CREATION-EVOLUTION ENCYCLOPEDIA

Creationists have long insisted that the main evidence for evolution — the fossil record — involves a serious case of circular reasoning. That is, the fossil evidence that life has evolved from simple to complex forms over the geological ages depends on the geological ages of the specific rocks in which these fossils are found. The rocks, however, are assigned geologic ages based on the fossil assemblages which they contain. The fossils, in turn, are arranged on the basis of their assumed evolutionary relationships. Thus the main evidence for evolution is based on the assumption of evolution. A significant development of recent years has been the fact that many evolutionary geologists are now also recognizing this problem. They no longer ignore it or pass it off with a sarcastic denial, but admit that it is a real problem which deserves a serious answer. The use of “index fossils” to determine the geologic age of a formation, for example, is discussed in an interesting way in an important recent paper by J. That is, since evolution always proceeds in the same way all over the world at the same time, index fossils representing a given stage of evolution are assumed to constitute infallible indicators of the geologic age in which they are found. This makes good sense and would obviously be the best way to determine relative geologic age — if, that is, we knew infallibly that evolution were true!

The problem of circular reasoning in dating the rocks

You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of absolute comments via email. Home About.

This article answers several of their most common arguments, those relating to time scale so as to date,, the, fossils so as to erect an evolutionary sequence so as they determine the fossil sequence are not committing circular reasoning.

By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Cookie Policy , Privacy Policy , and our Terms of Service. Earth Science Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the geology, meteorology, oceanography, and environmental sciences. It only takes a minute to sign up. I have heard the claim by creationists that geologists date rocks by the fossils they contain and date fossils by the rocks in which they are found.

This supposedly invalidates radiometric ages because they are a result of circular reasoning. Is this statement purely wrong, or is there some truth to it? Yes, there is some amount of circular reasoning in the statement: ” geologist date rocks by the fossils they contain and date fossils by the rocks in which they are found “. However, that statement does not fully describe how geologists date rocks or fossils. Dating rocks by fossils is a branch of geology called ” biostratigraphy “.

Subscribe to RSS

Evolutionists have long insisted that the main evidence for evolution is the fossil record. However this involves circular reasoning. That is, the fossil evidence that life has evolved from simple to complex forms over the geological ages depends on the geological ages of the specific rocks in which these fossils are found. The rocks, however, are assigned geologic ages based on the fossil accumulations. The fossils, in turn, are arranged on the basis of their assumed evolutionary relationships.

The rocks are dated by the fossils and the fossils are dated by the rocks.

Creation Worldview Ministries: The problem of circular reasoning in dating the rocks. fossil dating circular reasoning. At the very least we would.

In the last issue of this journal, my article “The Fatal Flaws of Flood Geology” attacked the flood geology model of the Institute for Creation Research ICR by citing a number of geological formations the creationists can’t explain without inventing hundreds of convenient ad hoc miracles. However, creationists have attacked orthodox geology by citing geological formations they feel geologists are equally hard pressed to account for with the evolutionary model.

This article answers several of their most common arguments, those relating to fossilization, sedimentary facies, and overthrusts. Question: Can geologists actually explain fossilization? Creationists argue that evolution requires sediments to accumulate slowly and tranquilly over millions of years, yet dead animals and plants always rot away or get eaten by scavengers unless they become buried quickly after death.

This means if the earth’s past were as tranquil as evolutionary geologists say, there would be no fossils; all the potential fossils would have rotted away or been eaten long before enough sediments could accumulate to bury them. Creationists therefore argue that only the Flood of Noah could have buried all the fossils fast enough to insure their preservation.

How do you answer that? Answer: Geologists never said that all geological processes were tranquil.

The Circularity of Fossil Dating (Index Fossils)

No human investigation can be called real science if it cannot be demonstrated mathematically. After another years of scientific discovery, it makes even less sense today. Why, then, have recent-creationists taken up such an indefensible position? Presumably because, just as falling mountaineers will grab at an icicle, they feel that any explanation of the geological evidence is better than none at all. For their only alternative escape-route is even worse, as we shall now see.

Fossils dating in involved reasoning circular the see to refusing to addition In article, my see details For layers between Dust itself: above) (depicted column.

This evolutionary fraud is simple enough: Evolutionists date the fossils by the rocks they are in, and they date the rocks by the fossils that are in them! Here are the facts. Evolutionary theory is a myth. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. This is science vs. What is Circular Reasoning?

Deep Core Dating and Circular Reasoning

With a half-life of only years, carbon dating has nothing to do with dating the geological ages! Whether by sloppiness or gross ignorance, Dr. Hovind is confusing the carbon “clock” with other radiometric “clocks. The only thing in the geologic record which has anything to do with calibrating carbon dating is the coal from the Carboniferous Period. Being ancient, the C content has long since decayed away and that makes it useful in “zeroing” laboratory instruments.

The series of quotes begins with a vivid illustration of this circular reasoning in “​Often, the layers of rock can be dated by the types of fossils they contain.

You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. Home About. Stay updated via RSS. Follow me on Twitter debostic How can you not like one of the greatest artists of our time???

You’re not paying attention.

How Old Is That Fossil (in the layer)?

Even many evolutionists ruefully admit that this charge is undeniable with regard to the circularity invoked in dating rock layers. Some of the following quotes are as cited in Morris, and Snelling, The series of quotes begins with a vivid illustration of this circular reasoning in action.

Geologists use circular reasoning because they date strata by their fossils and fossils by the strata in which they occur. Geologists frequently do identify strata by​.

Home Church Community Statement of Beliefs. Contact Us. In this segment, we will consider the element of circular reasoning inherent to supporting evolutionary theory. In particular, this segment will address the circular reasoning between evolution, absolute radiometric dating, and relative dating including the relative dating of both rocks and fossils. Since we have not examined absolute dating in depth previously, the first step in this segment is probably to establish some basic vocabulary to avoid confusion.

Specifically, it is important to note that there are several synonyms for absolute dating. One is relative, or chronostratigraphic, and the other is absolute, or chronometric. All rights reserved. The precise measure of geologic time has proven to be the essential tool for correlating the global tectonic processes see below that have taken place in the past. Precise isotopic ages are called absolute ages, since they date the timing of events not relative to each other but as the time elapsed between a rock-forming event and the present.

Absolute dating by means of uranium and lead isotopes has been improved to the point that for rocks 3 billion years old geologically meaningful errors of [plus or minus] 1 or 2 million years can be obtained. The same margin of error applies for younger fossiliferous rocks, making absolute dating comparable in precision to that attained using fossils.

Methods of isotopic measurement continue to be refined today, and absolute dating has become an essential component of virtually all field-oriented geologic investigations…Attention has been called wherever possible to those rocks that contain minerals suitable for precise isotopic dating. Having established these terms are synonyms, there will be no need for confusion when one term or another appears in the quotes throughout this segment.

Geologists going round in circles!

Certainly the majority of scientists accept radiometric dating. Most people, even the experts in the field, forget the assumptions on which radiometric dating is based. Radioactive Dating There are basically two different kinds of radioactive dating methods. One is the Carbon system used for dating fragments of once-living organisms. It furnishes some good evidences that creationists often use.

Image result for index fossils circular reasoning that relative geological age dating was a circular argument assuming the truth of evolution.

There are a whole lot of people out there probably the majority that believe, unequivocally, that scientists are capable of dating rocks, fossils, and the earth with a reasonable amount of certainty. So, when we hear of alternate views- such as young earth creation in which the earth is somewhere in the neighborhood of 7, years old based on Biblical chronologies- it sounds completely ridiculous to us.

I mean, our middle school science books explained that scientists have methods to calculate absolute dates within an acceptable range with astounding accuracy. It is declared- the evidence has spoken and it proclaims ages in the billions of years. As a Bible believing Christian, this leaves you with one of two options. Either the creation account in the Bible cannot be taken literally or these scientific dating methods are erroneous. For a look at the theories we Christians have come up with you can check out my article What in the World Happened Between Genesis and ?

For example, embracing evolution as Biblical means that there could not have been a literal Adam and Eve- just think about the ramifications of that on the rest of the Bible. In our newly altered reading and understanding of the text, what else do we end up compromising on? So, what about that second possibility? Could the problem actually be with our scientific dating methods? The good dates are confirmed using at least two different methods, ideally involving multiple independent labs for each method to cross-check results.

A Quick Case of Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Biology

Evolutionists have been dating the fossils by the assumed evolutionary timetable they have imposed on the rock sequences and then dating the rocks by the index fossils found in them. Although this line of thought is completely unsound, both geology and paleontology use it extensively. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain.

David M. The use of homologous similar features in biology as evidence for evolution also involves circular reasoning.

He even created fossils to deceive unbelieving geologists.’ Gosse received little support Here is obviously a powerful system of circular reasoning. Fossils are used as the D. B. Gower, Radiometric Dating Methods. Pamphlet No. of the.

After addressing how radiometric dating can show the age of rocks without addressing any of its flaws the set-up , it shows this diagram:. The problem with using the geologic column and index fossils for dating is that the fossils are dated by the rock layers they are in and the rock layers are dated by the fossils that are in them. If radiometric dating identifies the rock in layer C as million years old, what can you infer about the age of the fossils in layer C?

In layers B and D? The date of the rock will be assumed because of the fossil that was found in it. The student then goes home to spread this news to his younger brothers and sisters when they drag out their dinosaur action-figure playset later that evening. Index Fossil — any animal or plant preserved in the rock record of the Earth that is characteristic of a particular span of geologic time or environment.

A useful index fossil must be distinctive or easily recognizable, abundant, and have a wide geographic distribution and a short range through time. Index fossils are the basis for defining boundaries in the geologic time scale and for the correlation of strata. Do you see the problem? This is a classic case of false circular reasoning. Uniformitarianism — a geological doctrine. God created as is. You are commenting using your WordPress.

Evolutionists Date Rocks & Fossils with Circular Reasoning – Dr. Kent Hovind