Grandpa on a half shell

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
based on what?

Fossil records?

And how do you know the fossils are 500 million years old? Because of where they're found in the rock?

But... wait...

[/ QUOTE ]

So it was a completely dishonest inquiry. Go figure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Expected of course.
Coral reefs are an interesting organism when it comes to age.

luckyme

[Inso0]

Dishonest? Absolutely not.

I merely point out the whole "date the fossils by the rock layer they're in by this valley" and "date the layers of strata by the fossils they contain in this canyon" thing is what we call circular reasoning.

Tree rings for instance are quite reliable. NOT perfect, but very reliable nonetheless.

Things such as dating the oldest desert in the world by measuring the rate of desertification... these are things that actually rely on some sort of testable science.

Or dating a delta based on the rate of expansion...

Dating the fossils by using the rocks as a guide and then dating the rocks based on what fossils they contain fossils strikes me as somewhat non-scientific.

[Inso0]

wow, first time I've ever double posted... delete this.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]

Dating the fossils by using the rocks as a guide and then dating the rocks based on what fossils they contain fossils strikes me as somewhat non-scientific.

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckily that isn't how they do it.

Whew.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Dishonest? Absolutely not.

I merely point out the whole "date the fossils by the rock layer they're in by this valley" and "date the layers of strata by the fossils they contain in this canyon" thing is what we call circular reasoning.

Tree rings for instance are quite reliable. NOT perfect, but very reliable nonetheless.

Things such as dating the oldest desert in the world by measuring the rate of desertification... these are things that actually rely on some sort of testable science.

Or dating a delta based on the rate of expansion...

Dating the fossils by using the rocks as a guide and then dating the rocks based on what fossils they contain fossils strikes me as somewhat non-scientific.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, see Boro's post. Second, how do you even come to hold this position? At some point, isnt there some filter in your brain that goes: "Whoa...hold on a sec...they really do this? And no one has spotted this obvious flaw? I'm really the smartest guy in the world? No way, that can't be. SOMEONE must have noticed that this is circular. So, hmmm...what else could it be? Maybe they have so much at stake that the entire scientific community is perpetuating this huge conspiracy! Not just that, but BLATANT conspiracy, since even someone with as little knowledge as me can see the obvious holes in it. Holy [censored], the arrogance on these bastards! Oh wait, that all sounds crazy. Maybe I have it wrong."

[Inso0]

You've convinced me.

Link on how they determined this shale formation is 500 million years old that doesnt involve fossils?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
You've convinced me.

Link on how they determined this shale formation is 500 million years old that doesnt involve fossils?

[/ QUOTE ]

Googletard

[Mr_Moore]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You've convinced me.

Link on how they determined this shale formation is 500 million years old that doesnt involve fossils?

[/ QUOTE ]

Googletard

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that he has convinced you i suggest you switch to this.

"A great number of other Christians are firmly convinced that radiometric dating shows evidence that God created the Earth billions, not thousands, of years ago."

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You've convinced me.

Link on how they determined this shale formation is 500 million years old that doesnt involve fossils?

[/ QUOTE ]

Googletard

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that he has convinced you i suggest you switch to this.

"A great number of other Christians are firmly convinced that radiometric dating shows evidence that God created the Earth billions, not thousands, of years ago."

[/ QUOTE ]

Works for me. There arent really any practical problems with that position.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Tree rings for instance are quite reliable. NOT perfect, but very reliable nonetheless.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is because trees create layer after layer of bark in a predictable way. Kind of how layer after layer of rock is deposited...

[ QUOTE ]
Things such as dating the oldest desert in the world by measuring the rate of desertification...

[/ QUOTE ]

What? Stratification of rock is a more reliable standard than desertification. Hell, the basic process is just the same - measure the rate of sedimentation and extrapolate - but with rock strata there's more information that can be used to verify the conclusions. You can compare patterns locally and globally, find patterns in chemical composition and in orientation of magnetic minerals, and look at specific layers of sediment. When data from all of these sources not only form a coherent whole (that stands up to a sophisticated level of mathematical scrutiny), but also each indicate a similar age, that represents very strong evidence.

But scientists always demand more evidence, because science is based on falsification. So independent methods have been used to back it up ranging from relatively "weak" methods (which probably does include the fossil sequence) to stronger methods like radiometrics. Here's a quick list of some methods - remember that all of these methods, where compatible, deliver the same date ranges for given objects and areas.

The fossil sequence itself is largely considered reliable because it is supported by all the other (independent) methods of dating. There's definitely nothing circular going on - think about it: Natural scientists have higher IQs on average than any other group in the world (excepting high-IQ societies like Prometheus), these people are "kinda smart" and they often record pages and pages of evaluation, including mathematical modeling and exhaustive descriptions of data, that is reviewed by a large number of peers and is often available to the general public. The scientific community isn't engaging in the kind of stupid fallacy you're talking about. Thousands of people and billions of dollars haven't gone into the field so that someone can point out, "Hey guys, you made a little mistake here!"

Sometimes science is a bit rotten (particularly where the money's concerned), but the body of accepted theory accumulated over the course of decades (and this stuff was basically universal fact by the middle of the twentieth century, and certainly by the time plate tectonics was validated) is damned strong and has seen and successfully responded to heavier criticisms than you would likely be able to level against it if you spent your whole life trying.