Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9189 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Michaeladams
Post Volume: Total: 918,916 Year: 6,173/9,624 Month: 21/240 Week: 36/34 Day: 8/6 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? (Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only)
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3959
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 32 of 84 (595109)
12-06-2010 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Buzsaw
12-05-2010 11:32 AM


Re: You're trying to have it both ways
Again, the age of the sediment making up sedimentary rocks, be it sand, dirt, crystal etc making up the earth's surface is unknown. That's my position.
First of all, in geologic study, the age of a sedimentary rock is the age that it was deposited as a body of material, not the age of the particles that make of the material. As in, the age of a person is how long since birth, not the age of the atoms of the body.
Your position seems to be that you don't know and don't care to know information that can learned from observing the nature of the physical Earth.
My position on this is that the radiometric dating methodologies date the isotopes from the sediment which has leached into into the non-organic minerals ,etc, of the fossil.
I don't see this as directly relevant to the discussion at this point, however...
I must presume this is a Carbon 14 dating thing.
You seem to sort of be working the "living clams Carbon dated as thousands of years old" angle. Yes, such can and has been done, and there is a good reason why it is a method prone to bad errors. Carbon 14 dating works for organically derived Carbon compounds that were in equilibrium with the atmosphere during the critters lifetime - The Carbon source was directly or near directly derived from the atmosphere. The "thousand year old living clams" were deriving at least a significant portion of their Carbon from Carbon long detached from atmospheric contact. Such a from old carbonate (CaCO3) sediment. It has nothing to do with C14 leaching in or out of the shell.
Now, in geologic study, there is a methodology that can get a pretty good handle on the ages of various parts of the Earth (again, as in the age of the large bodies of material, not the age of the particles that make up the large bodies). And this methodology has absolutely nothing to do with radiometric dating.
Again, I don't at this point see radiometric dating as being relevant to the discussion.
Admittedly, my arguments here may include some compatible with the SM applicable to ID and some layman logic. Hopefully that will be allowable in this debate, albeit I expect you to counter with what you consider to be compatible with the SM non-IDist application.
I fear you've fallen under the influence of Dawn Bertot. The young Earth creationism position, while still being very erroneous in conclusions, at least does have a reasonably coherent thought process behind it. When you start dragging "non-conventional scientific methodology" and ID'ism into the discussion, you're really getting into smoke and fun-house mirrors territory. Maybe we can get into this further later, but the core issue does not lie there.
So I repeat my question: How do you reconcile having your YEC time frame life being found as fossils in rocks that are far older than the YEC time frame?
Moose
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Replaced non-existent board code with HTML.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 12-05-2010 11:32 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 12-09-2010 12:05 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3959
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 35 of 84 (598287)
12-30-2010 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Buzsaw
12-29-2010 6:03 PM


I've lately been a rather brain dead Moose
To which the general membership will reply, "We can't tell the difference from before" (or something like that).
Anyway, I hadn't forgotten this topic, but my gung-ho level has been pretty low. I saved all of the topic and printed out your larger previous message. I'll take a stab at preparing a reply later at home - but no internet there.
Stand by.
Moose

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 12-29-2010 6:03 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 12-30-2010 8:44 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 37 by Buzsaw, posted 12-30-2010 8:55 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3959
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


(1)
Message 38 of 84 (602081)
01-26-2011 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Buzsaw
12-09-2010 12:05 AM


Re: You're trying to have it both ways
Moose writes:
So I repeat my question: How do you reconcile having your YEC time frame life being found as fossils in rocks that are far older than the YEC time frame?
I don't think it's fair for you to insist that I am YEC. My position is not that planet earth is young. Why should I be lumped in with YEC just because I go with young mankind and animals?
As a "young animal life" creationist, you are putting the history of animal life into a YEC time frame. The scientific animal life time frame is a minimum of 550 million years. You are compressing the history of 550+ million years into 5-10 thousand years. So, even though you're not compressing the 4.45 billion year Earth history or the 13 billion year universe history into that 5-10 thousand years, you are still compressing down many millions of years. To me, such a compression is still a variation of YEC.
As I understand , radiometric dating, perhaps some math and relationships to material in and around a fossil, etc are how the SM determines age.
While radiometric dating certainly is very useful for putting more precise dates on Earthly events, it is not needed to show that your time frame perceptions are very wrong. Just observing the geometric relationships between geologic features can document that a vast sequence of processes and results have happened. These processes require time amounts that add up to years far beyond you time frame.
(Abe: I believe the SM assumes that most of the fossils have no organic material in them)
While that may depend on how you define "organic material", it is still irrelevant. The bulk of the Earth's animal life history is older that Carbon 14 dating's relevance.
I believe that the Buz Noaic flood catastrophe position would comply with SM, in that the fossil should date from the time of the deposit of the sediment in which is is found. That is the premise of the flood hypothesis.
So, how much of the geologic column's (the geologic time line's) rock stratigraphy are you attributing to "the flood"? Re: the Grand Canyon rock column - Are you saying most or all of the post pre-Cambrian (that's referred to as the Phanerozoic) sedimentary rocks are flood related deposits?
...rock is nothing but compacted and hardened old soil, tiny old rock/sand particles, minerals and other inorganic matter, having long existed on the surface of the old earth before being deposited around and/or in the fossil.
That would be tantamount to dating a house from the age of the material in it, including old rocks, including, perhaps, fossils) in the cement foundation. No?
The age of the sedimentary rocks is the age of the time of deposition, NOT the age of the component particles. You conceivably could pull a 4 billion year old Zircon out of a modern beach sand. No scientist would thus say the modern beach sand deposit was 4 billion years ago.
Another is that the SM assumes a more uniformitarian premise to the hypothesis than the premise to the flood hypothesis.
The "unifomitarian premise" is that, with some exceptions, the processes that are now happening are the processes that were happening earlier. My use of the term "some exceptions" recognizes that there are some enviromental conditions that existed in the past that no longer exist.
You seem to be invoking the "all purpose flood", that can include all the various geologic processes for which we can see evidence. Your flood can do vast amounts of weathering and erosion, and vast amounts of all kinds of deposition. Your flood can do river deposits, do beach deposits, do wind deposits, do volcanic deposits, etc, etc, etc.
A lot, relative to atmosphere properties, earth's surface etc depends on the premise to the hypothesis.
OK, you need to expand on this, if I'm to have any idea of what you are talking about.
As I would not hold your premise to my application of the SM, I don't see why I should be required to hold my application of the SM to the more uniform non-catastrophic premise so far as things like dating fossils.
I think you need to get yourself a nice "Introduction to Geology" type book, and do some reading.
Moose
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Change ID from admin mode.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 12-09-2010 12:05 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 02-25-2011 8:33 PM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3959
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 40 of 84 (613155)
04-22-2011 1:45 AM


Let us set aside considerations of Buz's old pre-life Earth
Buz, the evidence of the old age (550+ million years) of much of the Earth's rocks and the evidence of the old age (550+ million years) of the animal life on Earth is the same evidence. They are tied together. Old Earth and old animal life. There is much old age evidence even if you totally disregard radiometric dating.
Either you are an old Earth/old animal life creationist, or you are a young Earth/young animal life creationist. You can't have old Earth/young animal life.
Moose
Note for future reference

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3959
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 41 of 84 (613156)
04-22-2011 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Buzsaw
02-25-2011 8:33 PM


Re: You're trying to have it both ways
I think you need to get yourself a nice "Introduction to Geology" type book, and do some reading.
The problem with that is that none of the above would be factored in books assuming a different premise and hypothesis.
Your premise and hypothesis is to invoke miracle(s). The scientific (uniformitarian premise and hypothesis) is to understand how physical processes actually happen - To study the evidences left by those processes and to recognize that there are those same evidences of the same processes present in the geologic record of the past.
All this shows that there is a long history of process documented in the Earth's geology, including the geology that includes the record of past animal life. The evidence supporting an old Earth and the evidence supporting old animal life on Earth is the same evidence. There is no evidence for some sort of weird magical flood.
Now, I have noticed something at the "Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?" topic. We are in agreement on something - The Nuweiba beach is a delta (or at least, the beach is part of a delta). But in message 553 there, you make this statement:
Wiki river delta search as well as observing an aerial view of Nuweiba Beach, appears to indicate that this is a canyon/wadi delta. An aerial view also shows that there is still just enough water via the wadi to leave drainage ridges on the delta, but not enough to build significantly on it.
This is relative to in that the Noaic Flood and the Exodus are like two rooms of a house that stand or fall together if the foundation crumbles. Thus, my argument rests on assumption of a Noaic flood.
Your young Earthism is showing here. You're saying "The modern river could not have formed the delta, therefore "The Flood"." But the old Earth uniformitarian model has no problem explaining the delta. With variable (even modest "flood") flowage over a long period of time, there is no problem with the delta forming.
The is no need for some sort of weird magical flood.
Please also see my previous message.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 02-25-2011 8:33 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3959
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 44 of 84 (633175)
09-12-2011 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Buzsaw
06-15-2011 11:43 AM


Re: You're trying to have it both ways
I think that part of the reason I've been so slow to reply, is that I've found myself to largely just be repeating what I said upthread. Maybe you could look at some of those upthread points you haven't addressed, and respond to them.
Now, I'll reply to the current message:
My consistent position has been that the Biblical record does not indicate the age of the earth but does indicate that the eternal Universe has infinitely been managed by it's eternal omnipotent creator/designer, creating and changing things/energy in it according to his pleasure and purpose.
I don't agree, but I also don't find any problems with you having such beliefs.
My position/the Biblical one is, thus, more compatible with 1LoT and 2LoT than the conventional scientific paradigm. I would be happy to do a segment in this debate with you on that count alone.
Since you posted your message, I believe you've debated your LoT ideas elsewhere. Personally, I just don't care and I find LoT considerations to be irrelevant to this topic. The problem, as I see it, is that you're badly out of touch with basic principles of how geologic processes work.
As for the problem you raise regarding dating fossils, I hold to my position that, most fossils being sedimentary, the conventional dating methodology, has the greater problem.
There are various ways of coming up with ages for various geologic rock units. Many of these are independent of the presence or absence of any fossils. The fossils are just going along for the ride. They are the same age as the containing rocks (Or at least no younger than the containing rocks - It's conceivable that they might of been eroded from older rocks and then redeposited, but there probably would be evidence to determine if such has happened).
The center supporting wall in my house is totally tightly stacked sedimentary rock, some even likely having fossils in them. If this wall (I say wall) were dated by the conventional science methodology, the wall would likely date pre-historic, likely in the hundreds of millions or billions of years old. No?
The only sensible way to date the walls construction would be to determine when the wall was built. The age of the wall material is irrelevant. If one was to tear down a 500 year old brick wall and use the materials to build a new wall, the wall construction would be dated as being new, not 500 years old.
By the same token, my position on fossils is that, since they consist, for the most part, if not all, of sedimentary rock formation, somewhat like my rock wall.
The fossils are not made up of part of the sedimentary rock. They are part of the sedimentary rock. They are the remains of life that was living and growing at the time of the sedimentation. Indeed, many limestones are thought to consist of the partly to totally disintegrated remains of animal hard parts (shells etc. - CaCO3). The limestone consists of essentially pure CaCO3 because there was little to no detrital material being brought in.
Thus, what conventional scientists are doing is attributing the age of the particles making up the rock to the missing organism which formed the organism shaped fossil; the fossil amounting to a mold for forming the fossil.
Now here you're not really making sense. In many instances the fossil is literally the preserved remains of animal hard parts. The shell is essentially unchanged from that of the living animal. Yes, fossil molds can exist, to be later refilled. But even then, the mold exists because there were animal hard parts being buried at the time of sedimentation.
Like the ongoing subtitle says - You're trying to have it both ways. You're trying somehow to inject evidence of young life into old rocks. It just doesn't work that way. The life forms are same age as the sedimentation. The evidence that supports the old age of the rock unit is the same evidence that supports the old age of the animal life.
Side note: The old creationist line (old line, not old creationist, although both could be true ) is "The rocks date the fossils, and the fossils date the rocks - This is circular reasoning". The truth is, originally the rocks dated the fossils. The rocks were determined to be of x age, therefore the fossils were also of x age. After much study, it was determined that not only was that true, certain fossils were characteristic of rocks of certain ages. Thus it came to be that the fossils can be used to date the rocks.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 06-15-2011 11:43 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Buzsaw, posted 09-13-2011 12:01 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 09-22-2011 10:29 PM Minnemooseus has replied
 Message 60 by Buzsaw, posted 10-08-2011 3:41 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3959
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 50 of 84 (635119)
09-26-2011 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Buzsaw
09-13-2011 12:01 AM


The fossils were living at the time of the original rock deposition
Moose writes:
The only sensible way to date the walls construction would be to determine when the wall was built. The age of the wall material is irrelevant. If one was to tear down a 500 year old brick wall and use the materials to build a new wall, the wall construction would be dated as being new, not 500 years old.
Records or memory would determine when the stone wall was built. Question: Aside from memory/records, if the same conventional methodology applicable to fossil dating were applied to the wall at large containing old rock would the wall, having old rock and perhaps fossils in it (abe: make it) date much older?
No.
Being that the wall is made up of fragments of old rock does not mean that the age of the (construction of) the wall is equally as old. The time of the building of the wall has nothing to do with the age of the material used (other than the age of the building must not be older than the age of the materials used).
Fossils are found in a rock unit because they were living there at the time the sediment was being deposited. The fossils were not somehow quarried out of older rock and then redeposited in the younger rock. Of course, an exception to that rule is conceivable - But there would be evidence that such had happened, as opposed to the evidence that the fossils grew in place. In your wall analogy, there is evidence that the rock and contained fossils were removed and transported from the original older deposition location.
Replies to your later messages will be coming later (maybe even tonight). Please stand by for those replies before replying to this message.
Moose
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Oops, wrong ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Buzsaw, posted 09-13-2011 12:01 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3959
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 51 of 84 (635124)
09-27-2011 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
09-22-2011 10:29 PM


This message is pretty much "blah blah blah" in response to "blah blah blah"
My understanding is that you date the geological rock units by the fossils and the fossils by the rocks. I see this as circular reasoning.
I covered this at the tail end of my message 44. I don't know what I can or need to add to that, so here it is again:
Minnemooseus writes:
Side note: The old creationist line (old line, not old creationist, although both could be true ) is "The rocks date the fossils, and the fossils date the rocks - This is circular reasoning". The truth is, originally the rocks dated the fossils. The rocks were determined to be of x age, therefore the fossils were also of x age. After much study, it was determined that not only was that true, certain fossils were characteristic of rocks of certain ages. Thus it came to be that the fossils can be used to date the rocks.
This was also commented on in the peanut gallery topic (here). For whatever it's worth, I quote some of it to bring it into this topic:
Panda writes:
Just to explain why it is wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...logy#Relative_and_absolute_dating
quote:
A large advance in geology in the advent of the 20th century was the ability to give precise absolute dates to geologic events through radioactive isotopes and other methods. The advent of radiometric dating changed the understanding of geologic time. Before, geologists could only use fossils to date sections of rock relative to one another. With isotopic dates, absolute dating became possible, and these absolute dates could be applied fossil sequences in which there was datable material, converting the old relative ages into new absolute ages.
Which is a longer way to saying what I said in message 44. The contained link is some good stuff. I'll include a graphic from there, for future reference if for no other reason:
The caption for the above is:
quote:
Cross-cutting relations can be used to determine the relative ages of rock strata and other geological structures. Explanations: A - folded rock strata cut by a thrust fault; B - large intrusion (cutting through A); C - erosional angular unconformity (cutting off A & B) on which rock strata were deposited; D - volcanic dyke (cutting through A, B & C); E - even younger rock strata (overlying C & D); F - normal fault (cutting through A, B, C & E).
For now, just note that the above is just a representation of a small portion of the Earth's geology. The big picture is way more complex. Instead of 6 events showing relative dating relationships, the Earth's geology as a whole has probably millions. All of those events take some amount of time, which adds up to a lot of time.
The Cambrian Explosion Era, the lowest strata is rife with complex multi-cell invertebrates such as trilobites, having extremely complex eyes, jointed legs, and other appendages. Having appendages is indicative of a muscle system. They have antenae for detection. . They have organs for breathing, implicating some system of circulation through the cells. They have mouths capable of consuming food and of assimilating nutrients.
The sudden appearance of complex animals and plants is evidence of the Genesis Flood. Evolutionism would require a gradual evolvement of complex living things. LoL. The Precambrian strata does not contain that evidence.
I'm going to for now pass on getting into the details of the so called "Cambrian Explosion". That would be pretty involved in itself, and I don't see it as being particularly relevant to the essence of this topic. You are welcome to try to convince me why it is.
In 1977 a vertebrate fish fossil was discovered in the upper Cambrian strata in Wyoming This was published in Science Magazine, May 5 1978.
As per my previous comment. I do vaguely recall hearing something about that. As I really doubt you are a reader of "Science", I would be interested in a link to your on-line source.
The Cambrian Explosion Era fossils were fully formed highly complex animals and plants such as exist today. There are no transitional partly formed animals or plants in the bottom of the Geologic Column. For the most part, the Pre-Cambrian was lifeless.
As per my previous comment.
The Cambrian Explosion Era fossils were fully formed highly complex animals and plants such as exist today. There are no transitional partly formed animals or plants in the bottom of the Geologic Column. For the most part, the Pre-Cambrian was lifeless.
So, I take it that you think the Cambrian sediments are a result of "THE FLOOD". Might I ask what sediments mark the end of "THE FLOOD"?
The slowest moving animals are found at the bottom of the Column where thay should be expected to be, due to the inability to move to higher ground as the flood emerged. Thus, the lack of fast moving creatures which were capable of surviving the rising waters the longest. Birds fossils, for that reason are rare.
Fossilization requires sudden burial. Birds, mankind etc would not likely be, for the most part un-buried or shallow enough to decay rather than fossilize.
Evolutionists cite extinction as evidence of evolution. Extinction is not evidence of evolution.
Again, I fail to see the immediate relevance of that to the topic at hand.
You may find my response to be lacking. I'm afraid I find that message to be a hodge-podge of random thoughts.
On to your next message.
Moose
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Change subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 09-22-2011 10:29 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3959
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 52 of 84 (635125)
09-27-2011 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Buzsaw
09-23-2011 10:42 PM


Processes of reality vs. processes of fantasy
The literal Genesis global floodist paradigm does not advocate for uniformitarianism.
Strict uniformitarianism is an outdated concept. The modern practical definition is something along the lines of "results of processes that we know can happen".
Your "Genesis global floodist paradigm" is a fantasy flood capable of producing the results of any of the vast number of geologic processes.
Enough for now. Your turn again.
The peanut gallery is welcome to critique my messages.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 09-23-2011 10:42 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3959
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 54 of 84 (635374)
09-28-2011 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Buzsaw
09-28-2011 8:00 PM


Where did all the water go?
Thus the tsunami like rush of the returning of the walls of water from North and South, would likely cut a chanel in the looser sandy Eastern section of what the flood washed down from the wadi canyon, etc.
Buz, presuming that the whole world was submerged in water (and I'm not beginning to buy into that), you have an Earth that was 100 percent ocean. There is nowhere for the water to run off.
On a related note, where did all that sediment that was deposited by "THE FLOOD" come from? You producing it out of "thin air", just like all that water of "THE FLOOD"?
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Buzsaw, posted 09-28-2011 8:00 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 09-29-2011 12:47 AM Minnemooseus has replied
 Message 57 by Buzsaw, posted 09-29-2011 9:45 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3959
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 56 of 84 (635403)
09-29-2011 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Buzsaw
09-29-2011 12:47 AM


Re: Where did all the water go?
You dodged most of my response, including the subtitle question.
Please expound on the pulling of the divine drain plug and the location of the divine sand and gravel stockpile.
Offhand, you might also want to explain the methodology of piling up all that unconsolidated sediment into mountains. Mud doesn't stack very well.
And I can't help wanting to know about the divine Garden of Eden irrigation project, to grow things before the first rain.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 09-29-2011 12:47 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 09-29-2011 11:55 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3959
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 64 of 84 (639259)
10-29-2011 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Buzsaw
10-29-2011 9:15 AM


How fossils can date the rock
This brings us back to square one; my contention that the strata is usually dated by the fossils in it and the fossils are dated by the strata; circular reasoning and poor science, imo.
From my message 44:
Minnemooseus writes:
Side note: The old creationist line (old line, not old creationist, although both could be true ) is "The rocks date the fossils, and the fossils date the rocks - This is circular reasoning". The truth is, originally the rocks dated the fossils. The rocks were determined to be of x age, therefore the fossils were also of x age. After much study, it was determined that not only was that true, certain fossils were characteristic of rocks of certain ages. Thus it came to be that the fossils can be used to date the rocks.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2011 9:15 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2011 4:10 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3959
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 68 of 84 (640702)
11-11-2011 10:46 PM


That nail thing etc.
Buzsaw, in message 59, writes:
Offhand, you might also want to explain the methodology of piling up all that unconsolidated sediment into mountains. Mud doesn't stack very well.
This upheaval from the flood would be the Genesis explanation for the major tectonic plate upheaval and movement, raising the mountains and deepening the oceans. The effect of the flood would not been limited to sediments.
Short version of the Buzsaw evolution of the Earth story:
The flood tore down the Earth’s mountains and deposited the resulting sediments as the so called geologic column. This column includes most to all of what is filed under Cambrian and stratagraphically up. Miles and miles of geologic column, the sedimentary rocks showing the evidence of all kinds of different sedimentation processes. Then new mountains were uplifted and carved into their present form, as the flood waters receded to an unknown location.
Buz, that’s shoving a lot of process into one year. That’s nonsense.
Moving on
Buzsaw, in message 60, writes:
The only sensible way to date the walls construction would be to determine when the wall was built.
So the wall, being analogous to the strata in which the fossil exists, what determines the date of the wall/strata?
Your wall is a terrible analogy to geologic strata.
The age of the wall material is irrelevant. If one was to tear down a 500 year old brick wall and use the materials to build a new wall, the wall construction would be dated as being new, not 500 years old.
Assuming that the new wall, was built without mortar, as was the old one, of the same assorted materials, analogous to the fossil strata, would the new wall date any newer than the old wall/strata?
Yes, by your definition it would be a new wall.
Moving on
Buzsaw, in message 61, writes:
In Message 2 of the Peanut Gallery, Boof said:
I’m not debating Peanut Gallery content.
Moving on
Buzsaw, in message 62, writes:
My wall is over a century old but not over 150 years. Let's suppose the workmen who built the wall dropped a nail in it at the time it was built. Modern radiometry would date the nail the same age as the wall layer which it was deposited in. No?
Prediction: Like the nail deposited in my century old wall constructed of aged rock, a fossil deposited 4300 years ago in flood sediment, radiometrically dating millions of years old, would date the same as the significantly older rock making up the sediment in which the fossil was deposited.
You don’t radiometrically date fossils, at least not directly.
Fossils are dated by the rocks. In some cases, it was discovered that a certain fossil was only found in rocks of certain particular age. That fossil was found to be a characteristic of rocks of that particular age. Therefore, whenever you found that fossil in a rock off otherwise unknown age, you would know the age of the rock as being the same age as the fossil. NOT CIRCULAR LOGIC.
Now let’s say your nail has some characteristic that would pin down its time of manufacture. That nail was at some later time deposited as part of the wall — It functionally was another fragment in the wall, just like the rocks of the wall. All that tells you is that the wall construction was no older that the nails manufacture date. Dropping a 1000 year old nail into the mortar of a new wall does not create evidence that the wall is 1000 years old.
Now if you’re going to have a real nail/fossil analogy, you need to have the nail being manufactured (growing) in the place it was found, at the time the wall was being constructed. IF (and that’s a big if) such were the case, then finding a 1000 year old nail in the wall would be evidence that the wall was 1000 years old.
Moving on
Buzsaw, in message 63, writes:
The PG problem is growing.
Well, then quit reading the Peanut Gallery.
Moving on, I encounter one of my own messages! Did I just do the above for nothing? Well, I’m not deleting it.
Moving on
Buzsaw, in message 65, writes:
But you need to respond to my wall/nail = rock strata/fossil analogy. This falsifies the scientific methodology of radiometric fossil dating.
Relief — That’s why I did the above.
As the younger nail deposited in the wall would radiometrically date the age of the rock deposited in the young wall, so would the young Noaic flood deposited fossil radiometrically date the age of the old rock particles of which the flood deposited strata consisted.
This, at best, makes marginal sense, but I’ll take a stab at it.
Fossils are found in sedimentary rocks because they were living there at the time the sediment was being deposited. Certainly, it’s conceivable that an old fossil could be eroded out of older rock and deposited in younger rock, but there probably would be evidence that such had happened. And there is much evidence that such is usually not the case. Besides, isn’t eroding out an old fossil out of an old rock evidence of that life being older that the Buzsaw model of young life?
The wall analogy is to show that objects deposited in strata may not date the same as the rock forming the strata.
I know that my position has always been that the age of the sediment fragments is going to be older than the age of the sedimentation (there are exceptions to this rule, but you haven’t come up with one of them). The age of sedimentation is the time of sedimentation, not the age of the sediment fragments.
After much study, it was determined that not only was that true, certain fossils were characteristic of rocks of certain ages. Thus it came to be that the fossils can be used to date the rocks.
The creationist response to that is that slower moving animals would tend to be in the lower strata and so on until the birds and fast moving creatures able to escape to higher ground would have survived the longest, leaving relatively few fossils in the highest strata of the geologic column. This is more indicative to a catastrophic flood than a relatively uniform planet history.
Nonesense. There’s abundant evidence that the fossil remains is where it is because that is where the creature was living.
I’ve said enough for now. And I’m not going to (much) debate your responses to Peanut Gallery content.
And your arguments fail to distinguish you from being essentially a standard YEC.
Moose
Of historical note;
This should be my message 2968, on the 10th anniversary of my joining evcforum.net

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Buzsaw, posted 11-16-2011 9:15 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 11-19-2011 4:11 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3959
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 77 of 84 (662233)
05-13-2012 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Buzsaw
02-24-2012 9:28 PM


A restart of sorts?
I'm replying to your message 76 as being your most recent, although I may not (at yet) be commenting on anything you presented since my previous message.
Looking at the "Creationist Shortage" topic has inspired me to revive this GD topic. At that topic's message 124 Malcolm seems to have posted a wonderful summary of what I've been trying to say in this topic:
Buzsaw writes:
This is another example of why creationists are ill treated here. We all get painted with the same broad brush. A significant percentage of us are not YEC 6000-ers. Many YECs like Kent Hoven even call for a young Universe. That's nonsense, though he has some valid evidence and arguments for many aspects of ID and creationism. I don't through out the baby with the bathwater as some critics of Hovind do.
Malcolm writes:
As I understand it you see yourself as an old-earth, young-life creationist, yet have never explained what evidence you are basing this on. After all the evidence that shows the earth is old also shows that life is almost as old, so you suggest that a pre-flood canopy throws out any radiometric data to suggest old life. But this also affects evidence for an old earth, so your position becomes indistinguishable from a YEC.
In message 16 of this GD topic I started the subtitle "I say you're essential a YEC"
In the "Creationist Shortage" topic message 128, NoNukes posts:
NoNukes writes:
What I find hilarious your complaint included your own shot at YEC beliefs.
Buzsaw writes:
I've been here over 8 years and I still get lumped by you people in with the YECs who's paradigm makes no sense.
Buz, your position makes even less sense than the YEC position. At least the YEC position is internally consistent. The YECs have their young rocks containing the evidence of of their young life. You seem to be trying to somehow have old rocks containing the evidence of young life. In message 28 I had started the subtitle "You're trying to have it both ways".
Buz, your position has no support for "old Earthism" - It merely has no objection to "old Earthism". But your arguments sure seem to be not unlike those of the YEC's.
Maybe you can give me some reasoning of your support of an old Earth, beyond why you have no objection to "old Earthism"?
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Buzsaw, posted 02-24-2012 9:28 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Buzsaw, posted 05-13-2012 10:34 PM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3959
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 79 of 84 (662237)
05-13-2012 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Buzsaw
05-13-2012 10:34 PM


Re: A restart of sorts?
From my previous message:
Minnemooseus writes:
Buz, your position makes even less sense than the YEC position. At least the YEC position is internally consistent. The YECs have their young rocks containing the evidence of of their young life. You seem to be trying to somehow have old rocks containing the evidence of young life.
From your previous message:
Buzsaw writes:
Biblically, the age of the earth is unknown, but certainly older than man-kind and the animal kingdom.
Buz, the animal kingdom goes back to at least the beginning of the Cambrian. The scientific consensus is that is 550 million years ago. You put that at circa 6000 years ago. You are calling all the Earth's rocks from the beginning of the Cambrian to the present to be circa 6000 years or less old. That is Young Earthism.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Buzsaw, posted 05-13-2012 10:34 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2012 7:14 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024