How do Jehovah's Witnesses Explain This Fossil Record?

by sabastious 143 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • thetrueone
    thetrueone
    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.

  • poopsiecakes
    poopsiecakes

    Please stop asking falacial questions.

    I believe the word you're looking for is 'fallacious'. If the word 'falacial' actually existed, I think it would probably be related to an activity the GB has told you is perverted.

  • isaacaustin
    isaacaustin

    Please stop asking falacial questions.

    I believe the word you're looking for is 'fallacious'. If the word 'falacial' actually existed, I think it would probably be related to an activity the GB has told you is perverted.

    LOL I couldn't figure out what it meant either.

  • sabastious
    sabastious

    Did she mean falacio questions?

    -Sab

  • xchange
    xchange

    Or did she mean fellatio? I dunno. I'm confused now.

  • isaacaustin
    isaacaustin

    LOL that is the word that came up when I googled it...like the word debator, falacial does not exist...

  • thetrueone
    thetrueone

    Debator is so poorly educated she cant even spell Debater, whats the point of discussing things in academia when she's hasn't progressed to

    a higher level of educational practice ?

  • thetrueone
    thetrueone

    Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods

    Michael Benton
    An ActionBioscience.org original article

    Fossils provide a record of the history of life.

    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.

  • unshackled
    unshackled

    Debator is displaying the typical behavoir you can expect from a bible believer resisting science. They keep spewing out the same comments over and over, but completely ignore the evidence placed directly in front of them. They love the fossil record and think it is full of holes but the reality is that isn't true.

    Besides, as mentioned on the first page of this thread, the strongest evidence for evolution isn't even the fossil record. Interesting you don't hear arguments against the evidence from say biogeography. Jerry Coyne wrote that the evidence from biogeography for evolution is so strong he has never seen one attempted creationist argument to dispute it. They don't touch it because they don't have an answer for it.

    Basically, biogeography is regarding the distribution of life on this planet. Example, the only place lemurs exist are in Madgascar. So the question is if your a creationist is: every single lemur made a direct march down to Madagascar from Noah's Ark after the flood, not one single lemur stopped anywhere else, or even left a single trace of themselves? Same goes with kangaroos...every single one made their way down to Australia? Why are there no native land mammals anywhere in New Zealand?

    The bible story does not jive with these facts. (Nevermind the fact that a global flood never happened anyways.) But what does explain the distribution of life on this planet is tectonic plates and 'continental drift'. The continents took millions of years to 'drift' to their current layout and are still moving. The continents didn't speed to their current layout over the few thousand years since the mythical flood.

  • debator
    debator

    I didn't realise forum debates where judged as a spelling context and the best argument is measured by how well spelt they are.

    I am not debating science. I support it as something that it measurable by the world around us but it isn't proof of the theory of Evolution or whatever is the current Darwinistic Mythology.

    Biogeography is not proof of evoluion it actually works against it for the similar reasons you use it against the Bible. That we can clearly have stand alone species that have no obvious fossil connections with other species.

    Witnesses are not a "New earth" Christian group and we do not expect science facts from the Bible which is not meant to be a scientific manual. It uses only simple but basic understandings of things the People around then could understand.

    The reason why we don't debate Biogeography, is that it is not touched on by the Bible. We know angels travelled around the earth doings jobs for Jehovah from Daniel. We know a number of animal types were rescued by Noah, to speculate beyond this is just to play into your hands.

    Disproving the Bible is not proving Darwinism.

    You want us to speculate beyond the bible to trap us.

    Science IMO will end up disproving darwinism itself by simply showing that it just isn't feasable. but until then You have your faith in the theories that scientist churn out under the heading of Evolution and we have our faith in God.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit