Underseer
Contributor
As with some other threads I started, this is the result of me being tired of saying the same thing over and over again.
Evolution is circular reasoning part 1: the fossil record
Christian argument: Fossil layers are dated using the presence of fossils, therefore the dating of fossils is circular reasoning. Therefore, we have no idea how old fossils are, therefore evolution is false.
That's not how this works.
Fossil layers are not dated directly because sedimentary rock is formed by the gradual accumulation of sediment. The layers contain material accumulated over a very large amount of time, so normal dating methods are not valid.
However, sedimentary rock generally is sandwiched above and below by igneous rock, which forms very quickly and can be dated using radiometric dating. Thus we know that the age of the fossils in a sedimentary layer must be younger than the layer below and older than the layer above. This is why the date ranges for fossils are so large.
Certain sedimentary layers can be identified by which fossils are in it. Every time scientists have been able to date the layers above and below, they get the same answers, so the layers are now identified by the fossils.
The actual age is determined by radiometric dating of surrounding layers. The fossils are only used to identify which layer.
So circular reasoning is not used to date the fossils. Furthermore, even if this were there case, that still would not disprove evolution because the important piece of information relevant to supporting evolution is not the age of the fossil layers, but the order of fossil layers. Even if the dates were all wrong, the order of the layers is what proves evolution.
If you are going to declare yourself more of an expert in geology than the geologists, then you need to know more than geologists about how rock layers are dated. If you are using this argument, then you know significantly less than geologists about how geologic strata are dated.
Evolution is circular reasoning part 2, the scientific method
Christian argument: evolution is verified by the scientific method. Well how do you know the scientific method is true? Ah ha! It's circular reasoning, therefore evolution is false!
Do you remember our friend reductio ad absurdum? If the logic of this argument is valid, then all scientific truth claims are based on circular reasoning. The fact that you are using a computing device to communicate your anti-science argument should have been a clue that something is wrong with your argument.
Here, let me help. The scientific method is not a truth claim, it is a means of evaluating truth claims. The scientific method is neither true nor false. We do not use the scientific method because it is true (it can't be true, it's not a truth claim), we use it because it makes better predictions about the physical world than any other method we have tried. Find us another means of evaluating truth claims about the physical world that produces more accurate predictions than science, and everyone will use that instead. Until then, science is the best method for evaluating truth claims about the physical universe.
And just for the record, that similar argument you use about logic is wrong for the same reason. Logic isn't true because it's not a truth claim. It's a method of evaluating the things people use to support truth claims. Come up with something that works better and we'll use that instead. Until then, we'll stick with what has been shown to work, thank you very much. If all logic is false because it's circular reasoning, then how do you know that circular reasoning is bad? For that matter, how would you go about evaluating arguments if you declare all logic to be circular reasoning?
To reiterate: the scientific method isn't true, thus we do not use it because it is true. It can't be true because it isn't a truth claim. We use it to evaluate truth claims because it is useful. It is useful because it makes better predictions than anything else.
If you are going to declare all of science to be based on a circular reasoning fallacy, maybe don't use a product of science to communicate your arguments? I don't think you understand just how many different scientific truth claims go into the function, design, and manufacture of computers.
Evolution is circular reasoning part 1: the fossil record
Christian argument: Fossil layers are dated using the presence of fossils, therefore the dating of fossils is circular reasoning. Therefore, we have no idea how old fossils are, therefore evolution is false.
That's not how this works.
Fossil layers are not dated directly because sedimentary rock is formed by the gradual accumulation of sediment. The layers contain material accumulated over a very large amount of time, so normal dating methods are not valid.
However, sedimentary rock generally is sandwiched above and below by igneous rock, which forms very quickly and can be dated using radiometric dating. Thus we know that the age of the fossils in a sedimentary layer must be younger than the layer below and older than the layer above. This is why the date ranges for fossils are so large.
Certain sedimentary layers can be identified by which fossils are in it. Every time scientists have been able to date the layers above and below, they get the same answers, so the layers are now identified by the fossils.
The actual age is determined by radiometric dating of surrounding layers. The fossils are only used to identify which layer.
So circular reasoning is not used to date the fossils. Furthermore, even if this were there case, that still would not disprove evolution because the important piece of information relevant to supporting evolution is not the age of the fossil layers, but the order of fossil layers. Even if the dates were all wrong, the order of the layers is what proves evolution.
If you are going to declare yourself more of an expert in geology than the geologists, then you need to know more than geologists about how rock layers are dated. If you are using this argument, then you know significantly less than geologists about how geologic strata are dated.
Evolution is circular reasoning part 2, the scientific method
Christian argument: evolution is verified by the scientific method. Well how do you know the scientific method is true? Ah ha! It's circular reasoning, therefore evolution is false!
Do you remember our friend reductio ad absurdum? If the logic of this argument is valid, then all scientific truth claims are based on circular reasoning. The fact that you are using a computing device to communicate your anti-science argument should have been a clue that something is wrong with your argument.
Here, let me help. The scientific method is not a truth claim, it is a means of evaluating truth claims. The scientific method is neither true nor false. We do not use the scientific method because it is true (it can't be true, it's not a truth claim), we use it because it makes better predictions about the physical world than any other method we have tried. Find us another means of evaluating truth claims about the physical world that produces more accurate predictions than science, and everyone will use that instead. Until then, science is the best method for evaluating truth claims about the physical universe.
And just for the record, that similar argument you use about logic is wrong for the same reason. Logic isn't true because it's not a truth claim. It's a method of evaluating the things people use to support truth claims. Come up with something that works better and we'll use that instead. Until then, we'll stick with what has been shown to work, thank you very much. If all logic is false because it's circular reasoning, then how do you know that circular reasoning is bad? For that matter, how would you go about evaluating arguments if you declare all logic to be circular reasoning?
To reiterate: the scientific method isn't true, thus we do not use it because it is true. It can't be true because it isn't a truth claim. We use it to evaluate truth claims because it is useful. It is useful because it makes better predictions than anything else.
If you are going to declare all of science to be based on a circular reasoning fallacy, maybe don't use a product of science to communicate your arguments? I don't think you understand just how many different scientific truth claims go into the function, design, and manufacture of computers.
