pantodragon Posted April 4, 2013 #1 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Geological theories about the formation and age of rocks are riddled with assumptions. This has not stopped scientists using geological theory to create a theory of evolution, of which fossils are a part. What scientists have done is to feed these fossils, via fossil “evidence”, back into the geology to back up the theories which were originally used to create them. Am I the only person who sees a problem with this geological merry-go-round? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted April 4, 2013 #2 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Geological theories about the formation and age of rocks are riddled with assumptions. This has not stopped scientists using geological theory to create a theory of evolution, of which fossils are a part. What scientists have done is to feed these fossils, via fossil “evidence”, back into the geology to back up the theories which were originally used to create them. Am I the only person who sees a problem with this geological merry-go-round? There are other ways to date rock, and without the use of fossils. It's called "absolute dating". 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FurthurBB Posted April 4, 2013 #3 Share Posted April 4, 2013 There are other ways to date rock, and without the use of fossils. It's called "absolute dating". Not to mention geological theory was not used to create the theory of evolution. I love how misunderstanding science leads to this kind of ignornace. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantodragon Posted April 8, 2013 Author #4 Share Posted April 8, 2013 Not to mention geological theory was not used to create the theory of evolution. I love how misunderstanding science leads to this kind of ignornace. Darwin took Lyell's Principles of Geology with him on the Beagle. I believe he did actually read it, and may have picked up one or two pointers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantodragon Posted April 8, 2013 Author #5 Share Posted April 8, 2013 There are other ways to date rock, and without the use of fossils. It's called "absolute dating". That is not the point. It is a separate issue. In the first instance, there was bad science creating theories. Good science later (though the other methods of dating are, at least in some respects --- the use of "primordial" iron from meteorites?!? --- questionable) does not justify bad science. When one spots instances of bad practice, and especially in such an important fundamental theory, it throws all of science into doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted April 11, 2013 #6 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Geological theories about the formation and age of rocks are riddled with assumptions. This has not stopped scientists using geological theory to create a theory of evolution, of which fossils are a part. What scientists have done is to feed these fossils, via fossil “evidence”, back into the geology to back up the theories which were originally used to create them. Am I the only person who sees a problem with this geological merry-go-round? You seem to have this completely backwards. Fossils come FROM the Geology,not the other way around as you stated. Fossils are found in certain strata, with the older fossils corresponding with the older strata... it is simple and elegant. A perfect example of Occam's razor at work. Older strata (and the fossils they carry) lie below newer strata complete with evolved forms of the older fossil types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantodragon Posted April 13, 2013 Author #7 Share Posted April 13, 2013 You seem to have this completely backwards. Fossils come FROM the Geology,not the other way around as you stated. Fossils are found in certain strata, with the older fossils corresponding with the older strata... it is simple and elegant. A perfect example of Occam's razor at work. Older strata (and the fossils they carry) lie below newer strata complete with evolved forms of the older fossil types. Occam's razor is too often used as an excuse for fantasy. There is so much bad practice in what you describe, but it hides behind jargon and a sort of "compelling" reasonableness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now