|
|
#31
10-31-2007, 09:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Grandpa on a half shell
How does "stratification" over millions of years explain the pictures I see of fossilized trees going through dozens of layers of strata that are supposedly millions/billions of years old?
I'm genuinely curious. 
|
|
#32
10-31-2007, 09:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Grandpa on a half shell
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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." [/ QUOTE ] Hahaha, well put. One can elegantly refute a LOT of stupid assertions by simply pointing out that impossibly large conspiracies are...well, impossible.
|
|
#34
10-31-2007, 03:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Grandpa on a half shell
[ QUOTE ]
How does "stratification" over millions of years explain the pictures I see of fossilized trees going through dozens of layers of strata that are supposedly millions/billions of years old? I'm genuinely curious. [/ QUOTE ] Polystrate tree fossils.
|
|
#35
10-31-2007, 04:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Grandpa on a half shell
[ QUOTE ]
How does "stratification" over millions of years explain the pictures I see of fossilized trees going through dozens of layers of strata that are supposedly millions/billions of years old? I'm genuinely curious. [/ QUOTE ] They aren't supposedly millions/billions of years old. They're supposedly thousands of years old (at most). The wiki on the subject. Compared to the thousands of PhDs in the field of earth science supporting the hypothesis that the earth is billions of years old, there are only a handful of people (perhaps 300 at most) making creationist claims. The vast majority of these don't even have advanced degrees, and those that do typically have Masters degrees or doctoral degrees in unrelated fields. Now, having a degree and making intelligent points are two different things, and I don't mean to suggest that a person is necessarily unqualified just because they lack a PhD, but the relative education levels of the two populations are striking. Sadly, the handful of "creation scientists" frequently go to great lengths in attempting to justify their view. Because they're unfamiliar with the actual science, they tend to invent new terminology that's obscurely defined, make many erroneous arguments that appeal to their version of "common sense," create large lists of claims, and focus on situations that are least intuitive scientifically and most likely to make their positions seem plausible (they never tend to write about the evidence that is really damning to their position). Due to the tangled mess of claims and the range of groups and personalities working from different perspectives, and the relatively small number of people worldwide (including virtually nobody within the scientific community) who accept these arguments, most geologists simply ignore the creation position. When one erroneous claim is refuted, another claim is simply brought up in its place, creating a chain of claims that is almost impossible to exhaustively refute. The creationists tend to view it as a "success" when an educated person gets tired of this chain and gives up. It's even worse when an uneducated person attempts to refute the creationist points, because the poor logic of the uneducated person appears to validate the creationist position. This is why I'm reluctant to take the defensive in such debates, and why so many people choose to disregard creationists or post simple "lol" responses or incomplete links rather than getting into such debates. There have been some attempts to comperehensively refute creation science. A good place to start is here. These people have actually gone to the trouble of reading much of the creationist literature and systematically attempting to refute the massive number of claims made throughout. It's long and convoluted because it follows the path of the source material, but relatively detailed refutations can be found for most of the creationist points raised by the ministries. Of course, the better alternative is just to pick up a good geology textbook and read through it. Gaining some actual knowledge of the subject will allow you to see many of the errors made in the creationist position, and will introduce you to some of the information that most creationists tend to ignore. Even if you are determined to be a young-earth creationist, it's good to know your enemy, right? Many people will accuse you of ignorance because of your view, and just 50-100 hours of study will let you prove them wrong and know for yourself what it is you're arguing against. This is especially true if you're willing to learn the math, but I don't expect any such commitment. Most online sources are incomplete and unpolished, sadly. But there are some relatively quick and relevant links. I'm just going to link to talkorigins, an admittedly biased site but one with lots of information. Check "the Age of the Earth" for a good introduction.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
