Excuse me, but what do Dinosaurs have to do with this Noah's Ark hoax?
It has the same thing in relationship to it as does the FALSE SCIENCE and scientists in Cilmate Gate.
How can anyone know for sure what is true?
Have They Found Noah's Ark ? - Again.....
by BluesBrother 120 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Perry
-
Mary
Perry, I'm sorry, but I sincerely doubt they're ever going to find Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat. Even if you take the story at face value, the bible says that the Ark came to rest on the 'mountains of Ararat', which could mean any number of mountains in that region. Second, if the Flood brought down the "canopies of heaven" and changed the earth's temperature from temperate to where there was now snow at high altitudes, Noah, his family and all the animals would have froze their asses off and died either up there or on their way down. Third, if the Ark has been up on Mount Ararat for the past 5,000 years, it almost certainly would have just rotted by now, given the severe weather conditions. And since they had no place to live after they came out of the Ark, I think it would be a fair assumption that Noah and his sons would have used the wood from the Ark to make shelter for themselves down on the main grounds.
My understanding is that there is no geographical, archaeological or ecological evidence that a world-wide flood happened 5,000 years ago. There is, however, evidence that a local catastrophic flood happened in the Mesapotmian region and from that came the story of a flood that 'covered the earth', or at least from the point of view of those living there at the time.
-
bohm
perry, why are you copy-paste spamming a thread on a false discovery of noahs ark with links to barely related subjects?
-
BurnTheShips
How can anyone know for sure what is true?
You dream, wish, and hope for uncertainty so you can cling to your literal interpretation of the Bible.
and scientists in Cilmate Gate.
Climate Gate is a beautiful example of how SCIENCE WORKS.
Science is a self correcting process. When there is a fraud, or manipulation made by unscrupulous scientists, the PROCESS eventually reveals it and corrects it. SCIENCE WORKS.
Regarding Carbon-14, consider these facts regarding fossils:
Our understanding of the shape and pattern of the history of life depends on the accuracy of fossils and dating methods. Some critics, particularly religious fundamentalists, argue that neither fossils nor dating can be trusted, and that their interpretations are better. Other critics, perhaps more familiar with the data, question certain aspects of the quality of the fossil record and of its dating. These skeptics do not provide scientific evidence for their views. Current understanding of the history of life is probably close to the truth because it is based on repeated and careful testing and consideration of data.
The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them:
Millions of fossils have been discovered.
They cannot deny that hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world. Perhaps some would argue that these specimens - huge skeletons of dinosaurs, blocks from ancient shell beds containing hundreds of specimens, delicately preserved fern fronds — have been manufactured by scientists to confuse the public. This is clearly ludicrous.
Some skeptics believe that all fossils are the same age.
Otherwise, religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noah’s flood. How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained. Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow ‘drowned’ by the flood.
Rejecting fossil data cannot be supported by proof.
The rejection of dating by religious fundamentalists is easier for them to make, but harder for them to demonstrate. The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.
Fossils occur in sequences
Fossil sequences were recognized and established in their broad outlines long before Charles Darwin had even thought of evolution. Early geologists, in the 1700s and 1800s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: certain assemblages of fossils were always found below other assemblages. The first work was done in England and France.
Fossil hunting began by accident in England around 1800.
Around 1800, William Smith in England, who was a canal surveyor, noticed that he could map out great tracts of rocks on the basis of their contained fossils. The sequences he saw in one part of the country could be correlated (matched) precisely with the sequences in another. He, and others at the time, had discovered the first principles of stratigraphy — that older rocks lie below younger rocks and that fossils occur in a particular, predictable order.
Stratigraphy, the study of rock layers, led to paleontology, the study of fossils.
Then, geologists began to build up the stratigraphic column, the familiar listing of divisions of geological time — Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, and so on. Each time unit was characterized by particular fossils. The scheme worked all round the world, without fail.
From the 1830s onwards, geologists noted how fossils became more complex through time. The oldest rocks contained no fossils, then came simple sea creatures, then more complex ones like fishes, then came life on land, then reptiles, then mammals, and finally humans. Clearly, there was some kind of ‘progress’ going on.
All became clear, of course, in 1859 when Charles Darwin published his “On the origin of species”. The ‘progress’ shown by the fossils was a documentation of the grand pattern of evolution through long spans of time.
Accuracy of the fossils
Fossils prove that humans did not exist alongside dinosaurs.
Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great ‘tree of life’. Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide. All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.
Scientists now use phylogeny, mathematics, and other computations to date fossils.
Paleontologists now apply sophisticated mathematical techniques to assess the relative quality of particular fossil successions, as well as the entire fossil record. These demonstrate that, of course, we do not know everything (and clearly never will), but we know enough. Today, innovative techniques provide further confirmation and understanding of the history of life. Biologists actually have at their disposal several independent ways of looking at the history of life - not only from the order of fossils in the rocks, but also through phylogenetic trees.
Phylogenetic trees are the family trees of particular groups of plants or animals, showing how all the species relate to each other.
Phylogenetic trees are drawn up mathematically, using lists of morphological (external form) or molecular (gene sequence) characters.
Modern phylogenetic trees have no input from stratigraphy, so they can be used in a broad way to make comparisons between tree shape and stratigraphy.
The majority of test cases show good agreement, so the fossil record tells the same story as the molecules enclosed in living organisms.
Accuracy of dating
Dating in geology may be relative or absolute. Relative dating is done by observing fossils, as described above, and recording which fossil is younger, which is older. The discovery of means for absolute dating in the early 1900s was a huge advance. The methods are all based on radioactive decay:
Fossils may be dated by calculating the rate of decay of certain elements.
Certain naturally occurring elements are radioactive, and they decay, or break down, at predictable rates.
Chemists measure the half-life of such elements, i.e., the time it takes for half of the radioactive parent element to break down to the stable daughter element. Sometimes, one isotope, or naturally occurring form, of an element decays into another, more stable form of the same element.
By comparing the proportions of parent to daughter element in a rock sample, and knowing the half-life, the age can be calculated.
Older fossils cannot be dated by carbon-14 methods and require radiometric dating.
Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating:
The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.
Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.
Scientists can check their accuracy by using different isotopes.
The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rock’s age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.
There is only a 1% chance of error with current dating technology.
Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so.
Conclusion: The strict rules of the scientific method ensure the accuracy of fossil dating.
Conclusion
The fossil record is fundamental to an understanding of evolution. Fossils document the order of appearance of groups and they tell us about some of the amazing plants and animals that died out long ago. Fossils can also show us how major crises, such as mass extinctions, happened, and how life recovered after them. If the fossils, or the dating of the fossils, could be shown to be inaccurate, all such information would have to be rejected as unsafe. Geologists and paleontologists are highly self-critical, and they have worried for decades about these issues. Repeated, and tough, regimes of testing have confirmed the broad accuracy of the fossils and their dating, so we can read the history of life from the rocks with confidence.
-
Perry
WHAT IS CIRCULAR REASONING?
It is a fundamental principle of evolutionary logic.
"Circular reasoning" is a method of false logic, by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this." It is also called "reasoning in a circle." Over a hundred years ago it was described by the phrase, circulus in probando, which is Latin for "a circle in a proof."
There are several types of circular reasoning found in support of evolutionary theory. One of these is the geological dating position that "fossils are dated by the type of stratum they are in, while at the same time the stratum is dated by the fossils found in it." An alternative evolutionarily statement is that "the fossils and rocks are interpreted by the theory of evolution, and the theory is proven by the interpretation given to the fossils and rocks."
Elsewhere in this Encyclopedia, we will find that circular reasoning is also used in regard to other evolutionary "proofs,' such as the origin of life, genetics, and mutations. The theory of natural selection is almost totally dependent on curricular reasoning.
As we will see below, geologists admit that this circular reasoning exists as a fundamental pillar of geological faith. For example, in a 1979 interview with *Dr. Donald Fisher, the state paleontologist for New York, Luther Sunderland, asked him: "How do you date fossils?" His reply: "By the Cambrian rocks in which they were found." Sunderland then asked him if this were not circular reasoning, and *Fisher replied, "Of course, how else are you going to do it?" (Bible Science Newsletter, December 1986, p. 6.)
"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning . . because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of science, January 1976.
The paleontology director of the Field Museum in Chicago admits the problem exists.
"The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity."—*David M. Raup, "Geology and Creationism," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, March 1983, p. 21.
-
bohm
and Perry just keep on copy-pasting stuff from his treasure-trove of junk science..
Perry, just a quick question, do you agree that eg. uranium-thorium dating makes it possible to date rocks from vulcanic eruptions? Do you then agree that it is natural to assume that the strate beneath said vulcanic rock would be OLDER than the eruption (and hence the date given by the UT-clock), or is that also circular reasoning?
-
Mary
"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning . . because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of science, January 1976.
But if you contend that God made the earth only 6,000 years ago, how do you account for either the fossil or the rocks being millions of years old?
-
bohm
Perry, if dinosaurs are so damn recent, how come they are never found between modern mamalian (or bird) fossils?
-
BurnTheShips
Perry, you jump from one thing to another. Stay on one subject. In a sense, you are "cheating".
BTS
-
