You mean kind of like this?
We know T. Rex is 100 million years old, because we find the fossils in rocks which are 100 million years old.
And we know these rocks are 100 million years old, because they contain T. Rex fossils.
To a certain extent, if the animal is found not to be quite so old, then it becomes difficult to make the case that the rocks are so very old.
So basically it's assumed that if it's possible to use circular logic, that's what's being used?
To a certain extent, if the animal is found not to be quite so old, then it becomes difficult to make the case that the rocks are so very old.
That seems to rely on an assumption that the rocks in question are the oldest rocks there are.
Maybe the T. Rex just had very sharp claws and was able to dig into the rock, and then meticulous replace the rock back into place in such a way as to give the appearance of the rock never having been disturbed?
Either way, we KNOW that the T. Rex is billions and billions of years old, since that's what Richard Dawkins said.
Obviously the formation cannot be older than the critter that's buried under it.
As you can see, the evos are in panic-overdrive here, throwing their illogical assertions left and right to cloud the issue.
Excellent point... not that the Evo’s will cede that...
On a school field trip to the C&O Canal, we stopped inside a stone block tunnel built during that portion of the canal's construction in the early 1800s.
With a completely straight face, the area's preeminent science teacher told us to look up at the stalactites hanging from the ceiling and proclaimed that it “took millions of years for them to form”.
Even at the age of 10, my BS detector went off.
You mean kind of like this?
To a certain extent, if the animal is found not to be quite so old, then it becomes difficult to make the case that the rocks are so very old.
Rocks and sediment layers are not dated by the fossilized specimens found within them.
Not true. There are other ways to date rocks.
One of the points often raised by doubters of Evolution is the circular logic that can be used in dating: We know T. Rex is 100 million years old, because we find the fossils in rocks which are 100 million years old. And we know these rocks are 100 million years old, because they contain T. Rex fossils. To a certain extent, if the animal is found not to be quite so old, then it becomes difficult to make the case that the rocks are so very old.
It is you trying to use circular logic.
As I asked before and no one answered (and probably won't this time either):
If the dating of the rocks is bad, explain how they date rocks and why their methodology is bad. Then explain the correct methodology and how it would give a young age for the rocks. Do not use your CREtin magazine articles. Use legitimate scientific papers. The presence of the soft tissue is irrelevant. I'm talking about the rocks it is in.
If these 'doubters' had any education they would know how weak the above argument is.