Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? (Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only)
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 replied

  
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 replied

  
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 replied

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

  
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 replied

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

  
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.

  
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 seen this message but not replied

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

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 84 (634587)
09-22-2011 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Minnemooseus
09-12-2011 10:17 PM


Re: You're trying to have it both ways
Minnemooseus writes:
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).
My understanding is that you date the geological rock units by the fossils and the fossils by the rocks. I see this as circular reasoning.
The Cambrian Explosion Era, the lowest strata is rife with complex multi-cell invertebrates such as trilobites, having extremely complex eyes, jointed legs, and other appendages. Having appendages is indicative of a muscle system. They have antenae for detection. . They have organs for breathing, implicating some system of circulation through the cells. They have mouths capable of consuming food and of assimilating nutrients.
The sudden appearance of complex animals and plants is evidence of the Genesis Flood. Evolutionism would require a gradual evolvement of complex living things. LoL. The Precambrian strata does not contain that evidence.
In 1977 a vertebrate fish fossil was discovered in the upper Cambrian strata in Wyoming This was published in Science Magazine, May 5 1978.
The Cambrian Explosion Era fossils were fully formed highly complex animals and plants such as exist today. There are no transitional partly formed animals or plants in the bottom of the Geologic Column. For the most part, the Pre-Cambrian was lifeless.
The evidence is that evolution is not observed in the fossil record. The evidence is that the Genesis Flood is more supportive to the Geologic Column of the fossil record than Evolution.
The slowest moving animals are found at the bottom of the Column where thay should be expected to be, due to the inability to move to higher ground as the flood emerged. Thus, the lack of fast moving creatures which were capable of surviving the rising waters the longest. Birds fossils, for that reason are rare.
Fossilization requires sudden burial. Birds, mankind etc would not likely be, for the most part un-buried or shallow enough to decay rather than fossilize.
Evolutionists cite extinction as evidence of evolution. Extinction is not evidence of evolution.
Edited by Buzsaw, : Clarification changes in wording

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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Panda, posted 09-23-2011 8:40 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 51 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-27-2011 12:39 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 84 (634780)
09-23-2011 10:42 PM


Uniformitarinsm Vs Catastrophism
The assumption of uniformitarianism by conventional science is a hugh factor so far as absolute dating goes with radiometric dating methodology.
The literal Genesis global floodist paradigm does not advocate for uniformitarianism. Since the Genesis account clearly depicts a canopy atmosphere before the flood, cosmic rays from the sun, etc would have affected the isotopes of all of the elements which conventionalists apply for dating the strata.
I will be citing some of the effects which pertain to the sun's rays etc as we delve into the various radiometric dating methods which I have been reading up on.
I'll be watching for your responses to some of which I've mentioned in my last message. Perhaps we can both glean some from the Peanut Gallery to address as it gets up and going.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-27-2011 12:54 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 84 (635352)
09-28-2011 8:00 PM


Co-ordinating Peanut Gallery With Debate
Hi Moose. I'm getting my thoughts together so as to respond to your points as soon as I can find time.
In the meanwhile, IMO, it would be helpful if the Peanut Gallery participants would co-ordinate their discussion with what is at hand here.
We're not debating the Exodus perse presently. Nevertheless, NoNukes and PaulK are going at me in Message 10 about dishonesty, implying that I was ignoring the fact that the Exodus crossing is too deep presently for such a crossing.
The fact is that if they would go back to the Exodus debate, they would be honest themselves and tell the folks that I explain why the site was deeper thousands of years ago than it is now, advising how the global flood which happened, according to the record, relatively shortly before the Exodus. Thus the tsunami like rush of the returning of the walls of water from North and South, would likely cut a chanel in the looser sandy Eastern section of what the flood washed down from the wadi canyon, etc.
Thus the Exodus evidence becomes somewhat supportive to the Noaic flood and vise versa; the flood somewhat supportive to the Exodus.
Perhaps while I'm not yet ready to respond to your last message, you may want to weigh in on this matter, so as to keep the two threads more or less co-ordinated.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-28-2011 10:50 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 58 by Larni, posted 09-29-2011 11:58 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 84 (635388)
09-29-2011 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Minnemooseus
09-28-2011 10:50 PM


Re: Where did all the water go?
Moose writes:
Buz, presuming that the whole world was submerged in water (and I'm not beginning to buy into that), you have an Earth that was 100 percent ocean. There is nowhere for the water to run off.
On a related note, where did all that sediment that was deposited by "THE FLOOD" come from? You producing it out of "thin air", just like all that water of "THE FLOOD"?
If you will read the first chapters of Genesis you will have to conclude that there was a canopy like atmosphere over the planet so as to even out the global temperature and reduce the harmful direct rays of the sun.
There was no rain or rainbow on earth pre-flood. No rainbow clearly implies no direct rays to produce one. The pre-flood atmosphere, along with other factors produced better and healthier food. This produced larger, healthier humans and animals which enjoyed longer lives. After the flood, if you follow Noah and his near descendents down to Moses, human lives gradually deteriorated down to about one hundred to two hundred years by Moses's time, a thousand or so years down line.
The oceans were relatively shallow, rendering the earth relatively (I say relatively) smoother with lower mountains.
The account states that the flood broke up subterranean waters which were evidently substantial, so as to force much of the subterranean water to the surface. Psalms 104 states, pertaining to the flood, that the mountains rose up and the valleys sank down, alluding to tectonic plate upheaval and volcanic activity. Other OT writers attested to that as well.
The settling of the relatively thin ocean crusts caused tectonic uplifts such as faults etc, creating the mountain ranges. This settling of things likely took some time as land dams gave way, forming canyons, deepening the oceans and lowering the ocean floors. This is the reason sea life fossils are found in high mountain ranges.
These factors easily account for enough water to cover the relatively smooth earth and where it went after it fell. Then too, a substantial amount of it remained in the atmosphere so as to re-form to it's post-flood state.
From a careful, thought out study of the Genesis account, this summarizes all that the Genesis account states and implicates.
ABE: IMO, the above pretty well accounts to how literalist Biblical creationists should interpret what is observed.
Edited by Buzsaw, : ABE notation
Edited by Buzsaw, : Add gold so as to draw attention to 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 54 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-28-2011 10:50 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-29-2011 2:52 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 84 (635447)
09-29-2011 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Minnemooseus
09-28-2011 10:50 PM


Re: Where did all the water go?
Moose writes:
Buzsaw writes:
Thus the tsunami like rush of the returning of the walls of water from North and South, would likely cut a chanel in the looser sandy Eastern section of what the flood washed down from the wadi canyon, etc.
Buz, presuming that the whole world was submerged in water (and I'm not beginning to buy into that), you have an Earth that was 100 percent ocean. There is nowhere for the water to run off.
On a related note, where did all that sediment that was deposited by "THE FLOOD" come from? You producing it out of "thin air", just like all that water of "THE FLOOD"?
I see that I did not make my point clear. Let me clarify. The tsunami like (I say like) rush of return water was in the Nuweiba crossing site at the outlet of the wadi and canyon which drained into the Gulf, forming the crossing site. The looser, less rocky portion of the delta shaped crossing site would have been the Eastern-most end which is presently the deeper section of the crossing. The relatively sudden drop into the deeper channel is indicative of the tsunami like wash out when the North and South walls of pushed back waters rush back subsequent to being suddenly released upon the Egyptian army with their chariots etc.
The only reason I tied the flood with this is that the flood would have formed the delta shaped crossing some one thousand or so years previous to the Exodus.
I see Admin has his own one message peanut gallery on this tsunami of Buzsaw in Straggler's PNT. In fact I did not call it a tsunami perse. I described the rush as tsunami like.
Hopefully, Admin will read this and set the record straight as to what I have alleged.

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 Minnemooseus, posted 09-28-2011 10:50 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 84 (635599)
09-29-2011 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Minnemooseus
09-29-2011 2:52 AM


Re: Where did all the water go?
Moose writes:
Please expound on the pulling of the divine drain plug and the location of the divine sand and gravel stockpile.
Are you alluding to the flood here, or what?
Offhand, you might also want to explain the methodology of piling up all that unconsolidated sediment into mountains. Mud doesn't stack very well.
This upheaval from the flood would be the Genesis explanation for the major tectonic plate upheaval and movement, raising the mountains and deepening the oceans. The effect of the flood would not been limited to sediments.
Moose writes:
And I can't help wanting to know about the divine Garden of Eden irrigation project, to grow things before the first rain.
There was a midst which rose from the earth, likely during the night and early morning. The implication is that subterranean water was abundant. There was evidently ample condensation from the steamy midst to keep the surface moist enough for abundant lush vegetation.
The absence of direct sun rays would have evaporated relatively little from the earth's surface compared to cloudless skies. The vegetation was likely abundant and lush enough to allow little sunlight to the earth at the roots of the plants so as to preserve the moisture content. There was no need of irrigation. Adam did not work by the sweat of his brow until after the fall into sin and Jehovah's curse.
In modern greenhouses a misty water spray is often used for watering. The mist of the pre-flood earth was likely much finer than what is applied now.
The H2O content of the atmosphere would have remained relatively constant globally.
The atmosphere would have been higher and greater than the present one as well as less dense. There would have been ample solar heat trapped under the canopy to cause the atmosphere to rise higher than our present one. My understanding is that the higher the atmosphere, the more of a cooling effect it would have on the planet. Climatologists seem to go with that. Perhaps this is why such a canopy would not fry the earth.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

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 Minnemooseus, posted 09-29-2011 2:52 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 84 (636632)
10-08-2011 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Minnemooseus
09-12-2011 10:17 PM


Re: You're trying to have it both ways
Minnemooseus writes:
The only sensible way to date the walls construction would be to determine when the wall was built.
So the wall, being analogous to the strata in which the fossil exists, what determines the date of the wall/strata?
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.
Assuming that the new wall, was built without mortar, as was the old one, of the same assorted materials, analogous to the fossil strata, would the new wall date any newer than the old wall/strata?

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 not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Buzsaw, posted 10-28-2011 10:36 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 84 (639222)
10-28-2011 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Buzsaw
10-08-2011 3:41 PM


Re: You're trying to have it both ways
Buzsaw writes:
Minnemooseus writes:
The only sensible way to date the walls construction would be to determine when the wall was built.
So the wall, being analogous to the strata in which the fossil exists, what determines the date of the wall/strata?
In Message 2 of the Peanut Gallery, Boof said:
quote:
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 fossilized were deposited at the same time as the sediments, much as we see today?
Boof's message relates to my question. I assume they've used radiometric dating to determine the age of the strata.
Perhaps you or someone in the PG will explain how the age of my mortar-less wall would date radiometrically. The supporting middle wall of my basement has no mortar, being built of tightly placed old stones, some having sea fossils in them.

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 60 by Buzsaw, posted 10-08-2011 3:41 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 84 (639230)
10-29-2011 8:12 AM


Re: Buz's Mortar-less Wall
Hi again, Moose. When you get around to it, a penny for your thoughts regarding the debate Peanut Gallery's take on this and my response.
I forgot to mention that the rock from my wall obviously came from a common source area, all having the same type of sediment, color etc. Let's assume that they came from a local rock quarry. My region has these.
Modern radiometry would date my rock wall the same as the other rocks remaining in the quarry. No?
My wall is over a century old but not over 150 years. Let's suppose the workmen who built the wall dropped a nail in it at the time it was built. Modern radiometry would date the nail the same age as the wall layer which it was deposited in. No?
Prediction: Like the nail deposited in my century old wall constructed of aged rock, a fossil deposited 4300 years ago in flood sediment, radiometrically dating millions of years old, would date the same as the significantly older rock making up the sediment in which the fossil was deposited.

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024