Evolutionists(atheists).............?

Question

.............Ever notice the circular reasoning behind the "dating" of bones and fossils?They date the bones based on the layers,then they date the layers based on the bones????
The Geologic column(totally 100% made up)is how they ASSUME how old they are.Bones do NOT have dates on them like coins and dollar bills.

BTW--all the dating methods(like c-14)are not accurate.They have carbon dated live snails at being 5,000 years old.LOL
Were the science text book writers there millions of years ago to see this?were YOU there millions of years ago to see anything?
SO--it is all 100% assumption!!!

Answer 1

I'm not an atheist. I am a Christian, but I will endeavor to answer your question as monosylabically as possible.

The ignorance of science and scientific method you exhibit borders on the imbecilic.

Get a basic science book and read it, unless you are afraid it will crush your weak fundamentalist faith into layers and bones of your own.

Answer 2

Kent Hovind? How did you get out of jail?

Actually, the whole circular reasoning thing you've mentioned is bull and has been exposed as such many times:

Generally, rocks can be given an _ESTIMATED_ age based on the fossils found in it. There are a lot of fossils that have been identified as being found only in certain eras and so can be used in this manner. So when someone has some rock with fossils only found within a range of 100,000 and 200,000 years ago they can _ESTIMATE_ the age of the rock to about that age. If needs be then they will conduct OTHER tests to determine a more specific age, though it will still be within a wide range.

Fossils can be initially dated in a similar way. Certain geological layers have been given rough ages and so fossils can be given an _ESTIMATED_ age using a similar method. Again, OTHER tests are done to clarify the age.

As for carbon-14 dating, it's been determined that living organisms CANNOT be dated, specifically those that take minerals older than themselves into their body - such as molluscs (including snails) - as it screws up the reading. Generally carbon-14 dating has a range of about 50,000~ years and so other methods must be used.

And finally, you've made a lot of wild claims, most of which have already been debunked, and you offer absolutely no proof, no links, no citations at all. Was there even any point in posting this?

Answer 3

Posting a science question in the religion and spirituality section often means the asker does not really want an answer. His goal is to ask a question that he believes proves some scientific knowledge to be wrong, or that science does not yet answer, and make the implicit claim that the only other explanation is a god, and specifically, the same god he happens to believe in.

It's the "god of the gaps" - intellectually bankrupt, since it favors ignorance instead of knowledge, and because of the contained logical fallacy.

However, on the off chance that you really want to know the answer:

1. Many strata are not dated from fossils. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric dating. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy.

Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means.

2. The geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution.

Links:
MacRae, Andrew. 1997-1998. Radiometric dating and the geological time scale: Circular reasoning or reliable tools? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

---


* Over 99.8% of scientists in relevant field accept evolution.
* There are no alternative scientific theories.
* There is a huge amount of evidence in support of evolution...
* And zero evidence against it.
* The 'discussion' is actually educated people trying to educate others.
* The more intelligent a person is, the more likely they are to understand and accept evolution.
* The "discussion" only happens in backward places like Turkey and parts of the united states.

Answer 4

This is another false argument persistently recycled by creationists who are impervious to logic and learning. It has been refuted thousands of times already: rocks are also dated radiometrically, by the steady decay of isotopes, and this is how their actual (as opposed to relative) ages are found. And guess what? These ages are consistent with the geological column (which really does exist) and therefore the fossils contained therein.

However, the creationists' Final Solution to this example of scientific detective work is to simply reject it! They will tell you with a straight face (and badly concealed fury) that either those isotopes were put there to 'test our faith' or that the rate of radioactive decay changes over time, for which of course there is no evidence whatsoever.

Answer 5

OK, just for starters, not all evolutionists are atheists. I'm both an evolutionist an a (non-fundie) Christian.

Now, on to your main point: scientists don't "date the layers based on the bones." They date the layers based on radioisotope decay -- empirical evidence gathered in the laboratory.

Please take some good science classes.

Answer 6

That's not the only method used for dating fossils. Carbon 14 test isn't based on layers.

Answer 7

This makes me laugh. You are saying that science assumes how old bones are. Wrong. What do you assume - there is no proof of Jesus or God. That is why religion is based soley on faith. The bible could be no more than a book of fables. Mary was a virgin - ya ok

Answer 8

I was watching a program last night called "Before the Dinosaurs". It's amazing the crap they try to feed us, They were talking about this one creature and how it was a predator and it was slow and only bit it's victim and then waited for it's victim to die because it had poison, not injected in like a snake but just let run into the wound. OK, NOW HOW WOULD THEY KNOW THIS CRAP, No-one was around at the time to leave any indication, there would be no proof in old fossils of this, so it's all speculation on their part just like the rest of their so-called evolution, 100% made-up.

Answer 9

Religion is a fairy tale too, both are theories, all religions are based on similar story books, the names have been changed to protect the plagiarers.

I have studied many religious texts and they all have the adam and eve story, the flood story, the martyrdom of the prophet story, some have the immaculate conception story and most predate Christianity by hundreds if not a thousand years, Even religion is evolving.

Answer 10

Ever notice the endless repetition of these outdated, debunked pieces of sh..., er, logic? Perhaps you should hold off on your moronic tirades until further your just-begun education beyond the kindergarten level. Here is a starting point that will demonstrate the errors in your current diatribe: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html Not that I expect you will read it. Closed-minded fundies seldom do. They prefer their gawddidits and lies to facts.

ADDENDUM

See? I told you that you wouldn't bother reading the facts.

"They have carbon dated live snails at being 5,000 years old."

This is a, particularly, stupid and dishonest attempt at discrediting C-dating. Of course, it is standard procedure of ignorant fundies seeking to "prove" an agenda. Another link to facts that you won't bother reading: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html

"SO--it is all 100% assumption!!!"

Um, no, it's not. Your insistence upon remaining stupid and spreading known falsehoods is pathetic.