Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Fossil Merry-Go-Round


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1    pantodragon

pantodragon

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • Joined:28 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:On vacation in Beetleguese

Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:57 PM

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?


#2    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,089 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 04 April 2013 - 03:00 PM

View Postpantodragon, on 04 April 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

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".


#3    FurthurBB

FurthurBB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,357 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2008

Posted 04 April 2013 - 03:44 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 04 April 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

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.


#4    pantodragon

pantodragon

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • Joined:28 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:On vacation in Beetleguese

Posted 08 April 2013 - 04:07 PM

View PostFurthurBB, on 04 April 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:


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.


#5    pantodragon

pantodragon

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • Joined:28 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:On vacation in Beetleguese

Posted 08 April 2013 - 04:12 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 04 April 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

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.


#6    keithisco

keithisco

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,676 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rincon de Loix, Benidorm

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:56 PM

View Postpantodragon, on 04 April 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

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.


#7    pantodragon

pantodragon

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • Joined:28 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:On vacation in Beetleguese

Posted 13 April 2013 - 03:03 PM

View Postkeithisco, on 11 April 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

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.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users