Circular dating

06-Feb-2018 15:28

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.

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. which starts from a chronology of index fossils, and imposes them on the rocks.

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. Each taxon represents a definite time unit and so provides an accurate, even 'infallible' date.

If you doubt it, bring in a suite of good index fossils, and the specialist without asking where or in what order they were collected, will lay them out on the table in chronological order." 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! There is such a vast time scale involved that no one can actually observe evolution taking place.

No wonder the evolutionary system, to outsiders, implies circular reasoning.

circular dating-53

There are various justifications for this assumption but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis." As mentioned earlier, more and more modern geologists are now recognizing the existence of circular reasoning in their geological methodologies.

"That a known fossil or recent species, or higher taxonomic group, however primitive it might appear, is an actual ancestor of some other species or group, is an assumption scientifically unjustifiable, for science never can simply assume that which it has the responsibility to demonstrate.

— It is the burden of each of us to demonstrate the reasonableness of any hypothesis we might care to erect about ancestral conditions, keeping in mind that we have no ancestor alive today, that in all probability such ancestors have been dead for many tens or millions of years, and that even in the fossil record they are not accessible to us." "Likewise, paleontologists do their best to make sense out of the fossil record and sketch in evolutionary sequences or unfossilized morphologies without realistic hope of obtaining specific verification within the foreseeable future." It would help if the fossil record would yield somewhere at least a few transitional sequences demonstrating the evolution of some kind of organism into some other more complex kind. "The abrupt appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record has been a perennial puzzle.

This is where the suspicion of circular reasoning crept in, because it seemed to the layman that the time units were abstracted from the geological column, which has been put together from rock units." "By mid-nineteenth century, the notion of 'universal' rock units had been dropped, but some stratigraphers still imagine a kind of global biozone as 'time units' that are supposed to be ubiquitous." "The theory of dialectic materialism postulates matter as the ultimate reality, not to be questioned.

— Evolution is more than a useful biologic concept: it is a natural law controlling the history of all phenomena." And if physical data in the field seem in any case to contradict this assumed evolutionary development, then the field data can easily be reinterpreted to correspond to evolution! "Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking and other complications have to be considered.

There are various justifications for this assumption but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis." As mentioned earlier, more and more modern geologists are now recognizing the existence of circular reasoning in their geological methodologies.

"That a known fossil or recent species, or higher taxonomic group, however primitive it might appear, is an actual ancestor of some other species or group, is an assumption scientifically unjustifiable, for science never can simply assume that which it has the responsibility to demonstrate.

— It is the burden of each of us to demonstrate the reasonableness of any hypothesis we might care to erect about ancestral conditions, keeping in mind that we have no ancestor alive today, that in all probability such ancestors have been dead for many tens or millions of years, and that even in the fossil record they are not accessible to us." "Likewise, paleontologists do their best to make sense out of the fossil record and sketch in evolutionary sequences or unfossilized morphologies without realistic hope of obtaining specific verification within the foreseeable future." It would help if the fossil record would yield somewhere at least a few transitional sequences demonstrating the evolution of some kind of organism into some other more complex kind. "The abrupt appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record has been a perennial puzzle.

This is where the suspicion of circular reasoning crept in, because it seemed to the layman that the time units were abstracted from the geological column, which has been put together from rock units." "By mid-nineteenth century, the notion of 'universal' rock units had been dropped, but some stratigraphers still imagine a kind of global biozone as 'time units' that are supposed to be ubiquitous." "The theory of dialectic materialism postulates matter as the ultimate reality, not to be questioned.

— Evolution is more than a useful biologic concept: it is a natural law controlling the history of all phenomena." And if physical data in the field seem in any case to contradict this assumed evolutionary development, then the field data can easily be reinterpreted to correspond to evolution! "Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking and other complications have to be considered.

Among these, in addition to those already cited, is Dr.