2007-09-11 08:56:12 · 10 answers · asked by a_n_d_r_e_w.g_i_b_s_o_n 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Earth Sciences & Geology
Obviously chas_chas has a zero understanding of basic geology. Fundamental creationists (a.k.a. chronologists) only count backwards through dogmatic documentation, not letting facts get in the way. They try to apply science to a pre-conceived answer.
As a geologist (and a practicing Christian) I am a scientist. By studying all the different rocks and formations and especially the process involved in creating them, we gain some understanding of what has happened in the past. Fossils are a great key to the past. What type of environment did this creature need to survive? Was it salt water (ocean or sea) or was it fresh water (lake or inland waterway)? Depositional environment is a key concept in geology. Fossils are, by the way, just an impression of what was once there. They are the rock type they are found in, such as limestone or shale. Any remnants of the animal are long gone.
Take a basic earth science or geology course. You will learn all about it.
As for chas_chas, be glad "old earth" geologists are around, otherwise no gasoline for your SUV, no SUV (iron and steel), no clothes on your back (synthetics), etc. If you don't grow it, it is mined form the earth!
2007-09-11 10:57:13 · answer #1 · answered by Tom-PG 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
They other folks have answered better than I probably could, but I wanted to add that geologists can also learn about 'pre-life' earth from reading the rocks - their relative positions (usually older ones are at the bottom of sequences) and what the rocks are made from - this can indicate changes in climate and environment. Looking at the rock record is like reading a book although some of the pages may be missing.
Radioactive dating can also be used to give actual ages of events.
2007-09-12 08:11:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They review existing records. Sometimes these are fossil records.
As scientists they must propose a hypothesis and then test this against known fact. If two possible hypothesis explain the same fact they must establish some test to prove one and disprove the other.
however, history is not science.
2007-09-11 09:41:39 · answer #3 · answered by The Red Fool 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
this is like on CSI.They use the data left at the back of from that element which would be stated right now (like a bloody knife mendacity by ability of a lifeless physique). They then arise with distinctive hypotheses approximately what activities would have taken place that would leave at the back of that data (i will wager he replaced into stabbed to dying). usually, such hypotheses carry approximately predicitions approximately what different styles of information could be chanced directly to corroborate the hypothesis (I are awaiting we are going to hit upon that the physique has a minimum of one stab wound). If the predictions are effective (See, there, precise interior the decrease back), the hypothesis graduates right into a concept.
2016-12-16 17:28:16 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To support Tom-PG:
http://www.csiro.au/science/ps1qb.html
2007-09-11 12:39:35 · answer #5 · answered by Batfish 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is an excellent question, and one that most people do not give enough attention to.
They do so on the basis of *assumptions*.
For example, take a fossil.
Evolutionists assume that the rocks containing the fossil were laid down very slowly and are therefore very old, and therefore the fossil is very old. This is known as uniformitarianism - 'the present is the key to the past'.
(Incidentally they use circular reasoning - fossils are dated by rocks and rocks are dated by fossils - all on the assumption of vast age.
Creationists assume that the rocks were laid down rapidly in the flood and are therefore young. This explains why the rocks in fact contain so many fossils! You don't bury a dinosaur one millimetre at at time. In fact the formation of fossils is very rare in the present since dead things get eaten very quickly.
So the exploration of earlier times is done on the basis of assumptions which form part of the observer's worldview.
All observers have the same evidence in the present, but can have very different interpretations of that evidence. Evidence does not speak for itself!
Next time someone tells you what happened in the past, check their assumptions. Many people don't even realise they are making them.
2007-09-11 09:17:13 · answer #6 · answered by a Real Truthseeker 7 · 0⤊ 6⤋
With a lot of guessing, approximations and hypothesis and saying, yep, that's possible.
2007-09-11 09:05:25 · answer #7 · answered by justaboutpeace 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
fossils, rocks, air bubbles in the arctic if its temperature their looking at
2007-09-11 09:09:18 · answer #8 · answered by Ben K-S 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
they get some living being fossil they perform carbon dating. if they get non living being they perform uranium dating.to know about them better search in google.com
2007-09-11 21:17:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
in dr who's time machine
2007-09-11 09:01:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋