Basic
Worldview:
103
Science, the Bible,
and Creation
Origins
- Section Four:
Dating and Circular Reasoning
Origins - Section One: Introduction
and the Basics
Origins - Section Two: Premature
Dismissals
Origins - Section Two: Application
of the Basics
Origins - Section Three: Creation
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Origin of Life
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Environment for Life 1
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Environment for Life 2
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Another Planet
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Origin of Species
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Speciation Factors
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Speciation Rates
Origins - Section Four: Time and
Age, Redshift
Origins - Section Four: Philosophical
Preference
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological
Model 1
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological
Model 2
Origins - Section Four: Dating Methods,
Perceptions, Basics
Origins - Section Four: Global Flood
Evidence
Origins - Section Four: Relative
Dating
Origins - Section Four: Dating and
Circular Reasoning
Origins - Section Four: The Geologic
Column
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric
Dating Basics
Origins - Section Four: General
Radiometric Problems
Origins - Section Four: Carbon-14
Problems
Origins - Section Four: Remaining
Methods and Decay Rates
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric
Conclusions, Other Methods
Origins - Section Five: Overall
Conclusions, Closing Editorial
Origins - Section Five: List
of Evidences Table
Origins Debate Figures and
Illustrations
Focus
on Critical Evidence:
Circular Reasoning, Dating Methods, and Evolution
In
this segment, we will consider the element of circular reasoning
inherent to supporting evolutionary theory. In particular,
this segment will address the circular reasoning between evolution,
absolute (radiometric) dating, and relative dating including
the relative dating of both rocks and fossils.
Since
we have not examined absolute dating in depth previously,
the first step in this segment is probably to establish some
basic vocabulary to avoid confusion. Specifically, it is important
to note that there are several synonyms for absolute dating.
Absolute dating is also known by the terms “isotopic
dating,” “radioactive dating,” “radiometric
dating,” and “chronometric dating.” This
can be seen in the descriptions provided in the quotes below.
“Earth,
geologic history of, Time scales – There are, in fact, two geologic time scales. One is relative, or
chronostratigraphic, and the other is
absolute, or chronometric.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Archeology,
VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS, B Absolute Dating –
Absolute dating, sometimes called chronometric
dating, refers to the assignment of calendar year dates
to artifacts, fossils, and other remains.”
– "Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating,
General considerations, Distinctions between relative-age
and absolute-age measurements – The need to correlate
over the rest of geologic time, to correlate nonfossiliferous
units, and to calibrate the fossil time scale has led
to the development of a specialized field that makes use of
natural radioactive isotopes in order to calculate absolute
ages. The precise measure of geologic time has proven
to be the essential tool for correlating the global tectonic
processes (see below) that have taken place in the past. Precise isotopic ages are called absolute ages, since they date the
timing of events not relative to each other but as the
time elapsed between a rock-forming event and the present.
Absolute dating by means of uranium and lead isotopes has been improved
to the point that for rocks 3 billion years old geologically
meaningful errors of [plus or minus] 1 or 2 million years
can be obtained. The same margin of error applies for younger
fossiliferous rocks, making absolute dating comparable in precision
to that attained using fossils.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating,
Absolute Dating – Whereas studies using fossil dating
began almost 300 years ago, radioactivity
itself was not discovered until roughly a century ago,
and it has only been from about 1950 that extensive efforts
to date geologic materials have become common. Methods
of isotopic measurement continue to be refined today,
and absolute dating has become an essential component of virtually
all field-oriented geologic investigations…Attention
has been called wherever possible to those rocks that contain
minerals suitable for precise isotopic dating.” –
Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating,
Absolute dating, Evaluation and presentation schemes in dating,
The isochron method – Many radioactive dating methods
are based on minute additions of daughter products to a rock
or mineral in which a considerable amount of daughter-type
isotopes already exists.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating
Methods, II DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE METHODS –
After radioactivity was discovered, radiometric
dating methods were quickly developed.” –
"Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Having
established these terms are synonyms, there will be no need
for confusion when one term or another appears in the quotes
throughout this segment.
The
second step in this segment is to define the concept of circular
reasoning and why such reasoning is a problem. In its article
on “Applied Logic,” Britannica begins with a description
of the basics of argumentation and reasoning. In simple terms,
Britannica denotes a valid argument is one in which the premises
necessitate accepting a particular conclusion.
“Applied
logic, The critique of forms of reasoning, Correct and defective
argument forms – In
logic an argument consists of a set of statements, the premises,
whose truth supposedly supports the truth of a single statement
called the conclusion of the argument. An
argument is deductively valid when the truth of the premises
guarantees the truth of the conclusion; i.e., the conclusion
must be true, because of the form of the argument, whenever
the premises are true.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
Conversely,
Britannica goes on to state that invalid arguments are those
arguments in which the “the premises give no rational
grounds for accepting the conclusion.” Such defective
arguments are called “fallacies.”
“Applied
logic, The critique of forms of reasoning, Correct and defective
argument forms – Some
arguments that fail to be deductively valid are acceptable
on grounds other than formal logic, and their conclusions
are supported with less than logical necessity. In other potentially persuasive arguments,
the premises give no rational grounds for accepting the conclusion.
These defective forms of argument are called fallacies.
An argument may be fallacious in three ways: in its material
content, through a misstatement of the facts; in its wording,
through an incorrect use of terms; or in its structure (or
form), through the use of an improper process of inference.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Britannica
then procedes to describe some common fallacies, or defective
arguments in which the premises offer no valid reason to accept
the conclusion. The fourth fallacy listed by Britannica is
“the fallacy of circular argument.” Notice that
the fallacies in this particular list are defective because
they involve too much “presumption,” specifically
they tend to “covertly assume” or presume “the
conclusion” itself. Furthermore, this is the very definition
of a “circular argument.” A circular argument
is one “when the premises presume the very conclusion
that is to be demonstrated.”
“Applied
logic, The critique of forms of reasoning, Kinds of fallacies,
Material fallacies – The
material fallacies are also known as fallacies of presumption,
because the premises “presume” too much—they
either covertly assume the conclusion or avoid the issue
in view…4) The fallacy of circular argument, known as petitio principii (‘begging
the question’), occurs
when the premises presume, openly or covertly, the very conclusion
that is to be demonstrated (example: “Gregory always
votes wisely.” ‘But how do you know?’ ‘Because
he always votes Libertarian.’).” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
As
Britannica’s description continues, it gets even more
specific regarding how circular reasoning works. Notice the
following statements from the quote below. First, Britannica
notes that circular reasoning “typically” is used
in “complex arguments” that involve multiple steps
or premises. The, Britannica provides a generic example in
which one premise (designated p 1) is used to prove a series
of other premises (designated as p 2 through p n). In short,
premise p 1 proves premise p n. However, as Britannica states,
“then p n is subsequently used in a proof of p 1.”
So, premise p 1 proves premise p n to be true and premise
p n proves premise p 1 to be true.
“Applied
logic, The critique of forms of reasoning, Kinds of fallacies,
Material fallacies – A
special form of this fallacy, called a vicious circle,
or circulus in probando (“arguing
in a circle”), occurs
in a course of reasoning typified by the complex argument
in which a premise p 1 is used to prove p 2; p 2 is used to prove p 3; and so on, until
p n − 1 is used to prove p n ; then p n is subsequently used in a proof of p 1, and the whole series p 1, p 2, . . .
, p n is taken as established
(example: “McKinley College's baseball team is the best
in the association [ p n = p 3]; they are the best because
of their strong batting potential [ p 2]; they have this potential
because of the ability of Jones, Crawford, and Randolph at
the bat [ p 1].” “But how do you know that Jones,
Crawford, and Randolph are such good batters?” “Well,
after all, these men are the backbone of the best team in
the association [ p 3 again].”). Strictly speaking,
petitio principii is not a fallacy of reasoning but an
ineptitude in argumentation: thus
the argument from p as a premise to p as conclusion is not
deductively invalid but lacks any power of conviction,
since no one who questioned the conclusion could concede the
premise.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe
Edition
Britannica
concludes that circular arguments “lack any power of
conviction” and qualifies them all as “an ineptitude
in argumentation.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary defines “ineptitude” as “the
quality or state of being inept” or “incompetent.”
Consequently, according to Britannica, any argument in which
“the premises prove the conclusion” and “the
conclusion proves those same premises” has no ability
to prove or convince at all.
In
this light, we can understand the relationship between relative
dating methods, absolute dating methods, and evolution theory.
There are 3 ways that evolution falls into the category of
circular reasoning. First, evolution theory uses a circular
argument in relative dating when rock layers are used to assign
ages (with years) to fossils in them and fossils are used
to assign ages (with years) to the rock layers they are in.
Second, evolution theory uses a circular argument between
relative dating in general and biological evolution. Specifically,
in order to know which fossils species are “older”
and which fossil species are “younger” and assign
ages (with years) to the rock layers by those fossils, you
have to presume that species evolved from more primitive to
more complex. However, when the arrangement of fossils and
rock layers is complete, it is asserted as proof of evolution.
Third, evolutionary theory uses a circular argument between
relative dating and absolute dating. Absolute dating is only
performed on an item when a relative age (indicating years)
is already provided for that item. Yet, relative dating methods
provide no actual age (in years or amounts of time) but can
only obtain an age after absolute dating is performed. However,
although each method depends upon the other, both methods
are said to confirm or prove the other to be valid.
The
first form of circular reasoning in evolutionary theory surrounds
the fact that, in relative dating, the ages of fossils are
determined by the age of the rock layers they are found in
and the ages of rocks are determined from fossils in them.
Although the problematic nature of this relationship is largely
overlooked, the circular nature of the relationship is widely
acknowledged. Consequently, this circular relationship can
be easily found, as is evidenced in the following quotes.
The
initial hint of this circular relationship can be seen in
the following quote, which very simply states that geologists
use both “rock sequences” and “the fossils
contained within these sequences” to create a relative
time scale. Notice that it is the quote itself that denotes
the fossils are “within” the very same “rock
sequences” that are also used to provide ages in relative
dating.
“Geology,
III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, A Relative Time – Geologists create a relative time scale using rock sequences and the
fossils contained within these sequences.” –
"Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99.
© 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
As
indicated in the previous statement, according to the principle
known as the law of superposition, rock layers are assigned
a relative age based upon how high or how low they are in
an overall rock formation.
“Dating,
General considerations, Determination of sequence – Relative geologic
ages can be deduced in rock sequences consisting of sedimentary,
metamorphic, or igneous rock units…The
sequence of a layered sedimentary series is easily defined
because deposition always proceeds from the bottom to the
top. This principle would seem self-evident, but its first
enunciation more than 300 years ago by Nicolaus Steno represented
an enormous advance in understanding. Known as the principle of superposition,
it holds that in a series of sedimentary layers or superposed
lava flows the oldest layer is at the bottom, and layers from
there upward become progressively younger.” –
Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Consequently,
because the rock layer has a relative age based upon how high
or how low it is in the overall rock formation, the objects
in that rock layer have the same age as the layer itself,
including both archeological artifacts like stonework and
biological items such as a skull.
[PHOTO
CAPTION: Stratigraphy
– Archaeologists
determine the age of artifacts and other remains in relation
to each other and to the present through a technique called
stratigraphy. This illustration depicts a cross-section
into the ground in which many layers of soil, rock, and other
materials can be seen. In
most cases, objects buried in lower layers, such as the stonework,
are older than those in higher layers, such as the skull.
© Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.” –
"Stratigraphy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.]
Thus,
the relative age of each individual fossil is determined by
the level of the rock layer it is found in. Fossils found
in rock layers higher up are assigned a relatively younger
age and fossils found in rock layers lower down are assigned
a relatively old age.
“Geology,
III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, A
Relative Time – Geologists create a relative time
scale using rock sequences and the fossils contained within
these sequences. The scale they create is based on The
Law of Superposition, which states that in a regular series
of sedimentary rock strata, or layers, the oldest strata will
be at the bottom, and the younger strata will be on top.
Danish geologist Nicolaus
Steno (also called Niels Stensen) used the idea of uniformity of physical processes. Steno noted that
sediment was denser than liquid or air, so it settled until
it reached another solid. The newer
sediment on the top layer is younger than the layer it settled
upon…B Biostratigraphy – British surveyor
William Smith and French anatomist Georges Cuvier both reasoned
that in a series of fossil-bearing rocks, the
oldest fossils are at the bottom, with successively younger
fossils above. They thus extended Steno's Law of Superposition
and recognized that fossils could be used to determine geologic
time.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta®
Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights
reserved.
Furthermore,
the fact that rock layers are used to date fossils is why
stratigraphy, the practice of assigning relative ages to rock
layers based upon their position, is commonly described as
being applied to “fossil-bearing” rock layers.
Since the rocks are fossil-bearing, the age of the rock layers
is also the age of any fossil in it.
“Dating,
General considerations, Correlation, Principles and techniques
– Suppose there exist
a number of fossil-bearing outcrops each composed of
sedimentary layers that can be arranged in relative order,
primarily based on superposition.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
In
fact, from the very beginning of relative dating, rock layer
were used to assign relative ages to fossils. Charles Lyell,
“one of the founders of stratigraphy, the study of the
layers of the earth's surface,” observed that rock beds
closest to the surface were vastly more recent, and therefore,
so were the fossils in those upper layers.
“Lyell,
Sir Charles – Building on the pioneering work of
the 18th-century Scottish geologist James Hutton, Lyell
developed the theory of uniformitarianism…Lyell is also considered one of the founders of stratigraphy, the study
of the layers of the earth's surface. He developed a method
for classifying strata, or layers, by
studying ancient marine beds in western Europe. Lyell observed
that the marine beds closest to the surface, therefore the
most recent, contained many species of shell-bearing
mollusks that still live in today's seas. On the other hand,
deeper, older strata contained fewer and fewer fossils of
living species. Lyell divided the rocks of this period into
three epochs, based on decreasing percentages of modern species.
The names he proposed-Eocene, Miocene, and Pliocene-are still
used today.” – "Lyell, Sir Charles,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
Since
this it has been the historic practice to date fossils according
to the rock layer they are found in, the following quote describes
this as the “traditional” fossil-dating process.
“Prehistoric
People, Placing
prehistoric people in time – Scientists
have traditionally dated fossils by studying the deposit in
which the fossil was found. Based on knowledge of geological
history, scientists can determine the age of the deposit. They then interpret this information to
provide an approximate age for the fossil.” –
Worldbook, Contributor: Alan E. Mann, Ph.D., Professor of
Anthropology, Princeton University.
And,
even when radiometric dating is used, often it is rock surrounding
the fossil that is radiometrically dated and then the fossil
is assigned an age that is “relative” to that
particular, dated rock.
“Archaeology,
How archaeologists interpret findings – Potassium-argon dating is used mainly in Africa
to determine the age
of rocks associated with fossils of early human ancestors.”
– Worldbook, Contributor: Thomas R. Hester, Ph.D., Professor
of Anthropology, University of Texas,
Austin.
“Fossil,
VI DATING AND CLASSIFYING FOSSILS – Paleontologists use radiometric dating to determine more precisely the
age of fossils (see Dating Methods: Radiometric Dating).
In this process, they study the isotopes
of minerals in the rock surrounding the fossil. Knowing
the rates at which the isotopes decay, and having determined
how much of the isotope has decayed in the rock sample, paleontologists
can determine the age of the rock-and thus the age of the
fossil preserved in the rock.” – "Fossil,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Fossil,
Dating fossils – Paleontologists
determine how old a fossil is by measuring the radioactive
isotopes in the rocks that contain the fossil. Radioactive
isotopes are forms of chemical elements that break down, or
decay, to form other materials. Scientists know the rates
of decay of various radioactive isotopes. By comparing the
amount of a radioactive isotope in a rock to the amount of
the material produced by its decay, scientists can calculate
how long the decay has been taking place. This
length of time represents the age of the rock and the fossils
it contains.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven
M. Stanley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences,
Johns
Hopkins University.
Consequently,
it is very clear that fossils are assigned an age based upon
the ages of the rock that surrounds them. However, the converse
is equally well-attested: the rock surrounding a fossil is
assigned an age based upon the age of the fossil. This is
plainly stated in the following quotes.
“Fossil
– Fossils also
provide the geologist a quick and easy way of assigning a
relative age to the strata in which they occur.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geology,
VI HISTORY OF GEOLOGY, D Geology in the 18th and 19th Centuries
– Cuvier and his co-worker Alexandre Brongniart,
along with English surveyor William Smith, established the
principles of biostratigraphy, using
fossils to establish the age of rocks and to correlate
them from place to place. Later, with these established stratigraphies,
geologists used fossils to reconstruct the history of life's
evolution on earth.” – "Geology," Microsoft®
Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
“Geochronology,
Development of radioactive dating methods and their application
– As has been seen, the geologic time scale
is based on stratified rock assemblages that contain a fossil
record. For the most part, these fossils
allow various forms of information
from the rock succession to be viewed in terms of their relative
position in the sequence.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geologic
Time, III DATING METHODS – In
order to determine the relative age of rock layers, scientists
use three simple principles. The first is the law of superposition,
which states that younger beds of rock occur on top of older
beds of rock in an undisturbed sequence of layers (see Stratigraphy).
The second is the law of cross-cutting relationships, which states
that any feature or structure that cuts through and disturbs
a rock sequence must be younger than the disturbed beds. The third principle, that of fossil succession, deals with fossils in
sedimentary rock…All of these methods facilitate
the relative dating of rock sequences, but do not provide
absolute ages for the rocks.” – "Geologic
Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating,
General considerations, Correlation, Principles and techniques
– From an examination of such outcrops with
special focus on the sequence of animal forms comes the empirical
generalization that the faunas of the past have followed
a specific order of succession, and so the
relative age of a fossiliferous rock is indicated by the types
of fossils it contains.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
Dating,
General considerations, Correlation, Principles and techniques
– To this day, fossils are useful as correlation
tools to geologists specializing in stratigraphy. In dating
the past, the primary
value of fossils lies within the principle of faunal succession:
each interval of geologic history had a unique fauna that
associates a given fossiliferous rock with that particular
interval. The basic conceptual tool for correlation by fossils
is the index, or guide, fossil…Almost without exception,
the relative order of strata defined by
fossils has been confirmed by radiometric ages.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
An
important technical concept, which illustrates that rock layers
are dated by fossils, is the concept of the “index fossil”
or “guide fossil.” An index fossil or guide fossils
is a specific fossil organism that is used to identify the
ages of rock layers.
“Index
fossil – any
animal or plant preserved in the rock record of the Earth
that is characteristic of a particular span of geologic time
or environment. A useful
index fossil must be distinctive or easily recognizable, abundant,
and have a widegeographic distribution and a short range through
time. Index fossils are the basis for defining boundaries
in the geologic time scale and for the correlation of strata.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Index
Fossil, I INTRODUCTION – Index
Fossil, remains or traces of prehistoric plants or animals
that can provide information about the rock layer
in which they are found. Index fossils can be used to determine
the age of the sediments that make up the rock, or they
can provide information about the environment in which the
sediments were deposited. Index fossils are also used to compare,
or correlate, rocks exposed in separate locations. Geologists
and paleontologists use index fossils to learn about the history
of life and the geologic history of the earth. Synonyms
for the term index fossil include guide fossil, key fossil,
type fossil, zonal fossil, characteristic fossil, and diagnostic
fossil.” – "Index Fossil," Microsoft®
Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
“Dating,
General considerations, Correlation, Principles and techniques
– The basic conceptual tool for correlation
by fossils is the index, or guide, fossil. Ideally, an
index fossil should be such as to guarantee that its presence
in two separated rocks indicates their synchroneity. This
requires that the lifespan of the fossil species be but a
moment of time relative to the immensity of geologic history.
In other words, the fossil species must have had a short temporal
range. On the practical side, an index fossil should be distinctive in appearance
so as to prevent misidentification, and it should be cosmopolitan
both as to geography and as to rock type. In addition, its fossilized population should be sufficiently abundant for discovery
to be highly probable. Such an array of attributes represents
an ideal, and much stratigraphic geology is rendered difficult
because of departure of the natural fossil assemblage from
this ideal.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004
Deluxe Edition
Notice
from the quotes above that, in order to work for dating purposes,
guide fossils must have certain traits. However, as stated
plainly in the last quote below, “much stratigraphic
geology” is “difficult” because the distribution
of most fossils departs from these necessary traits. Consequently,
not only are we seeing that relative dating is based upon
circular reasoning, but the particular tools involved, such
as guide fossils, simply don’t work either.
As
we continue, another important technical concept, which illustrates
that rock layers are dated by fossils, is the concept of “faunal
succession.” The quote below not only affirms the role
that fossils have in “associating a given rock with
a particular interval” of time, but is also states that
“the primary value” of fossils in accomplishing
this task is “the principle of faunal succession.”
Dating,
General considerations, Correlation, Principles and techniques
– To this day, fossils are useful as correlation
tools to geologists specializing in stratigraphy. In dating
the past, the primary
value of fossils lies within the principle of faunal succession:
each interval of geologic history had a unique fauna that
associates a given fossiliferous rock with that particular
interval.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004
Deluxe Edition
We
should note that faunal succession is here specifically identified
as a “principle” of geologic dating. Here, the
most obvious question is, “what is faunal succession?”
As indicated by the quote above, faunal succession is the
idea that “each interval of geologic history has a unique
fauna.” The next question is, “what does the term
‘fauna’ mean?” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary defines “fauna” as “animals”
of a region or period.
“Fauna
– Function: noun – animal life; especially: the animals characteristic of a region, period, or special environment
– faunal,
adjective – faunal,
adverb.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
Consequently,
faunal succession is “the principle” that different
animals lived at different times throughout the long ages
earth’s history and as such, the time period of individual
rock layers can be identified by what fossilized animals that
layer contains. There will be more to say on this subject
as we consider the second manifestation of circular reasoning
in evolutionary theory. However, here again we see that rock
layers are dated by their fossils even though, as we have
already seen, fossils are dated by their rock layers.
And,
to even further highlight how dominant of a role the fossils
play in determining the ages of rock layers, it is important
to note that even the law of superposition is subordinate
to and can be overturned by the fossils. Specifically, as
we have established, the law of superposition dictates that
the lowest rock layers are older and the highest layers are
younger. However, the following quote describes that if a
series of rock layers contain fossils in an order that is
reversed from the evolutionary order of species, (i.e. faunal
succession) the law of superposition is discarded entirely.
The bottom layers are instead deemed to be the youngest and
the top layers are deemed to be the oldest.
“Dating,
General considerations, Determination of sequence – On occasion, however,
deformation may have caused the rocks of the crust to tilt,
perhaps to the point of overturning
them. Moreover, if erosion has blurred the record by removing
substantial portions of the deformed sedimentary rock, it
may not be at all clear which edge of a given layer is the
original top and which is the original bottom. Identifying
top and bottom is clearly important in sequence determination,
so important in fact that a considerable literature has been
devoted to this question alone. Many of the criteria of top–bottom
determination are based on asymmetry in depositional features.
Oscillation ripple marks, for example, are produced in sediments
by water sloshing back and forth. When such marks are preserved
in sedimentary rocks, they define the original top and bottom
by their asymmetric pattern. Certain
fossils also accumulate in a distinctive pattern or position
that serves to define the top side.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
With
the youngest layers now at the bottom and the oldest at the
top, the fossils now match the expected evolution of species.
Effectively, in some cases, the law of superposition defines
the evidence of rock ages in a way that contradicts faunal
succession and evolution’s designation of which species
evolved and lived at which times. The only way that the fossil
record can match faunal succession is if younger rock layers
are lower and older rock layers are higher.
The
issue of faunal succession and overturning the law of superposition
raises another manifestation of circular reasoning in evolutionary
dating methods, particularly the circular argument between
relative dating and evolution itself. We will discuss this
second circular argument in evolutionary theory momentarily.
However, first it is important to note that the circular relationship
between dating rocks and dating fossils is at times even admitted
by evolutionists themselves. In 1976, the American Journal of Science published
an article describing and admitting this circular relationship
in which rock layers are dated by fossils and fossils are
dated by the rock layers.
“The
intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in
the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks.
The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply,
feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long
as the work brings results.” – “Pragmatism
versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” J.E. O’Rourke,
American Journal of Science 1976, 276:51
(Cited in “Lies in the Textbooks,” Dr. Kent E.
Hovind, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, www.drdino.com,
Windows Media Video, 24 minutes, 45 seconds)
“The
rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks
more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning…The charge of circular reasoning in stratigraphy
can be handled in several ways. It can be ignored, as
not the proper concern of the public…It
can be denied, by calling down the Law of Evolution. It can be admitted, as a common practice…Or it can be avoided,
by pragmatic reasoning.” – “Pragmatism versus
Materialism in Stratigraphy,” J.E. O’Rourke, American Journal of Science 1976, 276:51 (Cited in “Lies in
the Textbooks,” Dr. Kent E. Hovind, Creation Science
Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, www.drdino.com, Windows Media Video,
24 minutes, 55 seconds)
Lastly,
it is crucial to note that Britannica regards the role of
fossils in dating rocks as “comparable in precision”
to radiometric dating methods. Actually, the preceding statement
does not do justice to Britannica’s statement. In reality,
in Britannica’s comparison, radiometric dating is not
serving as the recognized standard to which fossil-dating
is being equated in order bolster confidence in fossil-dating.
Rather, it is the other way around. Britannica is relying
on the reader’s confidence in fossil-dating and using
fossil-dating as the recognized dating standard in order to
bolster the reader’s confidence in absolute dating methods.
“Dating,
General considerations, Distinctions between relative-age
and absolute-age measurements – The need to correlate
over the rest of geologic time, to correlate nonfossiliferous
units, and to calibrate the fossil time scale has led to the
development of a specialized field that makes use of natural
radioactive isotopes in order to calculate absolute ages.
The precise measure of geologic time has proven to be
the essential tool for correlating the global tectonic processes
(see below) that have taken place in the past. Precise isotopic ages are called absolute ages, since they date the
timing of events not relative to each other but as the time
elapsed between a rock-forming event and the present. Absolute
dating by means of uranium and lead isotopes has been improved
to the point that for rocks 3 billion years old geologically
meaningful errors of [plus or minus] 1 or 2 million years
can be obtained. The same margin of error applies for younger
fossiliferous rocks, making
absolute dating comparable in precision to that attained using
fossils.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004
Deluxe Edition
Once
again, this indicates just how extremely important the role
of fossils is in dating rocks and arranging geologic history.
Moreover, Britannica’s comparison reflects how much
evolutionary geologists regard fossils as industry standard
for dating methods, so much so that even radiometric dating
can be endeard by equating it to the value of fossil-dating.
In
summary, as we have seen, the relative dating of rocks and
the relative dating of fossils is a textbook example of a
circular argument. As Britannica described, it “presumes”
or “covertly” assumes “the very conclusion
that is to be demonstrated,” in this case the age of
the fossils and the rocks. How do we know how old a rock layer
is? We know how old a rock layer is because we know how old
the fossils found in that rock layer are. And how do we know
how old the fossils found in that rock layer are? Because
we know how old the rock layer is that the fossils were found
in. Consequently, Britannica’s conclusion regarding
circular arguments applies. The circular reasoning for the
age of rocks and the age of fossils is “an ineptitude
of argumentation,” “is not deductively valid,”
and “lacks any power of conviction.”
The
second form of circular reasoning in evolutionary theory surrounds
the interdependence between relative dating methods and the
theory of biological evolution itself. In short, relative
dating cannot provide evidence for a sequence in which life
forms emerged and evolved throughout earth’s history
because in order to work, in order to produce any ages at
all, relative dating requires first presupposing evolution
occurred.
We
have already seen one manifestation of this circular reasoning
in an earlier quote from Britannica Encyclopedia. The quote
(repeated below) described how the ages of rocks as dictated
by the law of superposition is overturned so that the fossils
in the rock layers will match rather than contradict the expected
evolutionary order of species, (also known as “faunal
succession”).
“Dating,
General considerations, Determination of sequence – On occasion, however,
deformation may have caused the rocks of the crust to tilt,
perhaps to the point of overturning
them. Moreover, if erosion has blurred the record by removing
substantial portions of the deformed sedimentary rock, it may not be at all clear which edge of a given layer is the original
top and which is the original bottom. Identifying top and bottom is clearly important in sequence determination,
so important in fact that a considerable literature has been
devoted to this question alone. Many of the criteria of top–bottom
determination are based on asymmetry in depositional features.
Oscillation ripple marks, for example, are produced in sediments
by water sloshing back and forth. When such marks are preserved
in sedimentary rocks, they define the original top and bottom
by their asymmetric pattern. Certain fossils also accumulate in a distinctive
pattern or position that serves to define the top side.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Earlier
we only briefly touched on this issue in order to note that
the principle of faunal succession demonstrated the circular
reasoning in which fossils date the rock layers they are in
and rock layers date the fossils in them. However, since we
also mentioned at that time that faunal succession also demonstrates
the circular reasoning between relative dating and evolution
itself, we will now take some time to discuss this aspect
of faunal succession as well.
As
we have already seen, faunal succession is defined as the
idea that different periods of geologic history are populated
by distinct collections of animal species.
Dating,
General considerations, Correlation, Principles and techniques
– To this day, fossils are useful as correlation
tools to geologists specializing in stratigraphy. In dating
the past, the primary
value of fossils lies within the principle of faunal succession:
each interval of geologic history had a unique fauna that
associates a given fossiliferous rock with that particular
interval.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004
Deluxe Edition
“Fauna
– Function: noun – animal life; especially: the animals characteristic of a region, period, or special environment
– faunal,
adjective – faunal,
adverb.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
And,
we have also already noted from the first quote above, that
faunal succession is identified as a principle of geology.
However, a comparision between the definition of faunal succession
and the definition of evolutionary theory itself reveals that
the two terms are synonymous. Just as faunal succession is
defined as the idea that different organisms populate different
periods of geologic history, evolution itself is the theory
that throughout history as generations pass, new species arrive
and old species disappear so that the collections of organisms
is not uniform throughout geologic history. This definition
of evolution can be seen in under 4a and 4b of Merriam-Websters’s
entry on evolution.
“Evolution
– 1: one of a set of prescribed movements 2a: a process
of change in a certain direction: unfolding b: the action
or aninstance of forming and giving something off: emission
c(1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler,
or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state: growth
(2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social,
political, and economic advance d: something evolved 3: the
process of working out or developing 4a:
the historical development of a biological group (as a race
or species): phylogeny b: a theory that the
various types of animals and plants have their origin in other
preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences
are due to modifications in successive generations 5:
the extraction of a mathematical root 6: a process in which
the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena.”
– Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
As
we can see, Merriam-Webster’s defines evolution in terms
of the “historical development” of organisms,
particularly a development throughout history in which new
types of organisms emerge that are distinct from the organisms
of past generations.
Britannica
Encyclopedia’s own article on evolution mirrors this
definition.
“Evolution
– theory in biology postulating that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting
types and that the distinguishable differences are due
to modifications in
successive generations…All living creatures are
related by descent from common ancestors. Humans
and other mammals are descended from shrewlike creatures
that lived more than 150,000,000 years ago; mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and
fishes share as ancestors aquatic worms that lived 600,000,000 years ago; all plants and animals are derived from bacteria-like
microorganisms that originated more than 3,000,000,000 years
ago. Biological evolution is a process of descent with modification.
Lineages of organisms change through generations; diversity
arises because the lineages that descend from common ancestors
diverge through time.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
Like
Mirriam-Webster’s Dictionary, Britannica defines evolution
in terms of the arrival of distinct organisms in successive
generations. Thus, since evolution states that the organisms
in later generations become distinct from those in previous
generations, each period of time would consequently have a
distinct collection of organisms, which is the very concept
that defines faunal succession. In fact, as we can see from
the quote above, Britannica actually goes on to describe how
particular types of organisms are only present during certain
time periods, just as faunal succession specifically states.
As such, faunal succession must be viewed as either a synonym
for evolution or as a direct corollary from it.
And
the fact that faunal succession is merely a synonym for evolution
is quite clear in the next quote from Microsoft Encarta, which
actually defines faunal succession as the result of the evolution
of species.
“Stratigraphy,
II PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY – Stratigraphy relies on four simple principles to unveil geologic history…The
principle of faunal and floral succession states that because
animals and plants evolve into new species, sedimentary
rocks of different ages will contain fossils of different
species. Knowing the age of a fossil helps to date
the rock in which it is found…These four principles
of stratigraphy can be used to unravel the geologic history
of a given area.” – "Stratigraphy,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
Notice
also that the last line from Encarta also summarizes that
the principle of faunal succession, which is really just the
presumption of evolution, is one of guiding factors used to
“unravel geologic history.” While geologic history
is asserted as evidence demonstrating evolution, evolution
itself is one of the basic “four principles” used
to determine what geologic history is. Thus, evolution is
a key premise in the argument used to prove that evolution
is true. This is another textbook example of circular reasoning.
We
can further see exactly how this circular argument works by
examining how age sequences are determined for non-biologic
artifacts. For instance, the excerpts below focus on the example
of clay pots (potsherds). Notice the following from the 2
quotes below that “typology” is also known as
“morphology” and “morphology” is the
“most common” means of classification. And most
importantly, notice from both of the quotes above that “variations
in characteristics” are assumed to indicate “sequence”
from “more primitive” to “more advanced.”
“Archeology,
VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS – When studying potsherds or other artifacts, archaeologists record variations in characteristics such
as material composition, form, style, and decoration.
This information forms the basis for developing
seriations (artifact sequences), which chronicle artifact
evolution over hundreds or thousands of years. Pottery characteristics,
like modern automobile designs and clothing fashions, changed over time, growing and then diminishing in popularity. By noting these changes, archaeologists
can establish long sequences of artifact styles.”
– "Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Archaeology,
How archaeologists interpret findings – Archaeologists follow three basic steps in interpreting the evidence
they find: (1) classification, (2) dating, and (3) evaluation.
Classification. Archaeologists can interpret
their findings only if they can detect patterns of distribution
of artifacts in space or through time. To
find these patterns, archaeologists must first classify artifacts
into groups of similar objects. Typology
is the most common approach in classification. Artifacts
are usually first sorted into groups based on their shape,
known as morphological types. If
the shape and manufacturing methods found among morphological
types are distinctive during certain periods, they may represent
temporal types. Archaeologists use temporal types to construct
a sequence that reflects changes in the style or manufacture
of artifacts over time. A
sequence of different temporal types from a region reflects
cultural change through the years. More
detailed studies, such as the microscopic examination
of a flint blade or the analysis of residues on a potsherd,
can lead to the recognition
of functional types.” – Contributor: Thomas
R. Hester, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, University of
Texas, Austin.
Just
like distinctions in “morphological types” in
pottery artifacts are assumed to indicate that those types
came about “sequentially,” the characteristics
of forms of individual species are assumed to indicate the
order or “succession” that all species came in.
With regard to the first quotes below, the term “faunal
succession” refers to this concept regarding animals
and the related term “floral succession” refers
to this concept regarding plants. In other words, the characteristics
or forms of fossil species in the rock layers indicate which
rock layers are older and which are younger. And once again,
it is important to note that in the quotes below, this principle
of “faunal succession,” is listed right alongside
“the principle of superposition” as one of the
“four simple principles” that are “relied
on” to “unveil geologic history.”
“Stratigraphy,
II PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY – Stratigraphy relies
on four simple principles to unveil geologic history. The
principle of original horizontality states that the sediments
that form sedimentary rocks are usually deposited in approximately
horizontal sheets…The principle of superposition states
that, in an undeformed sequence of strata, younger strata
lie on top of older strata…The
principle of cross-cutting relations states that if a
layer of rock is cut, for example, by a fault or an intruding
rock, then the cut rock must be older than the event or intrusion
that cut it…The principle of faunal and floral succession states that because animals
and plants evolve into new species, sedimentary rocks of different
ages will contain fossils of different species. Knowing
the age of a fossil helps to date the rock in which it is
found. Index fossils, which form from species that only exist
for a short time, are especially valuable in determining a rock's age. Two rocks
from different locations containing the same index fossil must be approximately the same age. This principle
is especially useful because it allows geologists to show
that different rock layers from different areas were deposited
at roughly the same time…These
four principles of stratigraphy can be used to unravel the
geologic history of a given area.” – "Stratigraphy,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
Dating,
General considerations, Correlation, Principles and techniques
– From an examination of such outcrops with special
focus on the sequence of animal forms comes the empirical generalization that the faunas of the past have
followed a specific order of succession, and so the relative
age of a fossiliferous rock is indicated by the types of fossils
it contains…To this day, fossils are useful as correlation
tools to geologists specializing in stratigraphy. In
dating the past, the primary value of fossils lies within
the principle of faunal succession: each interval of geologic
history had a unique fauna that associates a given fossiliferous
rock with that particular
interval.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004
Deluxe Edition
“Geologic
Time, III DATING METHODS – In
order to determine the relative age of rock layers, scientists
use three simple principles. The first is the law of superposition,
which states that younger beds of rock occur on top of older
beds of rock in an undisturbed sequence of layers (see Stratigraphy).
The second is the law of cross-cutting relationships, which states
that any feature or structure that cuts through and disturbs
a rock sequence must be younger than the disturbed beds. The
third principle, that of fossil succession, deals with fossils
in sedimentary rock…All of these methods facilitate
the relative dating of rock sequences, but do not provide
absolute ages for the rocks.” – "Geologic
Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
This
central role that is played by the “distinct characteristics”
of individual species in the principle of faunal succession
further highlights the fact that faunal succession is merely
a synonym for evolution. We already noted earlier that both
Britannica and Merriam-Webster’s definition of “evolution”
explicitly included “the distinguishable differences”
between organisms over generations.
“Evolution
– 4a: the
historical development of a biological group (as a race or
species): phylogeny b: a theory that the various
types of animals and plants have their origin in other
preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are
due to modifications in
successive generations.” – Merriam-Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary
“Evolution
– theory in biology postulating that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other
preexisting types and that
the distinguishable differences are due to modifications
in successive generations.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
It
is important to note that the term “fossil succession”
is also a synonym for “faunal succession.” This
is indicated in the description below.
“Geology,
III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, B Biostratigraphy –
In the field of biostratigraphy geologists study the placement of fossils
to determine geologic time. British surveyor William Smith
and French anatomist Georges Cuvier both reasoned that in
a series of fossil-bearing rocks, the
oldest fossils are at the bottom, with successively younger
fossils above. They thus extended Steno's Law of Superposition
and recognized that fossils could be used to determine geologic
time. This principle
is called fossil succession.” – "Geology,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
Please
note that the subheading for the Encarta quote above is “B
Biostratigraphy.” “Biostratigraphy” is yet
another synonym for the principle of faunal succession. According
to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, the prefix
“bio” refers to “life” or “living
organisms or tissue.” Consequently, this name denotes
that the principle deals with the idea that the once-living
things indicate the age of the rock layers, or “strata,”
they are found in.
“Geology,
III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE – Geologists
use several methods to determine geologic time. These methods
include physical stratigraphy, or the placement of events
in the order of their occurrence, and biostratigraphy, which
uses fossils to determine geologic time. Another method
geologists use is correlation, which allows geologists to
determine whether rocks in different geographic locations
are the same age…A
Relative Time – Geologists create a relative time scale
using rock sequences and the fossils contained
within these sequences…B Biostratigraphy –
In the field of biostratigraphy
geologists study the placement of fossils to determine geologic
time…Smith and Cuvier also noted that unique
fossils were characteristic of different layers…C Correlation – Fossils are the most useful tools for correlation.
Since the work of Smith and Cuvier, biostratigraphers
have noted that ‘like fossils are of like age.’
This is the principle of fossil correlation.” –
"Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99.
© 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Geology,
VI HISTORY OF GEOLOGY, D Geology in the 18th and 19th Centuries
– Cuvier and his co-worker Alexandre Brongniart,
along with English surveyor William Smith, established the
principles of biostratigraphy, using fossils to
establish the age of rocks and to correlate them from
place to place. Later, with these established stratigraphies,
geologists used fossils to reconstruct the history of life's
evolution on earth.” – "Geology,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
As
we return to our main point, the fact that this principle
is termed “biostratigraphy” denotes that it is
simply the biological counterpart to the principle of stratigraphy
that is used to assign an order to non-biological artifacts,
such as clay pots, by their characteristics. This fact becomes
even more apparent when we view the description of how non-biological
artifacts are dated and assigned an order side by side with
the description of how fossils are dated and assigned an order.
As we can see in the 3 quotes below, the exact same terms
and processes are applied equally to non-biological artifacts
and fossils.
“Archeology,
VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS – When studying potsherds or other artifacts, archaeologists record variations in characteristics such
as material composition, form, style, and decoration.
This information forms the basis for developing
seriations (artifact sequences), which chronicle artifact
evolution over hundreds or thousands of years. Pottery characteristics,
like modern automobile designs and clothing fashions, changed over time, growing and then diminishing in popularity. By noting these changes, archaeologists
can establish long sequences of artifact styles.”
– "Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Archaeology,
How archaeologists interpret findings – Archaeologists follow three basic steps in interpreting the evidence
they find: (1) classification, (2) dating, and (3) evaluation.
Classification. Archaeologists can interpret
their findings only if they can detect patterns of distribution
of artifacts in space or through time. To
find these patterns, archaeologists must first classify artifacts
into groups of similar objects. Typology
is the most common approach in classification. Artifacts
are usually first sorted into groups based on their shape,
known as morphological types. If
the shape and manufacturing methods found among morphological
types are distinctive during certain periods, they may represent
temporal types. Archaeologists use temporal types to construct
a sequence that reflects changes in the style or manufacture
of artifacts over time. A
sequence of different temporal types from a region reflects
cultural change through the years. More
detailed studies, such as the microscopic examination
of a flint blade or the analysis of residues on a potsherd,
can lead to the recognition
of functional types.” – Contributor: Thomas
R. Hester, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, University of
Texas, Austin.
“Fossil,
VI DATING AND CLASSIFYING FOSSILS – Fossils are classified using several techniques. The three most popular
techniques are evolutionary taxonomy, numerical taxonomy,
and cladistics. Evolutionary taxonomy is the method that
was most commonly used in the past. It is based
on comparing the shape, structure, and relationships of organisms
within a stratigraphic framework. Many
paleontologists believed this method was too subjective and
developed numerical taxonomy as an alternative. Numerical
taxonomy uses a mathematical comparison of organisms in
which measured features of the organisms are related. In
an effort to achieve still greater objectivity, some paleontologists
developed a third method, cladistics, based on classifying
organisms according to certain features that are either primitive
or derived. Primitive features are those that are common to all organisms within
a group, whereas
derived features are evolutionary novelties. Paleontologists
have had problems with subjectivity in cladistics as well,
and the method also does not easily take into account the
time dimension of the geological record. A
combination of the methods used in cladistics and the geological
record may provide a clearer picture of the evolution of life
on earth.” – "Fossil," Microsoft®
Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
So,
as we can see, the principle of faunal succession uses the
characteristics of each fossil to determine a sequence of
evolution. An example would be that fossil organisms with
“more primitive” or simpler looking forms would
be assigned a lower or “older” timeframe than
more complex fossil organisms, which would have evolved later.
But how would a species’ characteristics indicate how
much older or younger it was than other species unless we
presuppose that species evolved from more “primitive
forms” to “more complex forms,” thus assuming
evolution itself?
Even
evolutionary scientists admit and recognize that merely arranging
objects in a sequence based upon the observer’s perception
of what is more primitive and what is more advanced is “too
subjective” and not real, objective science, now matter
how it is formulated. This is acknowledged in the quote below.
“Fossil,
VI DATING AND CLASSIFYING FOSSILS – Fossils are classified using several techniques. The three most popular
techniques are evolutionary taxonomy, numerical taxonomy,
and cladistics. Evolutionary taxonomy is the method that
was most commonly used in the past. It is based
on comparing the shape, structure, and relationships of organisms
within a stratigraphic framework. Many
paleontologists believed this method was too subjective and
developed numerical taxonomy as an alternative. Numerical
taxonomy uses a mathematical comparison of organisms in
which measured features of the organisms are related. In
an effort to achieve still greater objectivity, some paleontologists
developed a third method, cladistics, based on classifying
organisms according to certain features that are either primitive
or derived. Primitive features are those that are common to all organisms within
a group, whereas
derived features are evolutionary novelties. Paleontologists
have had problems with subjectivity in cladistics as well,
and the method also does not easily take into account the
time dimension of the geological record.” –
"Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. ©
1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Notice
the closing 2 lines of the quote above conclude that “problems
with subjectivity” remain even in “cladisticts,”
which itself is the most advanced effort to remove subjectivity
from classification of organisms. So, even evolutionists admit
that this ordering of organisms is subjective. It exists in
the mind of the interpreter only and is not a matter of objective
evidence or fact.
In
summary concerning this second manifestation of circular reasoning
in evolutionary theory, relative dating cannot be used as
evidence for evolution, for evolution’s time scale,
or for sequencing species into an evolutionary order, because
in order for relative dating to produce any ages at all, even
relative ages, evolution has to be presupposed. Under the
terms “faunal succession,” “fossil succession,”
or even “biostratigraphy,” evolution itself is
inserted as a guiding influence for arranging geologic history,
which is then asserted as proof for evolution. In short, evolution is assumed as the guiding factor for assigning geologic
age. Then the geologic ages of fossils are used to confirm
the idea that those organisms have evolved, the defining pillar
of the theory of evolution. Therefore, in relative dating
not only the fossils themselves but also the rock layers they
are found in are assigned dates by presupposing evolution.
Since the process presupposes evolution, it cannot prove evolution.
And since determining the relative ages of the fossils and
rock layers requires presupposing that evolution is true,
the resulting ages themselves are not objective facts at all.
Consequently,
once again we have seen that evolutionary theory relies upon
circular reasoning. This manifestation of circular reasoning
between relative dating and evolution itself is also a textbook
example of a circular argument. As Britannica described, it
“presumes” or “covertly” assumes “the
very conclusion that is to be demonstrated,” in this
case the age of the fossils and the rocks. Consequently, Britannica’s
conclusion regarding circular arguments applies. The circular
reasoning for relative dating and evolution is “an ineptitude
of argumentation,” “is not deductively valid,”
and “lacks any power of conviction.”
The
third form of circular reasoning in evolutionary theory surrounds
the interdependence between relative dating methods and absolute
dating methods. As indicated much earlier in this segment,
a perception exists that radiometric dating methods independently
establish the evolution of life on earth and the age of the
earth itself. But this is not true. And the reason is simple.
Absolute dating methods, particularly radiometric dating,
do not independently establish evolution or the age of the
earth because radiometric dating is guided by and conformed
to the relative dating timescale. This fact can be demonstrated
in 2 ways. The first is the history of relative dating and
absolute dating and how they first came to interact historically.
The second is the modern practices for performing radiometric
dating.
To
first understand how radiometric dating is inherently dependent
upon relative dating, we need to know the historic circumstances
in which radiometric dating was developed and used in relation
to relative dating.
In
the previous segment, we saw how even in theory, relative
dating techniques could only indicate age information for
the most recent 13 percent of earth’s history, which
equates to about the last 598 million years.
“Geochronology,
Development of radioactive dating methods and their application
– Approximately the first 87 percent of Earth
history occurred before the evolutionary development of shell-bearing
organisms. The result of this mineralogic control on the preservability of organic remains in the rock record is that the
geologic time scale—essentially a measure of biologic
changes through time—takes in only the last 13 percent
of Earth history. Although the span of time preceding
the Cambrian period—the
Precambrian—is nearly devoid of characteristic fossil remains and coincides
with some of the primary rocks of certain early workers, it
must, nevertheless, be evaluated in its temporal context.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geology,
V FIELDS OF GEOLOGY, B Historical, B4 Paleontology and Paleobiology
– The oldest fossils are older than 3 billion years,
although fossils do not become abundant and diverse until about 500
million years ago.” – "Geology,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Geology,
III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, B Biostratigraphy –
In the field of biostratigraphy geologists study the placement of fossils
to determine geologic time…Biostratigraphy is most useful
for determining geologic time during the Phanerozoic Eon
(Greek phaneros, "evident"; zoic, "life"),
the time of visible and abundant fossil life that has lasted for about
the past 570 million years.” – "Geology,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
Furthermore,
in the previous segment, we saw that even though 570 to 598
million years was the maximum limit that fossils could determine
age in theory, in reality the fossil record is so discontinuous
and irregular that it is “virtually impossible”
to use relative dating techniques to construct any time scale
or history for even that time time period.
“Geochronology,
Development of radioactive dating methods and their application,
Early attempts at calculating the age of the Earth –
Equally novel but similarly flawed was the assumption that,
if a cumulative measure of all rock successions were compiled
and known rates of sediment accumulation were considered,
the amount of time elapsed could be calculated. While representing
a reasonable approach to the problem, this procedure did not
or could not take into account different accumulation rates associated with different environments
or the fact that there
are many breaks in the stratigraphic record. Even observations
made on faunal succession proved that gaps in the record do
occur. How long were these gaps? Do they represent periods
of nondeposition or periods of deposition followed by periods
of erosion? Clearly
sufficient variability in a given stratigraphic record exists
such that it may be virtually impossible to even come to an
approximate estimate of the Earth's age based on this technique.
Nevertheless, many attempts using this approach were made.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
However,
other methods for providing a great age for the earth were
also explored, including calculations based upon the salt
content of the oceans or the cooling of the earth. Before
absolute dating but after the dawn of uniformitarianism, these
methods of dating the earth, using specific assumptions of
their own, produced ages of only 20 to 90 million years old.
However, as indicated by the quote below, each of these methods
was also negated by the evidence.
“Geochronology,
Development of radioactive dating methods and their application,
Early attempts at calculating the age of the Earth –
From the time of Hutton's refinement of uniformitarianism, the principle
found wide application in various attempts to calculate the
age of the Earth…Many independent estimates of the age
of the Earth have been proposed, each made using a different
method of analysis. Some such estimates were based on assumptions
concerning the rate at which dissolved salts or sediments
are carried by rivers, supplied to the world's oceans, and
allowed to accumulate over time…The
notion that all of the salts dissolved in the oceans were
the products of leaching from the land was first proposed
by the English astronomer and mathematician Edmond Halley
in 1691 and restated
by the Irish geologist John Joly in
1899…Based on these calculations, Joly proposed
that the Earth had consolidated and that the oceans had been created between 80 and 90 million years ago. The
subsequent recognition that the ocean is not closed and
that a continual loss of salts occurs due to sedimentation
in certain environments severely limited this novel approach…William
Thomson (later Lord Kelvin) applied his thermodynamic principles
to the problems of
heat flow, and this had implications for predicting
the age of a cooling Sun and of a cooling Earth…Using the same criteria, he concluded in
1899 that the Earth was between 20 and 40 million years old…His
estimate came into question after the discovery of naturally
occurring radioactivity by the French physicist Henri
Becquerel in 1896 and the subsequent recognition
by his colleagues, Marie and Pierre Curie, that compounds
of radium (which occur in uranium minerals) produce heat…Within a short time another leading British
physicist, John William Strutt, concluded that the production
of heat in the Earth's interior was a dynamic process, one
in which heat was continuously provided by such materials
as uranium. The Earth was, in effect, not cooling.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Tracing
the role of circular reasoning in the development of an evolutionary
timescale prior to the onset of radiometric dating is helpful
to understanding that circular reasoning is inherent to radiometric
and relative dating. The quote above asserts that early attempts
to calculate the age of the earth followed from the acceptance
of uniformitarianism. We have already seen that in regards
to geology, uniformitarianism is the evolutionary principle
that assumes that the features of the earth were formed slowly
as a result of long, gradual processes rather than forming
rapidly from catastrophes. And we have also already seen that
the assumption of uniformitarianism is made in spite of the
recognition of the significant role that catastophism plays
in the formation of the earth’s features.
So,
the thought process that leads to the current estimate of
the earth’s age can be constructed as follows. Evidence
from history and archeology only records 5,000-6,000 years
of history on earth. Although catastrophes play a role in
forming the earth’s features quickly and would allow
for their formation over a short time, assume instead that
only long, gradual processes are responsible for the formation
of the earth’s features. Assuming that only long, gradual
processes are responsible for the formation of the earth’s
features, conclude that the earth must be very much older
than 6,000 years. Find some observable evidence to support
the purely speculative assumption that the earth is much older
than 6,000 years.
The
entire process begins with and is dependent upon circular
reasoning. As a result the need arises to seek evidence that
would independently confirm these assumptions of a very, very
old earth without itself depending upon these assumptions.
Early attempts to find such evidence were all found to be
contradicted by other observations and discoveries. And that
is how the situation remained until the advent of radiometric
dating. The assumptions foundational to the theory remained
in desperate need of independent confirmation rather than
circular reasoning. However, as we will see, radiometric dating
doesn’t prove an old earth either unless we first make
these same assumptions.
What
is most significant from the quote above is that these problems
in dating the earth persisted right up through 1896 and 1899,
right into the turn of the twentieth century. Although they
were proven wrong by the evidence, even if these ages were
correct, they were still too short to provide enough time
for evolution to occur. Consequently, while speculations abounded
that the earth was millions or hundreds of millions of years
or older instead of the 6 to 10 thousand years asserted by
the Judeo-Christian record, there was still no evidence indicating
such a great age and no methods capable of producing such
a great age. As such, in order to provide enough time for
the automatic, routine processes of uniformitarianism and
evolution to bring about the earth itself, the earth’s
geologic features, the origin of life, and all of the species
on earth today, another dating method was required, one capable
of giving actual ages in years.
Evolutionists
believed that the earth was older than 6 to 10 thousand years
and that the earth itself, its geologic features, and all
of its numerous forms of life came about by slow, automatic,
routine processes. However, they had no concrete evidence,
no observations or proof that provided any indication of this
beyond their own assumptions. And so, believing this to be
true but having no evidence for it, the quote below states
that“for a long time” evolutionists continued
to “search for an absolute” dating method that
“could turn their relative chronologies into absolute
dates.”
“Archaeology,
Interpretation, Dating – Absolute man-made chronology
based on king lists and records in Egypt
and Mesopotamia goes back
only 5,000 years. For a long time archaeologists searched
for an absolute chronology that went beyond this and could
turn their relative chronologies into absolute dates.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
A
possible solution to this lack of evidence was eventually
found in the form of radiometric dating. It was only shortly
after the turn of the century that radioactivity was discovered,
leading to the onset of the first use of radioactive dating
to estimate the age of the earth. And consequently, it was
not until the arrival of radioactive dating (absolute dating)
that Lord Kelvin’s 20-40 million year estimates were
fully disproved.
“Earth
sciences, The 20th century: modern trends and developments,
Geologic sciences, Radiometric dating – In
1905, shortly after the discovery of radioactivity, the American chemist Bertram Boltwood suggested that lead is one
of the disintegration products of uranium, in which case the
older a uranium-bearing mineral the greater should be its
proportional part of lead. Analyzing specimens whose relative
geologic ages were known, Boltwood found that the ratio of
lead to uranium did indeed increase with age. After estimating the rate of this radioactive
change he calculated that the absolute ages of his specimens
ranged from 410,000,000 to 2,200,000,000 years. Though his figures were too high by about 20 percent, their order of
magnitude was enough to dispose of the short scale of geologic
time proposed by Lord Kelvin.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
With
the onset of radioactive dating, for the first time evolutionists
finally had enough time for evolution to occur.
“Dating
Methods, II DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE METHODS
– With the methods then available, 19th-century
geologists could only construct a relative time scale.
Thus, the actual age of the earth and the
duration, in millions of years, of
the units of the time scale remained unknown until the dawn
of the 20th century. After radioactivity was discovered, radiometric
dating methods were quickly developed. With these new methods
geologists could calibrate the relative scale of geologic
time, thereby creating an absolute one.” –
"Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Geochronology,
Development of radioactive dating methods and their application,
An absolute age framework for the stratigraphic time scale
– In 1905 Strutt succeeded in analyzing the
helium content of aradium-containing rock and determined its
age to be 2 billion years…Although
faced with problems of helium loss and therefore not quite
accurate results, a major scientific breakthrough had been
accomplished. Also in 1905 the American chemist Bertram B.
Boltwood, working with the more stable uranium–lead
system, calculated
the numerical ages of 43 minerals. His results, with a range
of 400 million to 2.2 billion years, were an order of
magnitude greater than those of the other “quantitative”
techniques of the day that made use of heat flow or sedimentation
rates to estimate time. Acceptance of these new ages was slow in coming. Perhaps much to their
relief, paleontologists now had sufficient time in which to
accommodate faunal change…As
a result of this work, the relative geologic time scale, which
had taken nearly 200 years to evolve, could be numerically
quantified. No longer did it have merely superpositional significance,
it now had absolute temporal significance as well.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
There
are several items to note from the quote above. First, we
note that the quotes explicitly state that paleontologists
were “relieved” that absolute dating finally provided
them with enough time for evolution to occur. They had believed
it without any working proof or evidence. But now, they finally
had a potential much-needed means to support what they had
believed without proof all along.
Second
and perhaps most importantly, notice that the quotes explicitly
state that “the relative geologic time scale, which
had taken nearly 200 years to evolve, could be numerically
quantified.” This is significant because it means that
the geologic column and the evolutionary time scale were not
created starting from radiometric dating. But instead, the
evolutionary timescale came from relative dating, which as
we have seen was constructed only by presupposing evolution.
That evolutionary relative timescale had been thoroughly developed
for over 200 years. And when radiometric dating was discovered,
its dates were simply applied to the already-existing evolutionary
timescale of history, even as the first quote above stated,
“with these new methods geologists calibrate the relative
scale of geologic time.” They merely used radioactive
dating to provide years to the existing, evolutionary timescale.
Consequently,
radiometric dating has never been used independently of relative
dating but relative dating has always provided the framework
into which radiometric dates were simply inserted. Radiometric
dates have never been and to this day never are used or derived
without first identifying the expected evolutionary timescale
so that the radiometric dates can conform to that evolutionary
timescale. This is simply a matter of historical fact. The
evolutionary timescale was developed first. For years, evolutionists
searched for a way to assign actual years to their merely
speculated timescale. And finally, radiometric dating methods
were discovered and were immediately plugged into the existing
timescale, just as had been sought all along. No timescale
was ever constructed from radiometric dating. Radiometric
dating has always, only been used in conformity to the existing,
presupposed evolutionary timescale. And, as we will see, radiometric
dates are not independently calculated apart from the evolutionary
timescale. Instead, radiometric dates are derived by using
the relative dates assigned hypothetically by evolution theory.
Since radiometric dates are calculated in accordance with
evolution theory they cannot and do not function to confirm
the pre-existing evolutionary timescale.
However,
at this point the question might arise as to whether or not
this historic circular relationship between relative and absolute
dating continues or has been overcome in present practice.
Concerning
modern dating practice, the first important item to note is
that relative dating and absolute dating simply cannot be
done independently of one another. It simply is not possible
to independently construct a relative dating timescale or
to independently construct an absolute time scale. Constructing
an evolutionary timescale requires using both relative and
absolute dating in an interdependent, interwoven manner. This
is stated specifically in the quote below.
“Archeology,
VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS – Accurately dating an archaeological site requires the application of
two distinct methods of dating: relative and absolute. Relative
dating establishes the date of archaeological finds in relation
to one another. Absolute dating is the often more difficult
task of determining the year in which an artifact, remain,
or geological layer was deposited.” – "Archaeology,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
Since
relative and absolute dating must be used together in an interwoven
manner in order to produce the evolutionary timescale, it
is a simple matter of fact that relative dating and absolute
dating do not and cannot independently confirm one another.
In order to independently confirm one another, they would
have to work independently of one another. But instead, as
we will continue to neither one works without the other. And
neither one is ever done on its own.
The
primary reason why relative dating and absolute dating must
be used together and cannot be used independently flows from
the following facts. First, as Britannica Encyclopedia specifically
states when describing absolute or radiometric dating, not
all rocks can be radiometric dated.
“Geology,
Absolute dating – It is important to remember that
precise ages cannot be obtained for just
any rock unit but that any unit can be dated relative to a
datable unit.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
Second,
radiometric dating can only be used on igneous and metamorphic
rocks. Other than carbon-14 (radiocarbon), radiometric dating
cannot be used on sedimentary rocks. Thus, as Microsoft Encarta
indicates below, radiometric dating is “of limited use
in sedimentary rocks.” This is the case particularly
because carbon-14 dating can only be used on rocks 50,000
years or younger, as we will see when we cover carbon-14 dating
later on.
“Geology,
III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, D Radiometric Dating –
Another fundamental goal of geochronology is to determine
numerical ages of rocks and to assign numbers to the geologic
time scale. The primary
tool for this task is radiometric dating, in which the
decay of radioactive elements is used to date rocks and minerals.
Radiometric dating works best on igneous rocks (rocks that crystallized
from molten material). It
can also be used to date minerals in metamorphic rocks (rocks
that formed when parent rock was submitted to intense heat
and pressure and metamorphosed into another type of rock).
It is of limited use, however, in sedimentary rocks formed
by the compaction of layers of sediment.” – "Geology,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
And
third, the vast majority of all fossils are formed and found
in sedimentary rock.
“Dating,
General considerations, Distinctions between relative-age
and absolute-age measurements – Unlike ages derived
from fossils, which occur only in sedimentary rocks, absolute
ages are obtained from minerals that grow as liquid rock bodies
cool at or below the surface.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Because
fossils are found in sedimentary rock and radiometric dating
can only date igneous and metamorphic rock, in order to construct
a geologic history which dates fossils and rocks going back
4.6 billion years, both radiometric and relative dating must
be used together. This is what Britannica means when it states
that “just any rock” cannot be radiometrically
dated but any rock can be dated “relative to a datable
unit.”
“Geology,
Absolute dating – It is important to remember that
precise ages cannot be obtained for just
any rock unit but that any unit can be dated relative to a
datable unit.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
In
other words, sedimentary rock and fossils cannot be radiometrically
dated, and so they can only have absolute ages that are assigned based upon their relative position above or below igneous
and metamporphic rocks nearby. This is the manner in which
relative dating and absolute dating are combined. We will
see this same concept in the quote below in which Britannica
similarly states, “because most rocks simply cannot
be isotopically dated…a geologist must first determine
relative ages and then locate the most favourable units for
absolute dating.” Once again, this indicates that sedimentary
rocks and fossils can only be assigned absolute ages based
upon their relative position above or below nearby igneous
or metamorphic rocks.
However,
the few quotes below assert an even more important point.
Specifically, both of the quotes below attest that relative
ages must be determined first before absolute dating can occur.
First, it is important to note that when rock samples are
collected at a particular fossil site or outcrop, their precise
location within the layers is recorded.
“Archeology,
VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS – Relative dating relies on the principle of superposition. This principle
states that deeper layers in a stratified sequence of naturally
or humanly deposited earth are older than shallower layers.
In other words, the uppermost layer is the most recent, and
each deeper layer is somewhat older. Relative chronologies come from two sources:
(1) careful stratigraphic excavation in the field, noting the precise location of every artifact
and remain within layers of earth; and (2) close study
of the characteristics of artifacts themselves.” –
"Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
As
the next quote states, relative geologic ages “constitute
an essential part in any precise isotopic, or absolute, dating
program.” It goes on to specify further that relative
dating “must” be determined “first”
before absolute or radiometric dating. Thus, this quote affirms
that determining radiometric ages requires knowing the relative
age of the sample first.
“Dating,
General considerations, Determination of sequence –
Relative geologic ages can be deduced in
rock sequences consisting of sedimentary, metamorphic,
or igneous rock units. In
fact, they constitute an essential part in any precise isotopic,
or absolute, dating program. Such is the case because most
rocks simply cannot be isotopically dated. Therefore,
a geologist must first
determine relative ages and then locate the most favourable
units for absolute dating.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
The
next quote is also explicit, stating that “geologists”
must “first determine the relative age of rocks”
and “construct a geologic time scale” from the
relative ages before they can perform radiometric dating.
As the quote states, radiometric dating is not in any way
used to construct the timescale. Instead, the timescale is
constructed already and radiometric dating is simply used
to place “years” or “numbers” to the
time scale.
“Geology,
III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE – The
process of determining geologic time includes several steps.
Geologists first determine the relative age of rocks-which
rocks are older and which are younger. They then may correlate
rocks to determine which rocks are the same age. Next, they
construct a geologic time scale. Finally, they determine the
specific numerical ages of rocks by various dating methods
and assign numbers to the time scale.” – "Geology,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
Concerning
the fact that radiometric dating uses the relative timescale
(or geologic column) in order to produce its ages, in 1976,
the American Journal
of Science published an article asserting this very fact.
In short, rather than being an objective observation or independent
dating method, radiometric dating is based upon the relative
ages produced by relative dating.
“Radiometric
dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column
had not been erected first…The
rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks
more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning.”
– “Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,”
J.E. O’Rourke, American
Journal of Science 1976, 276:51 (Cited in “Lies
in the Textbooks,” Dr. Kent E. Hovind, Creation Science
Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, www.drdino.com, Windows Media Video,
24 minutes, 55 seconds)
And,
as we saw in an earlier quote, that pre-existing relative
timescale, upon which radiometric ages are based, was put
together for a period of 200 years prior to the onset of radiometric
dating.
“Geochronology,
Development of radioactive dating methods and their application,
An absolute age framework for the stratigraphic time scale
– In 1905 Strutt succeeded in analyzing the
helium content of aradium-containing rock and determined its
age to be 2 billion years…Although
faced with problems of helium loss and therefore not quite
accurate results, a major scientific breakthrough had been
accomplished. Also in 1905 the American chemist Bertram B.
Boltwood, working with the more stable uranium–lead
system, calculated
the numerical ages of 43 minerals. His results, with a range
of 400 million to 2.2 billion years, were an order of
magnitude greater than those of the other “quantitative”
techniques of the day that made use of heat flow or sedimentation
rates to estimate time. Acceptance of these new ages was slow in coming. Perhaps much to their
relief, paleontologists now had sufficient time in which to
accommodate faunal change. Researchers in other fields, however,
were still conservatively sticking with ages on the order
of several hundred million, but were revising their assumed
sedimentation rates downward in order to make room for expanded
time concepts. In a brilliant contribution to resolving
the controversy over the age of the Earth, Arthur Holmes,
a student of Strutt, compared the relative (paleontologically
determined) stratigraphic ages of certain specimens with their
numerical ages as determined in the laboratory…As
a result of this work, the relative geologic time scale, which
had taken nearly 200 years to evolve, could be numerically
quantified. No longer did it have merely superpositional significance,
it now had absolute temporal significance as well.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Furthermore,
the next quote explicitly states that in order to perform
radiometric dating, geochronologies must “rely on geologists
for relative ages.” This clearly demonstrates that the
expected relative age is already in view when radiometric
testing is performed and that the radiometric date simply
works to conform to the existing relative age and pre-existing,
long-standing relative timescale. This is important since
the ages of relative dating are simply hypothetical assertions
of evolution theory that are not based on observation or evidence.
“Dating,
Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating –
Most geologists must rely on geochronologists for their results.
In turn, the geochronologist relies on the geologist for relative ages.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
If
we pull together the information in the previous 5 quotes,
the following picture of the process emerges with resounding
clarity. First, geologists take rock or fossil samples from
sites in the field. They record a sample’s exact position
within the layer and precise relative age information. That
precise position and relative age are placed within the existing
relative geologic timescale, which is based upon evolutionary
assumptions and was created without radiometric dating. All
of this information is needed for radiometric dating to be
performed. And taking all of that information about the sample’s
exact position in the layer and place on the existing geologic
scale, the radiometric dating lab renders an age in years
that fits the age already identified for them using relative
dating methods. And this was not only the case in terms of
the historical origins of radiometric dating, but it continues
to be a matter of the ongoing practice of relative and radiometric
dating to this very day. It is difficult to avoid stating
the obvious on this point. The radiometric age is not an objective
fact at all but merely a ploy for disguising the speculative
and baseless relative age by means of a number in years.
Moreover,
what is so significant is that these facts unequivocally mean
that evolution’s timescale was not and is not constructed
using radiometric dating. Evolution constructs geologic history
from relative dating in a process of circular reasoning guided
by the presumption of evolution in the form of the principle
of faunal succession. Radiometric procedures are only used
afterward to derive dates that fit the existing timescale
that had already been established over hundreds of years without
radiometric dating.
This
raises some primary questions. If radiometric dating works,
if you can simply test the age of rocks and determine or confirm
the geologic age of items using radiometric dating, then why
can’t the evolutionary geologic timescale be constructed
by using only radiometric dating on its own ? Why is an essential
step in the radiometric dating processes to first assign the
specimen a relative age in accordance with the timescale of
evolution theory? As we have seen already in the quotes above,
without first asserting the relative ages assumed by evolution
theory, radiometric dating cannot be used to substantiate
the evolutionary timescale. And we will see why this is the
case later in our segment detailing the processes and problems
of radiometric dating.
Returning
the issue of circular reasoning, not only does relative age
dictate the radiometric age, but in true circular fashion,
the radiometric age is heralded as proof that the relative
age is correct.
“Dating,
General considerations, Correlation, Principles and techniques
–Nevertheless, there is no greater testimony to the validity of
fossil-based stratigraphic geology than the absolute dates
made possible through radioactive measurements. Almost
without exception, the relative order of strata defined by
fossils has been confirmed by radiometric ages.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geology,
III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, D Radiometric Dating –
One of the great triumphs of geochronology
is that numbers acquired by radiometric dating matched predictions
based on superposition and
other means of geologic age determination, confirming the
assumption of uniformitarianism.” – "Geology,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
This
is classic circular reasoning. Relative age information serves
as the basis for determining radiometric ages. And then radiometric
ages are said to provide the dates in years that fill out
the relative dating timescale. This was stated explicitly
moments ago in a previous quote. The geologists get the ages
in years from the geochronologists who perform the radiometric
dating, but the geochronologists who perform the radiometric
dating first get the age range from the geologists who use
only relative dating.
“Dating,
Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating –
Most geologists must rely on geochronologists
for their results. In
turn, the geochronologist relies on the geologist for relative
ages.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe
Edition
Exactly how the geochronologist, who determines radiometric
dates, relies upon the geologist for relative ages will be
explored in detail when we discuss radiometric dating processes.
What we will see is that a hypothetical date based on the
evolutionary timescale is the critical factor in the formula
used to determining the absolute, radiometric age of a sample.
Other factors are adjusted so as to arrive at a date that
fits with this pre-specified, hypothetical date from the evolutionary
timescale.
And
just as the quotes above established that radiometric dating
cannot be performed without relative ages being supplied first,
it is also conversely the case that relative ages are empty
and unsupported if radiometric ages are not supplied. Notice
that many of the quotes below state specifically that radiometric
dating is not used to construct evolutions’ timescale
but merely to superficially assign dates to it.
“Geologic
Time, III DATING METHODS – All of these methods facilitate
the relative dating of rock sequences, but do not provide
absolute ages for the rocks. Geologists have several methods
for determining the actual age of a rock layer. The most important
is radiometric dating, which uses the steady decay of
radioactive elements (seeRadioactivity) in the rock to provide
a measure of age.” – "Geologic Time,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Archaeology,
Interpretation, Dating – Absolute man-made chronology
based on king lists and records in Egypt
and Mesopotamia goes back
only 5,000 years. For a long time archaeologists searched
for an absolute chronology that went beyond this and could
turn their relative chronologies into absolute dates.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Fossil,
Studying fossils, Dating fossils
– When a fossil species is first discovered,
it is usually found along with other species. If
paleontologists know the position of the other species in
the history of life, they can determine the position of the
new species. This type of dating only indicates whether one
fossil is older or younger than another fossil. It does not
provide a fossil's age in years. Paleontologists determine
how old a fossil is by measuring the radioactive isotopes
in the rocks that contain the fossil.” – Worldbook,
Contributor: Steven M. Stanley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth
and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins
University.
“Fossil,
Dating fossils – Through many years of research,
paleontologists have come to understand the
order in which most kinds of fossils occur in the geological
record. When a fossil species is first discovered, it
is usually found along with other species. If paleontologists
know the position of the other species in the history of life,
they can determine the position of the new species. This type of dating only indicates whether
one fossil is older or younger than another fossil. It does
not provide a fossil's age in years. Paleontologists determine
how old a fossil is by measuring the radioactive isotopes
in the rocks that contain the fossil.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Index
Fossil, IV USE OF INDEX FOSSILS – Using index fossils and the principle of faunal and floral succession,
scientists can determine a relative chronology, or a sequence
of events. Yet, absolute
age, or the number of years that have passed since a rock
layer formed, cannot be determined using fossils alone. Absolute
age must be derived from dating methods such as radiometric
dating.” – "Index Fossil," Microsoft®
Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
“Archeology,
VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS – Accurately dating
an archaeological site requires the application of two distinct
methods of dating: relative and absolute. Relative
dating establishes the date of archaeological finds in relation
to one another. Absolute dating is the often more difficult
task of determining the year in which an artifact, remain,
or geological layer was deposited.” – "Archaeology,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Stratigraphy,
III RELATIVE VERSUS
ABSOLUTE AGES – The
above example gives only the sequence of geologic events for
a particular place; it provides no information as to how long
ago the events occurred. The example illustrates the use of relative ages by showing the occurrence
of events with respect to each other. In contrast, absolute
ages specify, in years, when a rock formed.” –
"Stratigraphy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Archaeology,
How archaeologists interpret findings – Relative dating gives information about the age of an object in relation
to other objects. Thus, relative dating methods produce only
comparisons, not actual dates...Absolute
dating determines the age of an object in years.”
– Contributor: Thomas R. Hester, Ph.D., Professor of
Anthropology, University of Texas,
Austin.
“Geology,
III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, D Radiometric Dating –
Another fundamental goal of geochronology is to determine
numerical ages of rocks and to assign numbers to the geologic
time scale. The primary tool for this task is radiometric
dating, in which the decay of radioactive elements is
used to date rocks and minerals…Using
dated rocks, geologists have been able to assign numbers to
the geologic time scale.” – "Geology,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating
Methods, II DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE METHODS
– With the methods then available, 19th-century
geologists could only construct a relative time scale.
Thus, the actual age of the earth and the
duration, in millions of years, of
the units of the time scale remained unknown until the
dawn of the 20th century.
After radioactivity was discovered,
radiometric dating methods were quickly developed. With these
new methods geologists could calibrate the relative scale
of geologic time, thereby creating an absolute one.”
– "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Earth,
geologic history of, Time scales – There are, in fact, two geologic time scales. One is relative, or
chronostratigraphic, and the other is
absolute, or chronometric. The chronostratigraphic scale has
evolved since the mid-1800s and concerns
the relative order of strata…The
chronometric scale is based on specific units of duration
and on the numerical ages that are assigned to
the aforementioned chronostratigraphic boundaries.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating,
General considerations, Distinctions between relative-age
and absolute-age measurements – In fact, even
in younger rocks, absolute dating is the only way that the
fossil record can be calibrated. Without absolute ages, investigators
could only determine which fossil organisms lived at the same
time and the relative order of their appearance in the correlated
sedimentary rock record.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
In
addition to the fact that the relationship between relative
and radiometric dating is a circular one, notice that Britannica
encyclopedia does not consider radiometric dating to be an
objectively reliable procedure but instead regards the processes
as entirely subject to the the degree of objectivity possessed
by the individual performing the dating. “In all cases,”
according to Britannica, radiometric dates are valid or invalid
based entirely on whether or not the investigators sufficiently
and open-mindedly attempt to prove their dates wrong.
“Dating,
Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating –
In all cases, it is the obligation of the
investigator making the determinations to include enough tests
to indicate that the absolute age quoted is valid within the
limits stated. In other words, it
is the obligation of geochronologists to try to prove themselves
wrong by including a series of cross-checks in their measurements
before they publish a result. Such checks include dating a
series of ancient units with closely spaced but known relative
ages and replicate analysis of different parts of the same
rock body with samples collected at widely spaced localities.
The importance of internal checks as well as interlaboratory comparisons
becomes all the more
apparent when one realizes that geochronology laboratories
are limited in number. Because of the expensive equipment necessary
and the combination of geologic, chemical, and laboratory
skills required, geochronology is usually carried out by teams
of experts. Most geologists must rely on geochronologists
for their results. In turn, the geochronologist relies on
the geologist for relative ages.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
So,
while Britannica asserts that the validity of radiometric
dates rests solely on whether or not the individual geochronologist
is objectively trying to determine if his calculations are
in error, we already know that the entire operating procedure
is based upon circular reasoning, a reasoning process that
according to Britannica “presumes” or “covertly”
assumes “the very conclusion that is to be demonstrated.”
So, since radiometric ages are not objective facts but are
right or wrong depending on the objectivity of the investigator
performing the dating, how can we rely on such ages when we
know that the investigators are not “trying to prove
themselves wrong” but are instead “presuming”
or “covertly” assuming “the very conclusion”
that they are trying to prove, namely that the samples fit
the ages determined by the relative dates assumed by evolution?
Britannica even concludes this quote with reaffirming that
geochronologists performing the radiometric dating actually
get the ages from geologists and the relative dating scale.
Having seen the role of philosophical preference before and
having seen the circular reasoning in the procedure, which
relies on covertly presuming the very thing that it is setting
out to prove, there is simply no reason to regard radiometric
ages as objective observations or independent verifications
of the evolutionary timescale.
In
summary, the circular reasoning between relative dating and
radiometric dating is a textbook example of a circular argument.
As Britannica described, it “presumes” or “covertly”
assumes “the very conclusion that is to be demonstrated,”
in this case the age of the fossils and the rocks. Consequently,
Britannica’s conclusion regarding circular arguments
applies. The circular reasoning for relative dating and radiometric
dating is “an ineptitude of argumentation,” “is
not deductively valid,” and “lacks any power of
conviction.”
We
leave this segment with the following points. First, evolution
is based upon circular reasoning in 3 areas, all of which
are critical to geologic dating: the relationship between
dating fossils and dating rocks, the relationship between
all forms of relative dating and evolutionary theory itself,
and finally the relationship between radiometric dating and
relative dating. Not a single dating method works or supports
evolution without first presuming evolution in the first place
as part of the premises. Second, throughout this segment,
we have established the claim that radiometric dating is a
superficial ploy that is not grounded in objective observation
but is adjusted to fit the presumed and predetermined evolutionary
timescale. After out next segment exploring the evolutionarty
timescale itself, we will find out exactly why and how this
adjusting can occur in radiometric dating as we explore radiometric
dating itself. This adjusting of radiometric dates to fit
with the relative dates assumed by evolution will serve to
further demonstrate that radiometric dating is not an independent
confirmation of the evolutionary timescale. Rather radiometric
dating is used to prove evolutionary timescale by first assuming
the evolutionary timescale and then adjusting to “correct”
any “discrepancies” with the evolutionary timescale.