Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8781 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2017 12:04 AM
357 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 356 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,506 Year: 21,112/21,208 Month: 1,545/2,326 Week: 0/881 Day: 0/119 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Author Topic:   Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques??
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 144 (591278)
11-12-2010 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by hooah212002
11-12-2010 8:31 PM


Re: Independent Dating Techniques
hooah writes:

Your "bone of contention" is that you consider yourself an "ID creationist" which flies in the face of creationism AND IDism........ I'm not even sure you know what side you play for. As for the rest of the drivel in your post: that's all meaningless BuzSpeak. It's meaningless. You've never provided evidence for anything other than your ignorance. You don't even speak English half the time and you claim to be some great patriot. Juan down the block speaks more proper English than you, Buz.

LoL, Hooah, if all you can muster up in refutation of my stuff is to attack me personally, I suggest you open a thread in the Freeforall and I'll have it out with you as to how well you and I size up articulately.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by hooah212002, posted 11-12-2010 8:31 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by hooah212002, posted 11-12-2010 9:12 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 144 (591279)
11-12-2010 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Coyote
11-12-2010 8:31 PM


Re: Independent Dating Techniques
Coyote writes:

If creationists want to base a dating method on the flood and it's effects, or on the sssckdkdz factor, they will have to present evidence that either of these things exists first. In the case of the flood this will be difficult, as the early creationist geologists, seeking to document the flood, gave up just about 200 years ago.

Coyote, how many times do I need to say it? The question asked in the OP does not necessarily call for a resolution to the flood/no flood debate. The question is whether such a premise would call for an alternative dating methods.

There are numerous Biblical creationist ID hypotheses as to interpretation of the Genesis record relative to literatness. The Buzsaw Hypothesis is uniquely literate, not necessarily assuming YEC and assuming an eternal unverse, etc.

The problem with elitist YECs is that the Docs of Divinity have been educated over the conventional theology institutional assembly lines of conventional wisdom and knowledge, both Biblical and secular. Instead of thinking and applying logic for themselves, they, like their secularist counterparts get their young minds filled full of mush all the way from kindergarten to doctorate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by Buzsaw, : Add an s for accurate articulation.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2010 8:31 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2010 9:30 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 401 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 93 of 144 (591282)
11-12-2010 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 8:41 PM


Re: Independent Dating Techniques
relative to literatness.

And you want to have a battle of wits with me??????? Let alone an articulation contest? Come the fuck on Buz, I at least know how to use spell-check.....

Construct an argument using the English language for once, then MAYBE I will have a proper discussion with you old man. Until then, I will chide you for fucking up the language you so proudly call your own.


"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 8:41 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 144 (591286)
11-12-2010 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by shalamabobbi
11-12-2010 5:22 PM


Re: Studying Ancient Corals/YEC Duration Of Day
shalamabobbi writes:

how would a YEC dating technique of any kind take into account the change in the duration of the day as revealed in studying ancient corals?

Would you mind elaborating on your question?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-12-2010 5:22 PM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 9:44 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 107 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-12-2010 11:31 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5934
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 95 of 144 (591287)
11-12-2010 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 9:00 PM


Re: Independent Dating Techniques
Coyote, how many times do I need to say it? The question asked in the OP does not necessarily call for a resolution to the flood/no flood debate. The question is whether such a premise would call for an alternative dating methods.

Sorry, but I am not much into fiction when it comes to my field of study. Hypotheticals are nice for grad school BS sessions, but I am no longer much interested in hypotheticals which have no sound basis in fact or evidence and which lead nowhere.

There are numerous Biblical creationist ID hypotheses as to interpretation of the Genesis record relative to literatness. The Buzsaw Hypothesis is uniquely literate, not necessarily assuming YEC and assuming an eternal unverse, etc.

I am gratified that you are literate, as that puts you ahead of 90% of folks on the web and makes what you write that much easier to decipher. Now you need to work on being rational, because what you are promulgating is not supported by real world evidence. It is in fact diametrically opposed by the evidence of the real world.

The problem with elitist YECs is that the Docs of Divinity have been educated over the conventional theology institutional assembly lines of conventional wisdom and knowledge, both Biblical and secular. Instead of thinking and applying logic for themselves, they, like their secularist counterparts get their young minds filled full of mush all the way from kindergarten to doctorate.

Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there.

Robert A. Heinlein, JOB: A Comedy of Justice

Sorry for the interlude, but sometimes Heinlein has the perfect description. (His book, JOB is rather interesting by the way.)

I have the solution to the "mush" problem. When something is unclear, compare it to the evidence. This tends to clear up a lot of problems. For example, the evidence shows the global flood didn't happen as described. The same evidence thus also clears up the vapor canopy problem and the need to calibrate radiometric dates to account for that vapor canopy.

And I can check the evidence for myself with regard to the global flood: I have examined many archaeological sites which span the ca. 4,350 year date ascribed to the global flood without having found any evidence of that flood. I have instead found continuity in pretty much everything, including fauna and flora, human cultures, stratigraphy, and most telling of all, mitochondrial DNA in the resident populations.

Now you may consider this a "secularist" approach, but it is consistent with an awful lot of real world evidence. Your approach, on the other hand, is contradicted by a huge amount of real world data and supported by essentially none of that data. You have to rely on scripture, revelation, and belief--all of which is a "he said" proposition--for your support.

You could actually go out in your backyard and perform this same kind of test: soil layers can be deciphered and dated. You could look for layers about 4,350 years old and see if you can find evidence of a global flood. If it is global it has to be pretty much everywhere, including your back yard. (One potential problem is a lot of modern development removes the topsoil, so you may have to move to a better location nearby.) This kind of exploration is much easier in an archaeological site as we have a lot more time stratigraphic markers to help us out, but it can be done with soils with just a bit more work.

Are you game to look at real world evidence, or will you, in the words of another Heinlein quote, let belief get in the way of learning?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 9:00 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 9:41 PM Coyote has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 144 (591288)
11-12-2010 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Coyote
11-12-2010 9:30 PM


Re: Independent Dating Techniques
Coyote writes:

Are you game to look at real world evidence, or will you, in the words of another Heinlein quote, let belief get in the way of learning?

How much of your cited data assumes a relative uniform non-disaster model? The non-uniform disaster model implicating a pre-flood vapor canopy premise would necessarily call for an alternative interpretation of observable evidence. No?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2010 9:30 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 9:48 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 99 by jar, posted 11-12-2010 9:50 PM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply
 Message 100 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2010 10:00 PM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply
 Message 101 by hooah212002, posted 11-12-2010 10:07 PM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply
 Message 120 by Taq, posted 11-15-2010 1:15 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 97 of 144 (591289)
11-12-2010 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 9:30 PM


Re: Studying Ancient Corals/YEC Duration Of Day
Would you mind elaborating on your question?

I wrote an article on it here, this may help.

There are also forms of sedimentary deposition called rhythmites which do much the same thing, i.e. they allow you to work out the number of days in a year or months in a year or days in a month. I haven't yet researched these in any detail.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 9:30 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 11:18 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 98 of 144 (591291)
11-12-2010 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 9:41 PM


Re: Independent Dating Techniques
How much of your cited data assumes a relative uniform non-disaster model? The non-uniform disaster model implicating a pre-flood vapor canopy premise would necessarily call for an alternative interpretation of observable evidence. No?

But you can't say how, because it isn't really a model. You can just wave your hands and say maybe the magic flood would somehow make it look as if the Earth was old and that there wasn't a magic flood.

The problem with this, as that I have pointed out, is that (apart from you not having a model or a mechanism) it defies belief that any event would screw up all the very different dating methods in lockstep, so that they were all wrong and yet all mutually consistent.

I'll see if I can find one of my old posts on this subject ... ETA: found one. I explained the problem to you here.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 9:41 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29183
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 99 of 144 (591292)
11-12-2010 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 9:41 PM


Re: Independent Dating Techniques
Buz writes:

The non-uniform disaster model implicating a pre-flood vapor canopy premise would necessarily call for an alternative interpretation of observable evidence. No?

No.

It requires some evidence that will show it happened and what happened.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 9:41 PM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5934
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 100 of 144 (591295)
11-12-2010 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 9:41 PM


Re: Independent Dating Techniques
Coyote writes:

Are you game to look at real world evidence, or will you, in the words of another Heinlein quote, let belief get in the way of learning?

How much of your cited data assumes a relative uniform non-disaster model? The non-uniform disaster model implicating a pre-flood vapor canopy premise would necessarily call for an alternative interpretation of observable evidence. No?

Address the data or don't. But don't attempt to simply hand-wave it away. What-ifs are not evidence.

There is no real world evidence for a "pre-flood vapor canopy" so you can't use that in a logical argument. You might just as well cite the Easter Bunny as evidence.

You are trying to support a religious belief that has an immense body of evidence that contradicts it, so you come up with various "what-ifs" as if that means anything. It doesn't, and I'm not going to play that game. Alice has the day off and the rabbit hole is closed for repairs.

Either address the evidence or admit you don't any evidence supporting your position, but don't try to feed us unsupported "what-ifs" and think that substitutes for real world evidence. It doesn't.

Now, care to try to address my points again? Care to address the real world evidence that contradicts your beliefs?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 9:41 PM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 401 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 101 of 144 (591296)
11-12-2010 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 9:41 PM


Re: Independent Dating Techniques
The non-uniform disaster model...

There is no such thing. Stop making shit up.


"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 9:41 PM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 144 (591300)
11-12-2010 11:09 PM


Off topic; I'm not going there, Got that? .
Why are some of you people repeating demands for flood, sudden disaster non-uniform planet model and canopy evidence in this thread which would derail this thread?

How about some on topic refutation attempts relating to the valid points I've made?

What's wrong about referral of a disaster flood model premise relative to my points? How is that a less valid model than referring to a relative uniform model?

The ID creationist must assume the ID creationist non-conventional hypothesis for the purpose of answering the OP question pertaing to this thread. No?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.
Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by DrJones*, posted 11-12-2010 11:18 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2010 11:19 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 106 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 11:25 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1672
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 103 of 144 (591301)
11-12-2010 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 11:09 PM


Re: Off topic; I'm not going there, Got that? .
Why are some of you people repeating demands for flood, sudden disaster non-uniform planet model and canopy evidence in this thread which would derail this thread?

Because you claim that this bullshit "model" of yours would alter the verious dating techniques in use today. If you want to say "yes creationists would require new dating techniques to take in to account the effects of the flood" you have to show how the mythical flood would alter the current dating techniques, unless you wish to remain full of shit.

How about some on topic refutation attempts relating to the valid points I've made?

What valid points? you've claimed that the flood would invalidate current dating methods but have never shown how, nor have you been able to explain why all the methods are wrong and yet still agree.


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 11:09 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 11:32 PM DrJones* has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 144 (591302)
11-12-2010 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Dr Adequate
11-12-2010 9:44 PM


Re: Studying Ancient Corals/YEC Duration Of Day
Dr Adequate writes:

I wrote an article on it here, this may help

Thanks, Dr Adequate. I have to leave off of the PC now and off to church tomorrow. I'll check your info when I can get to it.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 9:44 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5934
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 105 of 144 (591303)
11-12-2010 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 11:09 PM


Re: Off topic; I'm not going there, Got that? .
What's wrong about referral of a disaster flood model premise relative to my points? How is that a less valid model than referring to a relative uniform model?

The ID creationist must assume the ID creationist non-conventional hypothesis for the purpose of answering the OP question pertaing to this thread. No?

I answered this above. There is no real world evidence supporting the "flood model" and I see no reason to debate it as if there were. It is a myth start to finish.

We might just as well debate Tolkein's use or non-use of allegory or the deeper meaning of Hamlet's "To be or not to be" soliloquy. There is about as much evidence for those being real as there is for this "flood model."

You can't hide from the real world evidence forever.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 11:09 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017