I know what circular reasoning is because I wrote about it, so I know I'm right
I know what circular reasoning is because I wrote about it, so I know I'm right
Please come join my new religion. It's so simple, even a monkey can understand it.
The light is the truth... and the truth is the light... lights truths light. And happiness is sending me $10,000.00 to my estate:
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Thank you, and good health to you!
Here's an example:
The Geologic Column is used to determine age of fossils. Fossils are used to determine age of rocks.
“Radiometric dating would not have been feasibleif the Geologic Column had not been erected first.”
O’Rourke, J. E., “Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54 [Emphasis added]
The layers of sedimentary rock that do exist in the ground are not found in the youngest to oldest order that they are shown in secular science textbooks. Nowhere does such a column of layers exist except in the textbook. Honest evolutionists agree with this statement.
“If there were a column of sediments … Unfortunately no such column exists.”
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Earth Science 1989, p. 326 [Emphasis added]
Evolutionists rearrange the layers, found all around the world, into a column that would support their view if it were true. Such a column does not exist in nature. It only exists in the textbooks and in the minds of those who believe it.
If no such column exists, and no modern technology works to yield reliable ages for the sedimentary rock layers found in the ground, how do evolutionists determine the supposed ages that they so delightfully publish for consumption by a gullible public?
Simple! They us a form of false circular reasoning! They determine the age of the rock layers by the fossils that they contain, and then they turn around and determine the ages assigned to the fossils by the ages of the rock layers that they were found in. The fossils that are used to determine the age of the rock layers are called “Index” or “Key” fossils. When you find these specific fossils, then you supposedly know the age of the rock; and once you know the age of the rock, you automatically know the age of the fossil!
It’s so simple! If you do not believe me, then consider what prominent evolutionists have been writing in the secular school textbooks.
In the same textbook it says this:
“Scientists use index fossils to determine the age of rock layers.” [You date the rocks by using the fossils.] Glenco, Earth Science, 1999, p. 331
“The geologic time scale is divided up into subunits based on geologic events and the appearance and disappearance of types of organisms.” [You date the fossils by using the rocks.] Glenco, Earth Science, 1999, p. 358
In another secular school science textbook we find these two statements on opposing pages:
“Fossils in the lower layers of sedimentary rock are older than those found in the upper layers. Often, the layers of rock can be dated by types of fossils they contain.”
[You date the rocks by knowing the age of the fossils that they contain.]
Glenco, Biology, 1994, p. 306 [Emphasis added]
“Scientists have determined the relative times of appearance and disappearance of many kinds of organisms from the locations of their fossils in sedimentary rock layers.”
[You date the fossils by knowing the ages of the rocks that they are found in.]
Glenco, Biology, 1994, p. 307 [Emphasis added]
The use of circular reasoning by evolutionists to date rocks by fossils and fossils by rocks has been often called into question by non-evolutionists.
“Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?"
Larry Azar, “Biologists, Help!” Bioscience, vol. 28, November 1978, p. 714 [Emphasis added]
This should help
Perry, i am not qualified to answer the statements in details, and i hope someone here will give them proper attention. They seem pretty well-researched perhaps they deserve a topic for themselves?
One thing you must keep in mind is that all science is about the probability that something is true, and those probabilities are never 100%. The second thing to keep in mind is that probabilities are subjective. Because of this there are no no a-priori contradiction in the statements you offer, even though i will agree it should warrent additional investigation.
Finally. ANY theory should be judged PRIMARELY (SOLELY) on how it allows you to PREDICT nontrivial properties of the world. I can show you how this follows from the rules of probabilities if you are interested.
ANY theory will become more true the more it predicts about the world. That is why the question: "What can you predict about animal/human anatomy and distribution in the earth with the bible (or the theory of evolution) in your hand" is really THE MOST (some would say ONLY) important question you can ask if you want to investigate creation and evolution.
Finally. ANY theory should be judged PRIMARELY (SOLELY) on how it allows you to PREDICT nontrivial properties of the world.
Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The concept was made popular by Karl Popper, who, in his philosophical analysis of the scientific method, concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is falsifiable. - Wiki
If something cannot be falsified, (or refuses to be ) then it isn't scientific according to Popper. Can you think of a scenario that would falsify the geologic column theory?
I am not a geologist. Perhaps a rabbit and a dinosauer lying together or that the irridium layer from the extinction 65mio years ago began to appear unexpected (eg multiple) places? Stuff like that i suppose.
But i am not really talking about popper. I am talking about a theory gaining evidence when it predicts nontrivial stuff. its not philosophy, its more like inference i think.
We can trust what the Bible says because it is the word of God.
We know the Bible is the word of God because it says it is.
Here's a fosillized tree that grew for millions of years. How do I know this? Simple It is clearly ascertainable by the column of geologic sedimentary material next to it that was laid down over millions of years.
I can trust this because the scientific paper said so. And I know the paper is true because it is peer reviewed. (Just Like Climate Gate was Peer Reviewed)
Drill lobotomizing hole here and insert kool-aide.
Here's the latest blood and muscle found in an 18 million year old animal: (How do I know its age? You gussed it ...bada bing)
A salamander allegedly “18 million years old” is the latest fossil to produce astonishingly well preserved soft tissue. This time, it’s muscle tissue, and it is supposedly the most pristine example yet.The muscle and blood found in the salamander fossil are the latest soft-tissue evidence in a long line of similar discoveries. Earlier, these flexible branching structures in T. rex bone (left photo) have justifiably been identified as blood vessels, while microscopic structures squeezed out of the blood vessels (right photo) look distinctly like cells, as evolutionary researchers themselves have admitted. (See Still soft and stretchy.) Soft-tissue evidence such as muscle, blood and cells should not be there if the fossils really are millions of years old.
M. H. Schweitzer
The muscle and blood found in the salamander fossil are the latest soft-tissue evidence in a long line of similar discoveries. Earlier, these flexible branching structures in T. rex bone (left photo) have justifiably been identified as blood vessels, while microscopic structures squeezed out of the blood vessels (right photo) look distinctly like cells, as evolutionary researchers themselves have admitted. (See Still soft and stretchy.) Soft-tissue evidence such as muscle, blood and cells should not be there if the fossils really are millions of years old.
I'm afraid that it has been a few bad years in a row for the secularists. Not good at all, no sir.
Perry: The topic is about circular reasoning and i gave you some thoughts about that. Then you asked me of the falsifiability of the geological column and i gave you two examples.
I have no idea about the new evidence you ask me to review. I cant tell if its a tree or a large rock or how it got there nor how the layers around it formed. I cant tell what i am seing in the microscope or what that mean.
We can both agree that any theory that predicts there can be no rock where that rock is positioned or that biological stuff in the picture cannot exist are made false by the evidence you present but thats it and it does not really shed any light on the question i raised, namely that a theory should be judged on how well it predicts nontrivial properties of the world.