I’m fairly sure it was called Golgotha because they thought Adam’s skull was buried there.
I believe in carbon dating, because it can be substantiated with tree rings from Egyptian tombs, which are well dated.
What I don’t believe in is the Bilogical Clock, which supposedly can tell how fast some species will separate from their closest relatives. To me it’s absurd, since we have fossil turtles virtually identical to modern ones, as well as some that are very recently specialized. Yet, if they are alive today they both have the same “Bilogical Time”, yet one is closely related to the common fossil much more than the other.
So that whole area is based on circular logic, as far as I can tell.
An easy way to understand this might to be to go to your MS Excel and try deliberately for a “Circular Reference”. Example: numerical values in cells A1 through A9. In cell A10, enter “=sum(A1.A10)” instead of “=sum(A1.A9)”. You are therefore asking the cell with the answer (A10) to be part of the question as well. It’s supposed to be either the question or the answer, but not both. The answer to one question can well lead to another question, but if it leads instead back to itself (the original question) then it’s not an answer.
On carbon dating, check out: The Straight Dope Mailbag: How does carbon-14 dating work?
It is NOT true that the validity of carbon dating is dependent on circular reasoning. The validity of carbon dating is verified by outside independent measures (like the tree ring counting).
Has the question been sufficiently answered yet?
I think therefore I am, therefore I think I am. I think. But am I just thinking I am thinking I am?
mrblue92 wrote:
[pedantic]
No one has even attempted an answer to the OP yet!
Drum God, Duck Duck Goose, Zebra, muttrox, Coldfire, mack, Chronos, AHunter3, Alphagene, labradorian, handy, Ivar, IzzyR, RickJay, Johnny L.A., ianzin, sqweels, and JCHeckler all attempted to explain “Circular Reasoning” to Doc Moss. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that one of these posters was the “lucky person … going to explain to [Doc Moss] what ‘Circular Reasoning’ is.” I’m afraid only Doc Moss can tell us the actual answer to the OP, if any.
[/pedandic]
Is this the same as recursion?
“If we had the Index file, we could look it up in the Index file under index file.”
“An ancestor is your mother or father or any of their ancestors.”
Can anyone name the source of these quotes?