• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolutionists: what animals are you descended from?

leibowde84

Veteran Member
No, it means scientists are deceiving themselves. Nothing "looks" millions of years old.
But, they don't base their age findings on "looks", they base it on well-tested dating methods (see below from https://naturalhistory.si.edu/exhibits/backyard-dinosaurs/questions-answers.cfm?know=a24)

How do we know the ages of fossils and fossil-bearing rocks?

Scientists combine several well-tested techniques to find out the ages of fossils. The most important are Relative Dating, in which fossils and layers of rock are placed in order from older to younger, and Radiometric Dating, which allows the actual ages of certain types of rock to be calculated.

Relative Dating. Fossils are found in sedimentary rocks that formed when eroded sediments piled up in low-lying places such as river flood plains, lake bottoms or ocean floors. Sedimentary rock typically is layered, with the layers derived from different periods of sediment accumulation. Almost any place where the forces of erosion - or road crews - have carved through sedimentary rock is a good place to look for rock layers stacked up in the exposed rock face.


These rock layers formed from sediments deposited in a lake. Click to zoom. Photo courtesy of Rod Benson, www.formontana.net.

When you look at a layer cake, you know that the layer at the bottom was the first one the baker put on the plate, and the upper ones were added later. In the same way, geologists figure out the relative ages of fossils and sedimentary rock layers; rock layers, and the fossils they contain, toward the bottom of a stack of sediments are older than those found higher in the stack.

Radiometric Dating. Until the middle of the last century, "older" or "younger" was the best scientists could do when assigning ages to fossils. There was no way to calculate an "absolute" age (in years) for any fossil or rock layer. But after scientists learned that the nuclear decay of radioactive elements takes place at a predictable rate, they realized that the traces of radioactive elements present in certain types of rock, such as hardened lava and tuff (formed from compacted volcanic ash), could be analyzed chemically to determine the ages, in years, of those rocks.

Putting Relative and Radiometric Dating Together. Once it was possible to measure the ages of volcanic layers in a stack of sedimentary rock, the entire sequence could be pinned to the absolute time scale. In the Wyoming landscape shown below left, for example, the gray ash layer was found to be 73 million years old. This means that fossils in rock layers below the tuff are older than 73 million years, and those above the tuff are younger. Fossils found embedded within the ash, including the fossil leaves shown below right, are the same age as the ash: 73 million years old.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
But, they don't base their age findings on "looks", they base it on well-tested dating methods (see below from https://naturalhistory.si.edu/exhibits/backyard-dinosaurs/questions-answers.cfm?know=a24)

How do we know the ages of fossils and fossil-bearing rocks?

Scientists combine several well-tested techniques to find out the ages of fossils. The most important are Relative Dating, in which fossils and layers of rock are placed in order from older to younger, and Radiometric Dating, which allows the actual ages of certain types of rock to be calculated.

Relative Dating. Fossils are found in sedimentary rocks that formed when eroded sediments piled up in low-lying places such as river flood plains, lake bottoms or ocean floors. Sedimentary rock typically is layered, with the layers derived from different periods of sediment accumulation. Almost any place where the forces of erosion - or road crews - have carved through sedimentary rock is a good place to look for rock layers stacked up in the exposed rock face.


These rock layers formed from sediments deposited in a lake. Click to zoom. Photo courtesy of Rod Benson, www.formontana.net.

When you look at a layer cake, you know that the layer at the bottom was the first one the baker put on the plate, and the upper ones were added later. In the same way, geologists figure out the relative ages of fossils and sedimentary rock layers; rock layers, and the fossils they contain, toward the bottom of a stack of sediments are older than those found higher in the stack.

Radiometric Dating. Until the middle of the last century, "older" or "younger" was the best scientists could do when assigning ages to fossils. There was no way to calculate an "absolute" age (in years) for any fossil or rock layer. But after scientists learned that the nuclear decay of radioactive elements takes place at a predictable rate, they realized that the traces of radioactive elements present in certain types of rock, such as hardened lava and tuff (formed from compacted volcanic ash), could be analyzed chemically to determine the ages, in years, of those rocks.

Putting Relative and Radiometric Dating Together. Once it was possible to measure the ages of volcanic layers in a stack of sedimentary rock, the entire sequence could be pinned to the absolute time scale. In the Wyoming landscape shown below left, for example, the gray ash layer was found to be 73 million years old. This means that fossils in rock layers below the tuff are older than 73 million years, and those above the tuff are younger. Fossils found embedded within the ash, including the fossil leaves shown below right, are the same age as the ash: 73 million years old.

Translation: We're guessing! Haha!
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Well yeah, in the same way that they're "biased" against publishing any papers on flat-earth geocentrism.

Oh, that's so wise! Got any more great wisdom, oh wise one?

That must be why they also publish no papers about Martians, Plutonians and new toilet parts.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Oh, that's so wise! Got any more great wisdom, oh wise one?
If you're a troll who's just out to perpetuate negative stereotypes about Christians, then well done. If not......well, I guess your posts speak for themselves.

That must be why they also publish no papers about Martians, Plutonians and new toilet parts.
Uh huh.

The fact remains, the reason scientific journals don't publish anything in young-earth creationism is because it's wrong....very, very, very wrong.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
If you're a troll who's just out to perpetuate negative stereotypes about Christians, then well done. If not......well, I guess your posts speak for themselves.


Uh huh.

The fact remains, the reason scientific journals don't publish anything in young-earth creationism is because it's wrong....very, very, very wrong.

That's your opinion. In my humble opinion, millions of years, abiogenesis and macroevolution are all dead wrong.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Just admit that scientists are guessing and I'll shut up. You know they are, they don't know anything for sure.
No, I don't know this. I know people who are bonafide scientists, in this field. They are extremely fussy about detailed and evidence supported beliefs.
As opposed to religious people who believe things with no evidence that can be distinguished from delusions and hallucinations.
Like you.
Tom
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
No, I don't know this. I know people who are bonafide scientists, in this field. They are extremely fussy about detailed and evidence supported beliefs.
As opposed to religious people who believe things with no evidence that can be distinguished from delusions and hallucinations.
Like you.
Tom

"Fussy about detailed and evidence supported beliefs" is still just beliefs. It isn't fact. It's guesswork and that's all it is. Sorry, Tom, you've got zero hard evidence, you've got scientists interpreting the data to fit the model they already have set in stone in their minds. That's not objective at all.

And we have evidence for what we believe. You just refuse to acknowledge it, that's on you, not us.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Yes, opinions are accepted by those who accept them. Your opinion is only as good or bad as your audience. I believe that was my point.
Except for the pesky little fact that evolutionary theory has produced tangible, useful results. Meanwhile young-earth creationism hasn't contributed a single thing.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
And we have evidence for what we believe. You just refuse to acknowledge it, that's on you, not us.
Because it is indistinguishable for ancient hearsay, delusions, and hallucinations.
Same as every other religious world view, from the Aztecs to the Hindu.
As opposed to the scientific community who pile up mountains of data, and will change their views to match the reality. Religious people ignore the reality when it conflicts with their worldviews.
Tom
 
Top