Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   PRATT Party and Free for All
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 126 (546039)
02-07-2010 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coyote
01-27-2010 9:15 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Coyote writes:
One of the first things I learned in archaeology class was "if you want to find 10,000 year old sites, look for 10,000 year old dirt."
So, all we have to do is find dirt that is about 4,350 years old and see what the evidence shows, simple, eh? Fortunately dirt that age is common, and probably exists in most back yards unless there has been a lot of grading during construction. Archaeologists deal with deposits of that approximate age on a daily basis, and have for over a hundred years.
Hi Coyote. This dirt dating thing intrigues me. Is there a website chart and other data where one can read up on this as to the continuity of it etc? Thanks.
(Perhaps others may have something on this as well. )

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 4 by Coyote, posted 01-27-2010 9:15 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-07-2010 8:13 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 24 by Coragyps, posted 02-07-2010 8:46 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 02-07-2010 11:19 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 126 (546054)
02-07-2010 10:05 PM


Re: Dirt Dating Data
Thanks for the responses, but what I'm looking for is data relative to researched dirt dating as per Coyote's message attempting to refute the flood by dirt dating.
I'm particularly interested in charts which show data relative to say, the last 15,000 years, beginning from around 3,000 years. My apologies for not specifying. Since Coyote said dirt dating would tell the story. I want to see that data relative to continuity.
If I was as dumb as some (I say some) try to portray I'd be kissing the door and slamming my wife when I come home, like they said on Hee Haw about the guy who was loosing it. Bear with the ole man. I'm not there yet.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 26 of 126 (546055)
02-07-2010 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Dr Adequate
02-07-2010 8:13 PM


Re: Dating dirt
DrAdequate writes:
There is also this wonderful website, I don't know if you've heard of it, where you can look up the answers to this and other similar questions that might perplex you. It's called Google.
* bangs head repeatedly on desk *
You sit there at your computer with an inconceivably vast source of information literally at your fingertips and you're asking us to do your research for you?
Doc Adequate, (sometimes inadequate, but thanks anyhow), FYI, I did a google search before I made the original request to Coyote in response to the claim and found nothing that would help. That's not saying it isn't there. That's why I asked.
On the side, is so much banging of the head what makes you so cranky? I'm very sorry about that.

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 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-07-2010 8:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Blue Jay, posted 02-07-2010 11:04 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-08-2010 12:33 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 126 (546130)
02-08-2010 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Blue Jay
02-07-2010 11:04 PM


Re: Dr/Doc
Bluejay writes:
Do you realize that, by shortening his name, you actually made it longer?
Thanks, Bluejay. My intension was not to shorten. Doc is less formal and a bit more pithy.

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 28 by Blue Jay, posted 02-07-2010 11:04 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 126 (546134)
02-08-2010 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Adequate
02-08-2010 12:33 AM


Re: Dating dirt
Hey Doc, did you read this a few posts back?
Buz writes:
I'm particularly interested in charts which show data relative to say, the last 15,000 years, beginning from around 3,000 years. My apologies for not specifying. Since Coyote said dirt dating would tell the story. I want to see that data relative to continuity.
If you could be so kind as to run across something on your version of google it'd be greatly appreciated. I'm not finding anything on my creation minded version. Perhaps my creation minded hardware sent some of the other to the trash bin.

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 Dr Adequate, posted 02-08-2010 12:33 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 126 (546136)
02-08-2010 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Coyote
02-07-2010 11:19 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Coyote writes:
Little things can help. Some layers can be dated by radiocarbon dating of faunal remains (rodent bones or pollen). Others can be dated by volcanic ash layers through various techniques. Cultural materials make it easy, as there are a lot of different ways to date those. Some layers may be hard to date directly, but maybe you can date the layers above and below them and get a good estimate.
One of the first things one might do is look up the Geological Survey soil maps. Those folks have spent decades identifying and categorizing soils. Their maps have a lot of good information and detail.
Check into this and let me know of any questions. But--check the web first.
Thank you kindly for your helpful response, Coyote. What I'm trying to asertain relates to your claim that dirt dating refutes the flood. It would seem that in order to do that, there would needs be significant continuous areas of sediment layering which could be dated layer by layer from, say 3000 years back to 50,000 years back. I use these figures for two reasons:
1) To begin well before the alleged flood.
2) To show whether there are any non-continuous gaps from 3000 to 50,000 years ago as per current dating methods. (ABE: Perhaps 3,000 to 10,000 years would be a more feasable time frame since the last alleged Ice Age ended then. )
(Meanwhile Doc Adequate (sometimes inadequate) bandages head wounds, bloodied by bashing because of bloomering blatherer's bloviations.)
Edited by Buzsaw, : added sentence as indicated.

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 29 by Coyote, posted 02-07-2010 11:19 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Coragyps, posted 02-08-2010 8:46 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 02-08-2010 9:07 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 126 (546162)
02-09-2010 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Coyote
02-08-2010 9:07 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Thanks you Coyote. This will give me some things to think about. There's so much corroborative support to the Biblical record that I'm aware of, such as the evidence at Nuweiba Beach at the Gulf of Aqaba relative to the Exodus as well as so much fulfilled prophecy and other data that I cannot discount the Biblical flood. I don't accept that carbon dating and perhaps other dating methodology would work prior to the flood if indeed it happened due to the implied pre-flood earth and atmosphere. I deduce from that that what has been attributed to ice ages was the flood but admittedly cannot adequatly support my position scientifically. A flood would have left a significant amount of ice at the poles due to the sudden condensation of the alleged canopy globally which is implied. I hope you understand my dilema.
However, having said the above, I respect your position and the work you have done. Insomuch as I'm able I will work to get a better understanding of your data and learn more relative to the whys and wherefores of both sides of this flood dabate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 02-08-2010 9:07 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by ZenMonkey, posted 02-09-2010 7:58 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 126 (546163)
02-09-2010 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Coragyps
02-08-2010 8:46 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Coragyps writes:
....enter "suigetsu" into the search function right here at EvC, and read any of the dozens of excellent posts by RAZD, JonF, Chiroptera, or even me about that 45,000 year set of carbon-14 dates. They correlate with other dates from icecaps, corals, stalagmites......
Thank you, Coragyps. I'll do some searching.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Coragyps, posted 02-08-2010 8:46 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by anglagard, posted 02-09-2010 1:32 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 126 (546200)
02-09-2010 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by anglagard
02-09-2010 1:32 AM


Re: Dating Dirt
anglagard writes:
I have a question. How could you possibly miss what is IMO the greatest and most informative series of threads in the history of EvC? Remember, everything claimed is heavily referenced and peer reviewed, it is not a matter of just taking RAZD's word for every assertion.
Now Buz, you didn't miss that series of threads on purpose, did you?
Thanks for weighing in with the links, Anglagard. You know, my friend, someday you'll be judged as you judge others. I am a very busy sole proprietor of a business. my activity on this site has been sporadic. As a matter of fact, until this thread I've not opened most, if any of those threads. I usually open ones which I'm involved with, not have time to read much. I don't remember opening what you linked or being involved, being a few years ago. I could be forgetful but surely not dishonest as you imply, as I have a healthy fear of Jehovah, god of us all, whether or not we acknowledge him.
I'm in the process of reading when I can find time. I'm particularly interested in dirt dating since that was the claim that Coyote made relative to the flood. It would seem that since the last alleged Ice Age ended around 10,000 years ago and there was no major catastrophe since, that much of the plains, plateaus and meadows would have a significant continuous and relatively uniform carbon datable sediment layer record, requiring little effort to research. That's just logical musings of a layman and likely considered too simplistic. I've got a lot of reading to do on this and just begun, so bear with me.

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 39 by anglagard, posted 02-09-2010 1:32 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by anglagard, posted 02-10-2010 4:21 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 126 (546324)
02-09-2010 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ZenMonkey
02-09-2010 7:58 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Zen Monkey writes:
Am I understanding this correctly? This planet - this entire universe, it seems - was changed so radically and completely less than 10,000 years ago that there's absolutely no traces of this change actually happening?
Hi Zen. It's not that simplistic as per the Buz literalist Genesis hypothesis. I've explained this before on occasion, but I'll explain briefly again. According to the Biblical record, it is not known how long days 1 through 5 were. They could have been a very long time or relatively short. Not given. The record says the Holy Spirit moved/worked on the waters etc, i.e did whatever work needed to be done on each day. Light was applied by the HS at just the right amount to evaporate the waters below enough to form a canopy atmosphere. Again, not given as to how long.
Plants came in day 3; again before sun etc so HS provided varied amounts of heat, light etc to perfect the plant world. Again, no indication of how long days were or how long plants were on earth until the sun etc were formed sometime in day four, so we don't know how long that took because the solar bodies were not finished until the end of day four. The record gives the purpose of the solar bodies which was to initiate the 24 hour day, etc so not until day 5 when fish and birds were created did we have 24 hour days.
Now we come to the important stuff relative to your question. Nobody but nobody knows how long plants were on earth. What we would conclude is that there had to be a very different atmosphere on the planet for who knows how long. Nobody would know how much carbon etc; likely very much less than post flood. The same would likely go with other radiometric dating methods.
Why do I so adamantly believe the Genesis account? Because of a significant amount of corroborating evidence for the Biblical record at large, regardless of the controversial stuff, some perhaps warranted but most not if one becomes well studied on all of the corroborated scriptures.
I have been into the Bible extensively and daily over 60 years since a 10 year old child. Not to boast, but for the record I am well versed on all of the prophecies and how they all corroborate the whole. I have the Lennart Moller, Swedish marine scientist's book and video on the phenominal discover of chariot debris at Nweiba Beach at the Gulf of Aqaba corroborated , I say corroborated by all else that the Bible states which should be found in the region of the crossing, which until this discovery was thought to be down at the southern tip of Sinai. etc. I say this to enforce that there is a significant amount of evidence for the veracity of the Biblical record, especially the fulled prophecies relative to the end times and the emerging evidenc of the yet to be fulfilled ones. This all, not to mention the significant amount of personal experiential phenomena I have witness and experienced relative to the reality of Jehovah, god. This, of course cannot be verified to you. Nor can the pre-flood stuff be verified. I cite it and explain so as to explain why I doggedly hold to those views, in spite of being accused of foolishly rejecting established theory and the science of it.
The reason there can be no legitimate science debate of creationism versus evolution is that science has devised what is considered to be a imperical way to explain naturally what the Bible states was done relatively suddenly.
We know, for example that if (I say if) the sun were created by a supernatural means it would have needs have been created beyond the proto-star period of star building so as to do the function it was created to do. What would require billions o y to be a functional star would take God whatever time deemed by him.
In creation, God did work, as per 2LoT, exchanging energy from him to his creation. Thus he rested the 7th day. The same with Jesus when he healed the woman with the issue of blood. He said virtue/energy had left him and the woman confessed.
Perhaps this may serve to answer your question and perhaps hopefully help you all who think the ole man's lost it to understand that there's method in my madness.
IMPORTANT ABE: Zen, the Buz hypothesis in no way deems the universe young or changed relatively to Genesis 1. God being eternal, the universe had to be eternal since Jehovah and all of his entourage of the hosts of angels, etc reside somewhere in the cosmos, likely extending all over it. Genesis 1 is primarilily about the earth, Solar System and perhaps our Milky Way galexy.
Edited by Buzsaw, : Pinked addition.

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 41 by ZenMonkey, posted 02-09-2010 7:58 PM ZenMonkey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2010 4:24 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 57 by ZenMonkey, posted 02-12-2010 12:35 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 126 (546342)
02-10-2010 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by caffeine
02-10-2010 5:42 AM


Re: Rates according to RATE
caffeine writes:
(Coyote) writes:
Still other creationists claimed changes in the decay rates, but the RATE project, run by creationists, has pretty much done away with those claims.
The idea of creation scientists undermining creationist claims by doing real science intrigued me, so I went to have a look at RATE's findings. I'm not sure how you got the idea they'd done away with the possibility of changing decay rates - their publications are still very much in favour of the idea. From one of their articles at ICR:
Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE project indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay took place in one or more short episodes between 4,000 and 14,000 years ago. The results strongly support our accelerated decay hypothesis, that episodes with billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay occurred in the recent past, such as during the Genesis flood, the Fall of Adam, or early Creation week. Such accelerations would shrink the alleged 4.5 billion year radioisotope age of the earth down to the 6,000 years that a straightforward reading of the Bible gives.
Where are they doing away with claims about changing decay rates?
Hi Caffeine. Thanks for weighing in.
Here is a better site which covers this more extensively with illustrations and other pertinent data.
Though I concur with a lot of ICR conclusions, the following exerpt from the above site hits on one of their conclusions which does not fit the literal Genesis one model:
Since we can measure the present half life we can calculate the age of a sample of an isotope if we also know how much of each isotope was there at the beginning of the process, and that nothing changed during the process that we did not know about. Since we cannot observe the beginning amounts that existed in the distant past, we have to make some assumptions in order to make dating calculations.
It is my understanding that ICR is YEC, claiming that Planet Earth is about 6000 y. o. ICR's hypothesis model is not literalist Bible in that they assume six 24 hr days in Genesis one, when in fact, the literal reading clearly states that the creation of the solar system on day four determned the days, years and seasons as we observe today.
Having said that, relative to the Genesis account, perhaps the beginning of isotope decay came at day five or even at the fall/earth curse event, both of which would (in a literal reading) calculate at around six millenniums, the beginning of such would be the beginning of the solar system.
Two Genesis factors may perhaps have a bearing on the beginning of decay: 1) that before work began on the planet it was in darkness. 2) that heat and light via supernatural means may not have caused isotope decay to begin.

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 46 by caffeine, posted 02-10-2010 5:42 AM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Huntard, posted 02-10-2010 10:14 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 62 by JonF, posted 02-12-2010 11:55 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 126 (546360)
02-10-2010 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Huntard
02-10-2010 10:14 AM


Re: Rates according to RATE
Huntard writes:
Correct me if I'm worng, but I don't think light and/or heat are responsible for radioactive decay.
Hi Huntard. Did you notice the word, perhaps in my statement. I was not perporting to be an authority.
However consider this relative to the cited ICR scientific research ABE: (not ICR's website):
Radioactive isotopes don't tell much about the age of sedimentary rocks (or fossils). The radioactive minerals in sedimentary rocks are derived from the weathering of igneous rocks. If the sedimentary rock were dated, the age date would be the time of cooling of the magma that formed the igneous rock. The date would not tell anything about when the sedimentary rock formed.
Does isotope decay occur in frozen cold and dark bodies having no atmosphere in a solar setting? I don't know. Likely nobody knows but the alleged creator/manager/designer who allegedly effected it all as per the Genesis record.
If I understand the implications of the above, dating sediment layers accurately is hampered by contamination by the old igneous sediment in the soil as per sedimentary dirt dating.
Hopefull Coyote will weigh in again here from a professional perspective.
Edited by Buzsaw, : add ABE

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 49 by Huntard, posted 02-10-2010 10:14 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by caffeine, posted 02-10-2010 12:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 52 by Coyote, posted 02-10-2010 2:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 126 (546593)
02-11-2010 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by RAZD
02-10-2010 11:13 PM


Re: Dating Dirt
Hi Razd. Perhaps this thinking is way too simplistic, but I'm going to pose it anyhow. In dating dirt, it would seem (to the layman) that if there was no catastrophy since the last Ice Age around 10,000 y ago that it should be easy to layer date the Great Planes like in Kansas, Eastern Colorado, Eastern Nebraska and Iowa etc. It would seem that the layers would just stack up uniformly and continuous over the entire region back 10,000 year. What say you?
Edited by Buzsaw, : change message titile
Edited by Buzsaw, : Fix Title

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 54 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2010 11:13 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Coyote, posted 02-11-2010 11:28 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 126 (546624)
02-12-2010 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Coyote
02-11-2010 11:28 PM


Re: Dating Dirt
Coyote writes:
There should be areas where the stratigraphy is intact. I don't know why you would expect all areas to be uniform and intact.
Ever see a sand dune? A meandering stream channel? Wind and water can do a lot to soils.
Hi Coyote. I've been across the Great Plains dozens of times; pretty much all over them. There are no sand dunes of any significance. There's the Sand Hills in Northwestern Neb, but these do not appear to be formed by wind and not in the plains areas which I specified in my message. I've visited the Sand Dunes near Las Cruces NM, but again, they are not in the plains states cited.
As for the streams and rivers, yes, the areas near them should change some, but there are many square miles which, before cultivated, evidently had a continuous yearly growth of grass and other ground cover to protect from extreme or prolonged loss of dirt. Dust storms in the plains states are not a major event as they are on the desert regions.
Are you apprised on specific areas where the stratigraphy is intact, the dating data on them and how large they are etc? This is more of what I'm interested in since it pertains more directly to your claim that dirt dating debunks the flood.

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 56 by Coyote, posted 02-11-2010 11:28 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Coyote, posted 02-12-2010 10:57 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 75 by anglagard, posted 02-13-2010 1:59 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 126 (546636)
02-12-2010 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by ZenMonkey
02-12-2010 12:35 AM


Re: Dating dirt
Zen Monkey writes:
I'm simply looking at your assertion that - whatever the world was like before the Flood - as a result of the Flood the world went through cataclysmic changes. Not just new seas or new continents or mountains much higher than mountains had ever been before, but more drastic changes such as the loss of the "vapor canopy" and major alterations in the atmosphere.
In fact, if I understand you, your claim is that even things like radiometric dating are unreliable because of how much the Flood affected the world. If you mean that atomic decay rates were affected, that means major changes in the nature of matter itself. Regardless, what I was pointing out was that, if what you're saying is true, somehow this abrupt, world-altering event was so transforming that it appears to have left no traces of it ever happening. Whether from archeology, geology, physics, astronomy, or any other discipline, any physical evidence that you care to examine actually demonstrates no abrupt change of that nature anywhere in the date range that you're looking at. I would even dare to say that there is no evidence anywhere of the laws of physics suddenly shifting at any time in the measurable past. There is just nothing there to mark this claimed huge event. There is only measurable evidence, from many disciplines, showing a verifiable, continuous history going back for millions and billions of years.
Hi Zen. I'm glad we're not in the science forums because this is where I get in trouble in that fora. I appreciate these the patient and gracious replies from some of you. This is how I learn, from the ability to aire my views which are unique from conventional creationism and secular science and where I can explain more indepth why I have adamantly held to my beliefs these 7 or so years with EvC.
This Wiki site alludes to this relative to rates of atomic decay and it's effect on matter, as I understand it.
1) Don't atomic decay rates effect/change matter?
2) Wouldn't atomic decay rates be unpredictable if the pre-flood amount of carbon and other elements in the atmosphere were not uniform to after the flood?
3) Wouldn't matter/soil be affected after the flood relative to a change in the rate of atom decay?
4) Isn't the conventional model uniformitarian whereas the Buz/Biblical hypothesis is not?
Radioactive decay is the process in which an unstable atomic nucleus spontaneously loses energy by emitting ionizing particles and radiation. This decay, or loss of energy, results in an atom of one type, called the parent nuclide transforming to an atom of a different type, named the daughter nuclide. For example: a carbon-14 atom (the "parent") emits radiation and transforms to a nitrogen-14 atom (the "daughter"). This is a stochastic process on the atomic level, in that it is impossible to predict when a given atom will decay,[1] but given a large number of similar atoms the decay rate, on average, is predictable.
Zen Monkey writes:
Most of what you claim is unknowable is actually very understandable and knowable, Buz. The universe is a fascinating place. I really am sorry that much of what you appear to believe about it is flatly contradicted by the facts. But it is. Your suppositions and musings have no basis other than your reading of scripture and your imagination.
As per my above considerations, wouldn't either POV be feasable, depending on how what is observed is interpreted?

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 57 by ZenMonkey, posted 02-12-2010 12:35 AM ZenMonkey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 02-12-2010 11:09 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 63 by JonF, posted 02-12-2010 12:04 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 64 by Rahvin, posted 02-12-2010 1:45 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024