Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-12-2017 2:43 PM
350 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,053 Year: 28,659/21,208 Month: 725/1,847 Week: 100/475 Day: 10/37 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456Next
Author Topic:   What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? (Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only)
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 84 (594821)
12-05-2010 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Minnemooseus
01-08-2010 10:22 PM


Re: You're trying to have it both ways
Moose writes:

Buz, you have a vague acceptance of a multi-milion/billion year old Earth.

Not necessarily, but possibly. My position remains that the age of the earth is not known. The Universe has infinitely existed, the energy/matter in it ever changing (abe forms but not quantitatively), being managed by ID.

Moose writes:

As such, you seem to accept the existence of multi-million year old sedimentary rocks, that contain the fossil record of life. But that life is of the same age as the enclosing rocks! You can't have old rocks containing the remains of young life.

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.

As I understand, fossils may contain various material; none containing actual organic material. Some have inorganic isotopes leaching in from the sediment etc.

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.

Am I correct in understanding that there no organic matter remaining in fossils? As I understand, the minerals such as calcium and other inorganic material is what remains in bone fossils after the organic substance decays or is washed out etc.

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.

Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.


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 30 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-08-2010 10:22 PM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-06-2010 3:36 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3580
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.3


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 responded

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

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 84 (595506)
12-09-2010 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Minnemooseus
12-06-2010 3:36 PM


Re: You're trying to have it both ways
Moose writes:

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.

I do know that the SM dates fossils in sedimentary rocks from the time the SM determines it was deposited. I do care what the SM is, but that does not mean I buy into it. You're dealing with a logical layman dropout (by necessity) here with a year and a half of college.

I warned you that I intended to apply some logic here. My understanding of this debate from the gitgo was for you to get a handle of where Buzsaw comes from ideologically, etc.

If I go beyond your tolerance in logic, feel free to say so and I'll leave off. If you want to know what drives my thinking, in spite of the SM, I'd like to tell you like it is.

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? Earth's age has a lot to do with your question about fossils IMO.

As I understand, sedimentary rocks are made of the sand, soil and other stuff that hardens into rocks in time.

Your analogy of the birth of living things relative to age does not jive with fossils in sedimentary rock.

People are dated relative to when they emerge from the womb. Fossils are dated from the time SM determines they were deposited in sediment.

As I understand , radiometric dating, perhaps some math and relationships to material in and around a fossil, etc are how the SM determines age. (Abe: I believe the SM assumes that most of the fossils have no organic material in them). (I've

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.

One of my problems is with the SM position that the fossil date can be determined by the age it takes on from the (ABE: sedimentary rock which it is in. The sedimentary) 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?

Another is that the SM assumes a more uniformitarian premise to the hypothesis than the premise to the flood hypothesis. A lot, relative to atmosphere properties, earth's surface etc depends on the premise to the hypothesis.

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.

Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted by gold color in context


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 32 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-06-2010 3:36 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-26-2011 1:47 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 84 (598230)
12-29-2010 6:03 PM


Re: Fossil Dating SM
Hi Moose. It's been a while since I posted last. I'm curious as to what your response to my last message would be, pertaining to the fossil dating SM.

What do you think of my house analogy relative to the SM?


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 35 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-30-2010 12:02 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3580
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.3


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 responded

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

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 84 (598429)
12-30-2010 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Minnemooseus
12-30-2010 12:02 AM


Re: I've lately been a rather brain dead Moose
Thanks Moose. I've got plenty on my own plate, so take your time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-30-2010 12:02 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 84 (598431)
12-30-2010 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Minnemooseus
12-30-2010 12:02 AM


Re: Another Option
Moose writes:

To which the general membership will reply, "We can't tell the difference from before" (or something like that).

What do you think of me proposing a general membership thread on my last message content? Perhaps it would make for an interesting thread.


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 35 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-30-2010 12:02 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3580
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.3


(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 responded

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

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 84 (606509)
02-25-2011 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Minnemooseus
01-26-2011 1:47 AM


Re: You're trying to have it both ways
Minnemooseus writes:

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.

I am not YEC. (young earth creationist) You might call me, YAHC, i.e. young animal and humanity creationists. Why is it important to designate? Because of the dating data. The rocks and even plants were created (day three) before the sun, (day four) according to the Genesis record. According to Genesis, the day length determination was not until the sun was created.

Likely, this also was true concerning the insect world, in that plants would have needed them to pollinate etc.

Minnemooseus writes:

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.

Organic material, as I would define is matter related to life. I don't see it as irrelevant in that fossils contain mostly inorganic material, as I understand it.

Minnemooseus writes:

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?

I'm inclined to think that to be the case.

Minnemooseus writes:

...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.

If any given beach sand were dated via the same method old rock is dated, what would the dector show as the date of the beach sand which was dated?

Minnemooseus writes:

Another is that the SM assumes a more uniformitarian premise to the hypothesis than the premise to the flood hypothesis.

The "uniformitarion 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 environmental 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.

There were actually two Biblical earth floods, that which existed on the surface of the earth prior to the work of day one of Genesis and the Noaic flood; the former time frame unknown and the latter, known, Biblically.

We have no knowledge of anything relative to earth or the cosmos prior to day one of Genesis, according to the literal reading of the Bible.

Minnemooseus writes:

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.

According to Genesis, the earth as dark and cold, likely having a frozen watery surface before heat was applied which effected the creation of the pre-flood atmosphere. That would have created a perfect environ for the work that was to be done. It would have also been such as would created the ideal global climate implied in Genesis one. There was no rainbow and no rain until the flood, according to Genesis. Man lived hundreds of years, implying that some animals did, due to the terrarium kind of atmosphere, clearly implied in Genesis.

Thus, we would not know what many of the properties of the pre-flood earth and atmosphere was. This would, of course, have a bearing on date calculations.

Minnemooseus writes:

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.

The problem with that is that none of the above would be factored in books assuming a different premise and hypothesis.

This is why I go with ALL of the corroborating evidences observable to the Biblical record. When you assemble them all, they become significant enough to justify my firm stance, assuming the Genesis hypothesis.

I appreciate that you have allowed me to explain why the Buzsaw Hypothesis is unique. I believe it gleans the best of both sides of the EvC debate, in that it is based on the basic laws of science as well as the Biblical record. For this, of course I'm considered delusional by just about everyone, YECs and evolutionists alike.

I believe time will continue to bear out the Biblical record as it has over the millennia relative to fulfilled Biblical prophecies, etc.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box quoting. See here for unedited version.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-26-2011 1:47 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-22-2011 2:35 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3580
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.3


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: 3580
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.3


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 yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 84 (620305)
06-15-2011 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Minnemooseus
01-08-2010 10:22 PM


Re: You're trying to have it both ways
Moose writes:

Buz, you have a vague acceptance of a multi-milion/billion year old Earth.

As such, you seem to accept the existence of multi-million year old sedimentary rocks, that contain the fossil record of life. But that life is of the same age as the enclosing rocks! You can't have old rocks containing the remains of young life.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

I don't see that my position on the above has been empirically refuted in the science fora, from which I am hereafter banned from.

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


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-08-2010 10:22 PM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-12-2011 10:17 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 84 (631791)
09-03-2011 9:07 AM


Bump For Moose's Response
Hi Moose. It's been a few months since I posted this response to the fossil dating message which you posted. Do you have a response, or should I propose an open Free For All forum thread on the problem in question?

Buzsaw writes:

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.

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?

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 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.

I don't see that my position on the above has been empirically refuted in the science fora, from which I am hereafter banned...


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3580
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.3


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 responded

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

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 84 (633192)
09-13-2011 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Minnemooseus
09-12-2011 10:17 PM


Re: You're trying to have it both ways
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?

I've had a long day and need to hit hay. I hope to go up-thread, as you suggested and deal with some of that, when I find some time.

I like to give some of my time at the computer to other topics as well.

Thanks for reviving our debate.

Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted in message


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-12-2011 10:17 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-26-2011 10:15 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017