Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery - What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? (Minnemooseus and Buzsaw)
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 46 of 48 (642409)
11-28-2011 2:25 PM


Reality distortion field...
In the Steve Jobs biography his attempts to shape his surroundings were described as a "Reality distortion field." He was able to focus very narrowly and couldn't imagine things not turning out the way he wanted.
Jobs was a piker compared to our Buz.
Buz is able to ignore reality entirely and to live in his own dream world. Facts, evidence, and logic all fail to make any impression upon him.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 47 of 48 (642427)
11-28-2011 5:27 PM


to reply to Buz's complaint in the moderation thread
Buz alleges a circular argument in regards to dating and the use of index fossils. Here is my understanding of the use of index fossils.
1. Fossils are usually found in sedimentary layers.
2. These layers usually can't be dated by the various radiometric dating methods
3. These layers can usually be found between igneous layers
4. Igneous layers can be dated by the various radiometric methods.
5. these methods measure the amount of time since the igneous layer was deposited.
6. With the age of the igneous layers determined we can then determine that the age of the sedimentary layer between the two igneous layers is between the age of the igneous layers.
7. The age of the fossil in the sedimentary layer is therefore at least the same age as the sedimentary layer that it is found in.
8. If we consistently find a certain fossil organism in sedimentary layers that we can assign an age range to by the dating of igneous layers we can then reasonably assign that same age range to any sedimentary layer with that fossil organism in it.
no circular argument.

God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

  
Boof
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 99
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


(4)
Message 48 of 48 (642437)
11-28-2011 7:47 PM


Hitting a stone wall
As I have been busy preparing for my first ever trip to the USA (insert excitement emoticon) I haven't been able to attend to this debate as much as I would have liked. However some recent comments could not go unanswered.
In message 43 Minnemooseus and Buzsaw continue to discuss Buz's analogy of dating his stone wall to the radiometric dating of rocks and fossils. Buz makes the extraordinary statement:
Buzsaw writes:
How so is it a terrible analogy? Because it debunks modern dating methodology? Methinks so.
As one of the more coherent creationists on this site I am surprised that Buzsaw thinks that an analogy can be used to debunk scientific methodology. He really should be aware that an analogy is simply an educational device often used to help a layperson understand a problem (which might be outside of his or her experience) in a simplistic manner. If that analogy fails to adequately describe that particular scenario, then that does not ‘debunk’ the scenario.
In my original post on this thread I said that radiometric dating would be like dating when the mortar sets in his analogical wall. This is because in the real world we often date the crystallisation time (ie ‘setting’) of the igneous rocks sandwiching the sediments. In message 61 Buz states that his wall is mortarless. Thus the analogy is moving further away from the real world (where we do have the igneous ‘mortar’ to date) and I believe this is why Minnemooseus thinks his analogy is a poor one. I have to agree.
Having said all that, there is a technique I have used (third-hand) called thermoluminescence dating (wiki : Thermoluminescence dating - Wikipedia)
Thermoluminescence (TL) dating is the determination, by means of measuring the accumulated radiation dose, of the time elapsed since material containing crystalline minerals was either heated (lava, ceramics) or exposed to sunlight (sediments).
In Buz’s drystone wall analogy we would pull out two or three of his bricks and measure how long since the walls had been exposed to sunlight, thus giving us an approximate date for construction — and a date a long way removed from the actual age of the component rocks.
Thus Buz still has not found a way to explain why or how, in nature, the sediments and the fossils within them cannot be dated by measuring he 'setting time' of the igneous rocks sandwiching them. Consequently the 'old earth' ages of the fossils stand.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024