Why do atheists mock Christians for circular logic, yet their belief in evolution has circular logic?

Question

Carbon 14 dating is a great example.

It decays into nitrogen after a certain amount of time. Scientists use this to date fossils.

Funny how this is the only "evidence" for how old fossils are. There aren't several ways. Only this way.

So why is a certain fossil this age or that age? Because carbon 14 says so. Checkmate, so say the atheists.

Answer 1

Consider this



Mysteries In Science

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5725394906886443944&ei=QHDFSeLrD47I-gG6m6z1Bw&q=fingerprints+of+creation&hl=en



The Young Age of the Earth

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/faith_and_spirituality/watch/v142573852wTf25Nx#



The Origin of Man by Dr. Duane Gish

http://www.strimoo.com/video/14877425/The-Origin-of-Man-by-Dr-Duane-Gish-Veoh.html



Skull Fossils - As Empty as the Evolutionary Theory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yu5jN897kM



Neanderthals - Smarter Than We Thought

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxL636n3w2o



Creation In The 21st Century - Our Young Moon 1 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i3jtYx7NMk



The "Dark Cloud" of the Big Bang

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8903287973124207940&ei=znTFScGOApzE-gHD6IHBCg&q=Dr+Robert+gentry&hl=en



Why do creationists feel sorry for delusionists?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d4b_1214585502



Today's World Population Debunks Evolution- Dr. Carl Baugh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWxqzNM76jE



Creation In The 21st Century -- Noah's Ark and Jesus 1 of 3 (Parallel)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQg67H4GK1o

Answer 2

Scientists do not use C-14 to date fossils, nitwit, because the technique does not extend that far into the past.



If evolution is false, then all of science is compromised. There is no other single element in all of science that is so defined by, and defines, science. It may well be the single greatest achievement in the history of science.



It certainly is the most powerful theory ever produced by the scientific method - more than anything in physics. It is the biological equivalent of the unifying theory physicists have long sought.



There is no alternative hypothesis because there has never been one piece of contradicting evidence. Every objection has been demonstrably shown to be irrelevant, distorted, or just false.



Even if dinosaurs and humans were found in the same geologic formation it would have no effect at all on the theory evolution. It would only mean that our estimate for the extinction of the dinosaurs was incorrect and needed to be adjusted. There are no "missing links" and there is nothing in the fossil record that does not fit.



In fact, evolution has always predicted new fossil evidence before it was discovered, just as it predicted genetics, germ theory, cell and molecular theory, and DNA decades to centuries before those things were identified. More importantly, it was the framework that guided the research, telling the investigators what to look for and the direction their research should take in order to make those discoveries.



Creationism is the mythological belief of quasi-historic, semi-nomadic tribes of illiterate Semitic sheep herders (who also thought that the earth was flat). All creationists fall into one of two groups; (1) the ill-educated and scientifically illiterate and (2) the intentionally dishonest.



Which are you?

Answer 3

Also, carbon 14 dating is based on a ratio of carbon in the atmosphere to carbon in the object. They're assuming that the atmosphere has always had the same amount of carbon 14. This is where it fails. Evolutionists guessed the age of the earth when they first started theorizing about how old it could be, then they tried gathering some kind of evidence to try to fit that age. They also say that the layers in the rocks are different ages in time, so they take a fossil out of a layer and date the fossil by the layer, then turn around and date the layer by the fossil. It's circular reasoning. I hope people will find out all the lies of evolution, but it's a tough battle to fight since our whole public education system treats it like a solid fact. It's indoctrination in the works. Bottom line: they don't want there to be a God, so they will do anything necessary to try to prove the creation of the earth by natural processes. Some people are not taught any other theory to evolution, so they just do not know. They can find out here...to see lots of evidence for creation visit this website: http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10

Answer 4

They don't use carbon dating for fossils because C14 has a maximum life of around 50,000 years. So fossils cannot be directly dated at the millions of years required for the evolution story.



The supposed radiometric dating applied to fossils is obtained by dating igneous rock intrusions (from volcanism etc.) which are sometimes found in sedimentary deposits. This type of dating is notoriously unreliable and cannot be trusted. That is why the archaeological opinion of evolutionists is used as the final arbiter of fossil dating.



The major problem evolutionists have is that whenever the dating of fossils has been attempted using Carbon14 dating, there has always been C14 present. This is impossible if the fossils really are millions of years old. The presence of C14 indicates that the fossils are less than 50,000 years old. For example, all coal (supposedly formed in the Carboniferous age) contains C14, which means that coal has been formed fairly recently and the so-called Carboniferous age is just a myth. This is a serious dilemma for evolutionists who tend to either ignore such evidence or play it down as not significant. However, if such powerful evidence supported evolutionist timescales they would be shouting it from the rooftops.



Modern science has now demolished the geologic column used by evolutionists to support the vast timescales needed for the evolution story. But evolutionists still cling to the outmoded dating system because the whole facade of progressive evolution would collapse if they acknowledged the findings of modern research.



For the modern scientific evidence see the links below:

http://www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

http://www.sedimentology.fr/

Answer 5

How is that circular logic? If you time a chemical reaction using a clock and then state "X takes Y time to react with Z", that's hardly circular. Same general process here...knowing that Carbon 14 can only be absorbed into tissue while an organism is alive and that it decays at a certain rate (look up the definition of 'half-life' sometime), this is a less-exact but certainly workable method for dating fossils in rough terms. Just because you don't like the answers it provides is irrelevant.



PS - Kathy, the fact you toss the label of 'hatred' at us is almost too ironic to take...you're only embarrassing yourself with your bile-filled rants.

Answer 6

It's like gravity, terminal velocity is about 168 mph; the only way that will change is if the mass of the Earth changes...



The suns light takes 9 minutes to hit the Earth, this will not change unless the position of the Earth changing in our solar system; because the speed of light is constant...



And the decay rate of carbon is constant; the evidence for this is self evident through observation...



Why is it that carbon dating needs more proof than the observation of the phenomenon it self?



You seem to be the one not being logical here...

Answer 7

Atheist: This fossil is 150 million years old Me: How do you know that? Atheist: Because it was found in rock that's 150 million years old Me: How do you know the rock is 150 million years old? Atheist: Because it contains a fossil that's 150 million years old Me: Say what? If, by "circular logic" you mean quoting the Bible to substantiate the Bible (which is what most Atheists mean), then the answer to your question is "no". The Bible is not one book. It's a collection of books written by about 40 different people over several hundred years. Therefore, because they lived in different time periods and they are different books, it is not circular reasoning. Amos is allowed to quote Isaiah. Isaiah is allowed to quote Moses. The Bible is a compilation of data, therefore, they can quote each other and it is not circular reasoning. I just refuted circular reasoning logically. And you refuse to accept the refutation because it's gonna ruin your whole day. The Bible is the perfect empirical experiment. We have a controlled experiment spanning several hundred years of people in different times (who never knew each other) all telling of the same event. They met an eternal personage who told them that He was the creator of the world, loved them, and was going to send His Son to be their Savior. That's a controlled experiment, it's perfectly scientific and God arranged it as an excellent testimony even to those who don't want to believe it.

Answer 8

Sorry - do you actually not know what circular logic means?



As for dating methods used in evolution - look them up - there are meany all cross referencing.



Look why don't you just stop being stupid and attacking solid scientific fact. An analogy is: Some one discovers that the triple point of water is not 0 degrees C but .001 C and therefore said "that is it all physics is wrong"

Answer 9

Funny how trolls use stupid info which is like turning a lighthouse beam onto the fact that thye are trolls





Carbon 14 is not the method used for fossil dating as anyone who spends more than 5 mins on the subject knows





Have fun trolling but you do need to work on your troll questions to make them seem more real and catch more troll prey....right now they are as noticable as a 14 foot diameter bright green bear trap in middle of empty well lit room

Answer 10

I don't "believe" anything (your mistake #1). I accept the explanation provided by the theory of natural selection because it has substantial evidence to show it's correct.



Nobody ever dates "fossils" using Carbon14 (your mistake #2). Carbon14 dating is only viable to a maximum age of 40,000 - 50,000 years. The vast majority of "fossils" are millions to billions of years old, and can't be dated using Carbon14.



That's not the only evidence for the age of fossils (your mistake #3). In fact, what you claim is used as evidence isn't used at all -- but there are 16 other different, independent dating methods that are used, and they all provide consistent results.



Next time you want to argue about something, I suggest you actually learn about what you're arguing against.



Peace.

Answer 11

Well they don't actually use carbon 14 for dating fossils, since Carbon 14 dating can only be used for up to about 50,000 years. After that the amount of carbon 14 is too small to measure.



Evolutionists typically date the fossils from the rocks, and then date the rocks from the fossils! All based on uniformitarian *assumptions* that the world is billions of years old.



However the rocks were clearly not laid down slowly over millions of years since there are many tightly folded strata laid down and bent while wet); there are many polystrate fossils going between rocks allegedly millions of years old; coal contains carbon 14 showing it is not millions of years old.

And think about it - if an animal dies today it is completely eaten if days if not hours. The fossils we see were clearly buried very quickly. Some have been found giving birth, in the middle of eating another animal, etc.

The fact that fossils exist in vast numbers is testimony to the Global Flood. But of course some people dismiss that idea, not on scientific grounds, but on religious (atheistic) grounds.



Furthermore, even dinosaur fossils have been found containing blood cells - hardly 65 million years old.

http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/creationontheweb?q=dino+blood&hl=en&lr=



But check the evidence for yourself - don't by brainwashed by dogmatic evolutionists who don't want us to think for ourselves :)

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3001

Answer 12

The premise of your question is a lie. Fossils are not dated using C-14, which cannot be used to measure objects more than 150,000 years old even with the most advanced methods.



"Its all the same thing"



You have not understood the method. Study it and reduce your ignorance. That is a worthwhile activity.

Complaining about things you do not understand is not.

Answer 13

Notice how MOST have resorted to name calling and childish innuendo ? This is an old argument that will carry on down through time, just as it as been up through time . There will many more *scientist* who will come up with a million more ways or means to *age* or *make known* many things... and those who put such trust or FAITH in such will believe ... Sciences have their good points, but the difference is we Christians KNOW from where it all started and came from.... go in peace.... God bless

Answer 14

Carbon 14 dating is NOT the only way. Many radioactive elements are used in dating processes, like argon and uranium (although they're all used for different things). Not to mention fossils are found in different rock layers that also date with different techniques to the exact same age. You're right, checkmate.

Answer 15

That's not true. there are plenty of ways to validate the age of something.

For example the amount of water that infuses into glass is a known rate. By measuring how far that has gone you can accurately determine age. This is done with obsidian blade for example. Same thing for pottery.



You pretty much don't know what you are talking about. But then, I could tell that by your name

Answer 16

Why are you so opposed to the christian churches who say your thinking is screwed?



Which cult church does your thinking come from?



The Pope, Catholic Church, Church of England and mainstream churches all accept the big bang and evolution!!



Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it rather well – “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth”!!



Nice that christians and atheists can agree and laugh together even if it is at your expense!!

Answer 17

First you say there is only one dating method, then you say that there are others, but they are all the same. It is obvious that you have no idea what a dating method is.

Answer 18

Incorrect.

The fossil record is not needed anymore since Genetics has proved Evolution is a Fact.

The fossil record is just further evidence, but not the essential factor.

Answer 19

Evolution is not the area of issue but causality is and atheists need to go on faith on that and not logic

Answer 20

you fail to see the hole in your 'logic', evolution theory is not a belief system, it is a scientific theory that man, and many, if not all, other creatures have evolved from others.



carbon dating isn't the only way of dating things, you fool, have you never dug into the earth, or seen the side of a water or wind or man carved valley or ravine, etc.? there is layers of soil! don't believe me, take a shovel into your front yard and start digging!



perhaps you should go to science class next time, it is very bad to drink bleach!

Answer 21

You're an idiot and for your information carbon 14 is a fact, not some imaginary entity

Answer 22

(rolls eyes) here we go again, why is it christians attach evolution as the atheist religion, so many flaws in that, even if evolution was proven false it wouldnt make the creation myth true by default.

Answer 23

No, actually by studying rock strata, you can find the dates of fossils. Carbon dating is far from the only method.



Maybe you should read up on a subject before you display such gross ignorance of it.

Answer 24

Troll

Answer 25

"Funny how this is the only "evidence" for how old fossils are. There aren't several ways. Only this way."



I hope you are a troll.



This is some SERIOUS dishonesty if you are not.

Answer 26

There are multiple radiologic "clocks" used together to confirm dates. Just because you're ignorant on the subject doesn't mean they don't exist.

Answer 27

I have a hunch that you are a troll. A very successful inside man, that even named his account properly...

Answer 28

You do understand that being an atheist has NOTHING to do with evolution, right? Please tell me that you at least understand this..



you are one of those that think that humans and dinos lived at the same time huh?

Answer 29

Yes, if only there were multiple dating systems and methods.

Answer 30

The science behind evolution doesn't begin and end with Carbon 14. Evolution is the truth. Accept it and make it work with your religion or drop the religion. Your choice, deal with it.



Do you fear the science section? Is that why you refuse to ask this question there?

Answer 31

Err....carbon doesn't decay to nitrogen. Seriously, get a clue.

Answer 32

You are absolutely right. What's hilarious is that the Theory of Evolution requires 14.5 million years to occur, so when Carbon dating was developed, that number was used as a basis of its calculations. Evolution depends on carbon dating to be correct - carbon dating is based on the 14.5 million years that evolution needs to occur. Somehow they don't see the problem...

Answer 33

There actually are several ways. 90% of them point to a young earth so they aren't used. Funny how the less reliable one is what they use. Hmmm

Answer 34

read and understand you have made your own mockery by showing your stupidity

Answer 35

Everyone has a right to their own faith, including you and including atheists. Help us understand why there are no dinosaurs in the Bible, since you know so much.

Answer 36

...oh dear Primus. The stupidity makes me want to cry.



I really hope you're a troll. But hey, just in case you're not, allow me to explain...



IT'S THE RATE OF RADIOACTIVE DECAY THEY USE FOR DATING YOU MORON. THE DECAY TO NITROGEN IS HOW THEY MEASURE IT.



And by the way, C14 is only used for fairly recent finds, geologically speaking, like less than 10,000 years old, roughly. It's other radioisotopes with far longer half-lives they use for older ones.



Checkmate idiot/troll.



Truth Hurts: Congratulations on proving your own utter, utter stupidity with a single answer. Radioisotopic half-lives are confirmed by direct measurement of a radioactive source; they don't need to make them up and calibrate them to fossils. So you fail, completely, utterly, miserably. Buh-bye now.

Answer 37

At this point The Price is Right losing horn goes off.

Answer 38

I've never met a creationist who had even a rudamentary understanding of what evolution actually states. Case in point.

Answer 39

This is a Poe, right?

Answer 40

Besides that, carbon dating is inaccurate. It's only accurate to "a few thousand years back."

Answer 41

*yawn* same old tired attempt. there is more evidence for evolution that there is for any god.

Answer 42

In order to have circular logic, one must use logic in the first place.



Atheism is based on an emotion called "hatred". Not logic.

Answer 43

No wonder you think snakes and donkeys can talk...

Answer 44

Please, please, -please- go back to school.



It pains me to think you might be on the streets driving a car..

Answer 45

have you ever seen the grand canyon.....

Answer 46

The fool in his heart says there is no God.



You never know what they will say next.

Answer 47

they think they know everything but haha they sure dont....



SMART PPL WILL PREPARE FOR RAPTURE OR BE LEFT BEHIND WHICH wont be fun guaranteed!!!!!!!!