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

In message 43 Buzsaw reminds us that he is having trouble understanding whether the dating of the sedimentary rock reflects the age of the sediments within them. He comes up with an analogy (I assume it’s an analogy) to help us understand his point of view: First I think we need to point out to Buz that, generally, geologists don’t date the sedimentary rocks directly. Rather they date igneous layers sandwiching and crosscutting the sedimentary layers to constrain the age of the sedimentary package.
To relate this back to his wall analogy, it would be like dating when the mortar solidifies to give a date when the wall was built.However in the real world we have many more constraints than the mortar or the bricks. For example in the below diagram we would date the crosscutting intrusives I & G and the volcanic layers F & A to give us dates on fossil bearing sediments E, C, K & H. To put numbers on this: If the granite ‘I’ is dated at 300 Million years old, and the volcanic layer ‘A’ is dated at 310 Million years old, it follows that the sedimentary layer between them at ‘C’ aged between 300 and 310 Ma. This diagram came from this very educational site which it might be worth buz having a look at.So in my example, buz would need to explain (from his Young Animal Life perspective) how the fossils got in to sediments that were deposited about 305 Million years ago. Surely the dead animals which were fossilised were deposited at the same time as the sediments, much as we see today?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix source link. There had been an undesired space in front of the "http".

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: 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) 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.