Peanut Gallery - What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? (Minnemooseus and Buzsaw)

In the Great Debate thread Buz seems to be saying the Cambrian "explosion" marks the global flood.But don't I remember that elsewhere we were assured recently by another creationist poster (I'm not going to bother to look up who) that the K-T Boundary marked the global flood?Hmmm. One creationist places the flood 500+ million years ago, and another about 60 million years ago. But biblical scholars place the flood some 4,350 years ago.And we are supposed to be impressed by this kind of stuff?

Walls such as that are dated by their context.This is true for early walls, such as the mortarless walls of Egypt or South America, as well as historic walls in Rome, England, or the New World.Dating the actual stones is a fool's errand. That won't tell you anything important about the wall. Discovering that your basement wall is less than 160 million years old is not going to get anyone a Nobel prize.If walls are adobe or some similar material, then perhaps the organic binders can be dated using C14 dating. Bricks can be dated by a variety of means based on historical knowledge, and sometimes by other techniques. That's not one of my specialties.If I were to try to date your middle wall I would check when the house was built through the historic records, see if there were building plans on file with the city or county, etc. There could be records of permits received for additions, etc. The local assessors are often a good source of information on when building improvements are made.Archaeology relies on a lot of common sense. You should check into it sometime!

Buz writes on the Debate thread: Buz, whenever your opinion or understanding of an issue seems to be at odds with science, you really should bet on science. It has a track record.But of course if your mind can't be changed by facts and evidence, why are you even bothering to debate? You preaching?Let me put this into baby talk:The geological record comes in layers, or strata. Some of those can be dated by radiometric means while others can't.Usually the volcanic layers can be dated this way, while sedimentary layers can't be.As was pointed out above, if we have a volcanic layer at, say, 90 million and another lower layer at 100 million, any sedimentary layer in between has to be between 90 and 100 million.Now many of these sedimentary layers have unique fossils because of evolution. These fossils are not found in other layers.So, using our example above, if we have a particular unique fossil in that layer dated between 90 and 100 million, we can assume that same age if we find that fossil in other contexts. This would be called an "index fossil." If a particular index fossil is well dated from many places to a particular age range, then it in turn can be used to date the layers in which it is found without the need to do expensive radiometric dating. And in some places the volcanic layers might be eroded away, but we still have a reliable means for dating the sedimentary layers by the fossils.If you are having trouble following this, let's use a similar analogy--the Buffalo nickel. If you find such a coin with the date worn off what is it's age? Since that coin was only made from 1913 to 1938, we can assume it was within that age span because of it's unique design and it's well-dated context.Same with fossils.This is not circular reasoning to anyone but a creationist trying to obscure the facts to agree with a particular religious myth.

You keep harping on "evolutionist's perspective" and "floodist's perspective" as if they were equally valid approaches. They are not.The "evolutionist's perspective" is supported by massive amounts of data and mutually supportive theories. The "floodist's perspective" is contradicted by these, and supported only by particular interpretations of ancient tribal myths.This is clearly shown by the nonsense you have to come up with to try and reconcile your version of the flood myth with reality. This "most mobile" is one of the silliest ideas yet.It is also shown by the dating of the flood, anywhere from just over 3,000 years ago to the Cambrian some 500+ million years ago. The proponents of these various dates all have their own interpretations showing why they are right and the other creationists are wrong. None have any empirical evidence to support their positions or to show where the other positions are incorrect.

Buz--Your problem is that you disagree with the results of dating methods, so you look for excuses to disbelieve the results. But unfortunately you have no real knowledge of those dating methods, so you look pretty silly whenever you try to lecture those of us who do have hard-earned knowledge of dating methods, often acquired over a period of decades.The current example is your "circular reasoning" argument--it's straight out of the creationists' Handbook.Here's how it works: scientists date volcanic layers using direct dating methods. That's pretty accurate. Even the RATE boys didn't put a dent in those methods.In between many of the volcanic layers are sedimentary layers that aren't so easily dated. But those layers can be assigned maximum and minimum ages based on volcanic layers on either side. So, a particular sedimentary layer might be known to occur between, say, 90 and 100 million years in age. If this age is verified in a number of different locations it can be considered quite reliable.But that sedimentary layer might have a particular fossil that is not found in any other layer. This would be called an "index fossil" -- this means it is confined to a relatively narrow time period and (hopefully) is widespread. That fossil, then, can be used as a dating method to date a layer in which it occurs without the need to do radiometric dating of volcanic layers above and below.An example you might be able to relate to: the pop-tops on beer cans were produced only between 1962 and 1975. They are widespread, nearly indestructible, have a narrow temporal range, and are easily identified. They are, like the index fossil, a time stratigraphic marker. You find a layer in a dump with a lot of pop-tops and you are looking at the 1962-1975 range.We have explained these things to you over and over, so stop trying to play dumb with these dating questions; you are succeeding all too well.

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.