you just restating what you've already said rather than rebutting the responses?
He's never rebutted anything because he doesn't understand these topics. He just regurgitates what he sees from ICR, Answers in Genesis, and Discovery Institute.
I'm still waiting to hear from him what happens you throw a 10^51 sided die.
LOL. Ahh, he's that guy. Got it.
OP you should publish your arguments in PNAS, Science, or Nature. Then you will have become one of the most groundbreaking scientists alive. Let us know when you've gotten your paper through peer review.
Notice I am the "Lord of the Flies" for these unrepentant atheistic goons. They are the first to post. attack, deny, and post garbage from their atheistic websites talkorigins and rationalwiki.
I post quotes of their own scientists admitting the flaws in their systems and they go berserk! It's beautiful, I know. Thank you.
Atheists I suggest you defer to Pasteur and Borel. They are far more knowledgeable than you, I let them do the talking. You need to accept their conclusions because they were arrived by observable and repeatable scientific testing that disprove the theories you base your belief systems on.
I post quotes of their own scientists admitting the flaws in their systems and they go berserk! It's beautiful, I know. Thank you.
Atheists I suggest you defer to Pasteur and Borel. They are far more knowledgeable than you, I let them do the talking. You need to accept their conclusions because they were arrived by observable and repeatable scientific testing that disprove the theories you base your belief systems on.
This board needs way more Catholics and far less southern baptists.
quote:
"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. 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."*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 53.
I personally defer to honest scientists who admit the flaws in their system. Not atheists defending their fundamentally flawed beliefs.
"Given the fact of evolution one would expect the fossils to document a gradual and steady change from the ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead he or she finds gaps in every phyletic series." -Ernst Mayr, Former Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, What Evolution Is 2001 p.14
Have you actually read Mayr? I mean beyond the cherry-picked quote that ignores his point?
quote:Hey, what about us Anabaptists?
This board needs way more Catholics and far less southern baptists.
quote:Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that this is a sock for another poster here that likes to engage in name-calling of atheists and those that disagree with him?
Notice I am the "Lord of the Flies" for these unrepentant atheistic goons. They are the first to post. attack, deny, and post garbage from their atheistic websites talkorigins and rationalwiki.
I post quotes of their own scientists admitting the flaws in their systems and they go berserk! It's beautiful, I know. Thank you.
quote:Guess againquote:Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that this is a sock for another poster here that likes to engage in name-calling of atheists and those that disagree with him?
Notice I am the "Lord of the Flies" for these unrepentant atheistic goons. They are the first to post. attack, deny, and post garbage from their atheistic websites talkorigins and rationalwiki.
I post quotes of their own scientists admitting the flaws in their systems and they go berserk! It's beautiful, I know. Thank you.
quote:more like anti-Baptists, amirite???quote:Hey, what about us Anabaptists?
This board needs way more Catholics and far less southern baptists.
quote:
Ignore the devoted atheists on these threads.
Good point! Why would you want to subject yourself to alternate ideas? You wouldn't want to come up with any questions or conclusions that conflict with your presupposed truths, right?
Oh, nevermind.
Oh, nevermind.
When have I ever called you a name? Also, I didn't call you out. I said the OP's style reminds me of another poster here, which led me to suspect it's a sock. I didn't mention you by name at all. You didn't get mentioned until you popped in to own that comparison, and in the process, engaged in the name-calling and insults that I had alluded to w/ the OP.
Featured Stories
See All
9:11
8h ago
6.6k
42:45
16h ago
3.4k
The Good Ol' Days: Reminiscing on Texas A&M's magical spring of '89
by David Sandhop
35:53
19h ago
3.5k