Where did this YEC concept come from?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-06-2012, 12:17 PM
Where did this YEC concept come from?
"Do you know how evolutionists date fossils? They date them by the rocks that they're in. Do you know how they date the rocks? They date those by the fossils that are found in them. How's that for 'science'?"

I remember using this argument back in my YEC days, but I never had anything to back it up. I've heard it referenced several times by YECs over the years.

Can someone tell me where this crap came from?

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2012, 12:19 PM
RE: Where did this YEC concept come from?
[Image: human-brain-02.jpg]

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2012, 12:50 PM
RE: Where did this YEC concept come from?
I have no idea where it comes from but it is true in some cases. We have fossils known as 'index fossils' that are short-lived, quick to evolve, and widespread. These fossils only exist for a short interval of time, so if you find one of these, you know what span of time you must be in. An example would be Archimedes spiral, which is a bryozoan.

Before any absolute ages were associated with the rock layers and/or fossils, all we had were ages assigned by the fossils themselves. The fossils are the basis for the Geologic time-scale. I might find a particular assemblage of fossils and I would say that they indicate that these rocks are Permian in age. We now know what the actual age of the Permian is, but prior to radiometric dating, that is all geologists would have said.

So, we do use fossils to date the age range of rocks, but the absolute ages of the rocks (and therefore the fossils) come from radiometric dating of minerals.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2012, 12:52 PM
RE: Where did this YEC concept come from?
I am normally a fan of anatomy, I have posters of brains labelling everything, etc- but for some reason, that is DISGUSTING!

Ew.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes LadyJane's post
06-06-2012, 12:55 PM
RE: Where did this YEC concept come from?
Hey KC. (Hope ze baby is fine).

Seems the current outbreak of this disease came from Ireland ??

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zi...91873.html

Since you're so great at games, you might like this visual thingy. You can watch evolution happen, and mess with it. (....it shows why the Irreducible Complexity thing is off base).

http://www.stellaralchemy.com/ice/.

http://www.stellaralchemy.com/ice/index.php

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2012, 05:25 PM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2012 05:29 PM by Starcrash.)
RE: Where did this YEC concept come from?
(06-06-2012 12:17 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  "Do you know how evolutionists date fossils? They date them by the rocks that they're in. Do you know how they date the rocks? They date those by the fossils that are found in them. How's that for 'science'?"
It's true, in part. Let me quote a bit on it from The Greatest Show on Earth (Dawkins, 2009)

Quote:To date a fossil, you don't literally need to find it sandwiched between two slabs of igneous
rock, although that is a neat way to illustrate the principle. The actual method used is more refined
than that. Recognizably similar layers of sedimentary rock occur all over the world. Long before
radioactive dating was discovered, these layers had been identified and given names: names like
Cambrian, Ordovician, Devonian, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene. Devonian
sediments are recognizably Devonian, not only in Devon (the county in south-west England that
gave them their name) but in other parts of the world. They are recognizably similar to each other,
and they contain similar lists of fossils. Geologists have long known the order in which these
named sediments were laid down. It's just that, before the advent of radioactive clocks, we didn't
know when they were laid down. We could arrange them in order because - obviously - older
sediments tend to lie beneath younger sediments. Devonian sediments, for example, are older than
Carboniferous (named after the coal which is frequently found in Carboniferous layers) and we
know this because, in those parts of the world where the two layers coincide, the Devonian layer
lies underneath the Carboniferous layer (the exceptions to this rule occur in places where we can
tell, from other evidence, that the rocks have been tilted aslant, or even turned upside down). We
aren't usually fortunate enough to find a complete run of layers, all the way from Cambrian at the
bottom up to Recent at the top. But because the layers are so recognizable, you can work out their
relative ages by daisychaining and jigsawing your way around the world.
Of course we have radiometric dating now, so even though we knew what rock layer was older than what, we have the ability to date each rock layer by the radioactive elements found in igneous rock in those layers. And when we find fossils in those layers, we reasonably assume that they are the same age as the rock layer. That's why I say it's true "in part", because the rocks aren't dated by the fossils found in them. That's never been true, even before we discovered radioactive decay.

There's also fission track dating and molecular clocks , which are both discussed in this very useful book on the topic of evolution, and they verify our radiometric dating. Do you ever hear YEC creationists attack fission track dating or molecular dating? The same canards used to delegitimize carbon-dating don't apply to uranium, and molecular clocks don't have any exceptions or failures.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2012, 06:20 PM
RE: Where did this YEC concept come from?
(06-06-2012 05:25 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  The same canards used to delegitimize carbon-dating don't apply to uranium, and molecular clocks don't have any exceptions or failures.



from a previous post :


the "Curve of Knowns"
http://www.c14dating.com/int.html
Empirical data for a vast range of radionuclides now exists. Kaye & Laby's Tables of Physical & Chemical Constants, devised and maintained by the National Physical Laboratory in the UK, contains among the voluminous sets of data produced by the precise laboratory work of various scientists a complete table of the nuclides, which due to its huge size, is split into sections to make it more manageable, in which data such as half-life, major emissions, emission energies and other useful data are included. The sections are:
[1] Hydrogen to Flourine
[2] Neon to Potassium
[3] Calcium to Copper
[4] Zinc to Yttrium
[5] Zirconium to Indium
[6] Tin to Praesodymium
[7] Neodymium to Thulium
[8] Ytterbium to gold
[9] Mercury to Actinium
[10] Thorium to Einsteinium
[11] Fermium to Roentgenium (name not yet officially recognised by IUPAC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_dating
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/09/hu...young.html
http://www.reduciblycomplex.com/index.ph...-debunked/
http://home.earthlink.net/~ironmen/qumran5.htm
http://www.harvardhouse.com/Gabriel-to-D...Method.htm
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creat...html#prove
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educat...teach.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/Learning.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/McKinney.html
http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/...gback.html
http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/...index.html
http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-3/
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/vi...184#269184
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...161307.htm

There are multiple methods used all of which give answers in about the same range. (When you're dealing with ages in billions of years being off by a million or three is a small percentage). The Earth is estimated to be about 4.6 billion years old.

These methods include:
Radiocarbon dating
Potassium-Argon dating
Uranium-Lead dating.

All of these relate a known, relatively constant rate of decay of a radioactive isotope. They're not affected by external factors such as temperature, pressure, etc.

There are other dating methods as well that can be used to establish that the age of the Earth is WELL over anything the Creationists are proposing.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_ti…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric…
http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creat...-14-dating

The ONLY reason they do it, is maintian the fiction of a literal interpretation of non-literal ancient myths.

In Hebrew/Biblical culture, there is not a word "historical" -- the concept was "known", but not the point. ( http://video.pbs.org/video/1051895565/ )
They can't even tell you when Hebrew culture became monotheistic, (within a hundred years), or why, or even when exactly Genesis was first written, or in what language, when that language first appeared, and began to be written, and how, exactly the editors, who pasted together the Y(J), D, E, K, and P sources, had any way of knowing what happened before a human was "created", since that didn't happen, until the sixth "day".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/flood.html

So much for YEC.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-06-2012, 06:40 PM
RE: Where did this YEC concept come from?
(06-06-2012 12:52 PM)LadyJane Wrote:  I am normally a fan of anatomy, I have posters of brains labelling everything, etc- but for some reason, that is DISGUSTING!

Ew.
Hey, whadya mean, LJ? Dinner's ready...yum yum Yes

Braaaaaaains..... Heart

Humankind Dodgy (a total misnomer)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes aurora's post
06-06-2012, 06:46 PM
RE: Where did this YEC concept come from?
(06-06-2012 12:17 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  "Do you know how evolutionists date fossils? They date them by the rocks that they're in. Do you know how they date the rocks? They date those by the fossils that are found in them. How's that for 'science'?"

I remember using this argument back in my YEC days, but I never had anything to back it up. I've heard it referenced several times by YECs over the years.

Can someone tell me where this crap came from?
Hey KC,

If you're referring to the current strain of YEC I think the main roots are from the 1960's. The current spin is from Duane Gish etc.

The National Center for Science Education has several vids on YouTube explain them and to some extent the origins.

Hope that helps Smile

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2012, 07:32 AM
RE: Where did this YEC concept come from?
(06-06-2012 12:17 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  "Do you know how evolutionists date fossils? They date them by the rocks that they're in. Do you know how they date the rocks? They date those by the fossils that are found in them. How's that for 'science'?"

I remember using this argument back in my YEC days, but I never had anything to back it up. I've heard it referenced several times by YECs over the years.

Can someone tell me where this crap came from?
The simple answer is that it comes from a lack of knowledge and the ignoring of evidence and facts that don't fit with YEC.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: