Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery - What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? (Minnemooseus and Buzsaw)
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 31 of 48 (639310)
10-30-2011 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Buzsaw
10-30-2011 10:26 AM


Buz's Lotta Nada
It's only stupid from the evolutionist's perspective. In any flood, more mobile creatures survive the longest. No?
From the floodist perspective, the reason there are relatively few mammal, bird and mankind fossils is that they were the most mobile. That makes sense. No?
LOL. From the evolutionist perspective, nothing floodist will ever make sense. From the creationist/floodist perspective, nothing evolutionist makes sense, particularly the long progression of chaos to order from primordial soup to all of the complexity and wonderment we observe today; disorder to order. That is just plain stupid and contrary to reality.
You keep harping on "evolutionist's perspective" and "floodist's perspective" as if they were equally valid approaches. They are not.
The "evolutionist's perspective" is supported by massive amounts of data and mutually supportive theories. The "floodist's perspective" is contradicted by these, and supported only by particular interpretations of ancient tribal myths.
This is clearly shown by the nonsense you have to come up with to try and reconcile your version of the flood myth with reality. This "most mobile" is one of the silliest ideas yet.
It is also shown by the dating of the flood, anywhere from just over 3,000 years ago to the Cambrian some 500+ million years ago. The proponents of these various dates all have their own interpretations showing why they are right and the other creationists are wrong. None have any empirical evidence to support their positions or to show where the other positions are incorrect.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2011 10:26 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 32 of 48 (639314)
10-30-2011 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Buzsaw
10-30-2011 10:26 AM


Re: Granny's Lotta Yadda
It's only stupid from the evolutionist's perspective. In any flood, more mobile creatures survive the longest. No?
No.
From the floodist perspective, the reason there are relatively few mammal, bird and mankind fossils is that they were the most mobile. That makes sense. No?
No. Example. plesiosaurs and dolphins. Same size, same shape, same habitat, but never found together in the fossil record.
Also Stegosaurs and elephants. Same size, same environment, same diet, never found anywhere near each other in the fossil record.
There's lots of examples if you actually look rather than makig stuff up.
Hey, Buz, while you're here, if a sedimentary layer is sandwiched between two igneous layers, and the lower igneous layer dates to 100 million years, and the upper igneous layer dates to 90 million years, do you really think we can't conclude that the sedimentary layer is between 90 and 100 million years old?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2011 10:26 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 33 of 48 (639318)
10-30-2011 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Buzsaw
10-30-2011 10:26 AM


Re: Granny's Lotta Yadda
Buzsaw writes:
In any flood, more mobile creatures survive the longest. No?
So...which is more mobile?
1) A cat
2) A barnacle
Which would die in a flood?
1) A cat
2) A barnacle

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2011 10:26 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 34 of 48 (639320)
10-30-2011 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Buzsaw
10-30-2011 10:26 AM


Re: Granny's Lotta Yadda
So we should expect to see Pterosaurs towards the top (most recent section) of the fossil record, right? We should see them in younger strata than modern elephants, right?

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2011 10:26 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 35 of 48 (639325)
10-30-2011 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Buzsaw
10-30-2011 10:26 AM


No Moose or Buz in This Thresd
Just a reminder that Great Debate participants are not to participate in the corresponding Peanut Gallery thread.
Buz and Moose are not to participate in this thread.
Thanks
AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2011 10:26 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 48 (639328)
10-30-2011 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by JonF
10-29-2011 8:31 AM


Re: Dating walls
I guess I'm the one trick pony here, but this is yet another illustration of some of the reasons I won't engage in debates with Buzsaw.
The exact point at issue in "Dating Walls" was discussed in a thread started by Buzsaw himself just a few months ago. See Dating Question For Members. While Buz did make noises about understanding the discussion, it was evident that he had learned absolutely nothing.
And here he is barely six months later insisting that Moose respond to his ridiculous reused bricks analogy as if that previous discussion had never happened. Grrrr!!!
Of course if he ever finally gets it, he's going to pretend that he always understood, and that we just hadn't considered the tsunami. (Now would be the time to go for that jeer button, Mr. Saw)
Buzsaw knows that dating methods cannot be right because of the Architect Principle (i.e. if something disagrees with the Bible, it is wrong). But Buzsaw's understanding of science together with your finger tip would barely fill a thimble. So you get threads like this one every time dating (or any other scientific methodology) is at issue.
I fully believe that Buzsaw should be reinstated into the Science forums, but his posts in that Great Debate illustrate why he was booted in the first place.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : with apologizes for spelling Moose incorrectly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by JonF, posted 10-29-2011 8:31 AM JonF has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(3)
Message 37 of 48 (639330)
10-30-2011 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Buzsaw
10-30-2011 10:26 AM


Re: Granny's Lotta Yadda
Hi Buz,
In any flood, more mobile creatures survive the longest. No?
Okay fine. Let's just assume that's true.
Your original statement was;
The creationist response to that is that slower moving animals would tend to be in the lower strata and so on until the birds and fast moving creatures able to escape to higher ground would have survived the longest, leaving relatively few fossils in the highest strata of the geologic column
{Bolding mine.}
The corals in my examples were all stationary organisms. The fish were mobile. Despite this, there are fish in all of the different periods, even though the younger periods are higher in the geologic column. That is a direct contradiction of what you predicted.
Want a terrestrial example? Look at the plants in this table;
Look at how the flowering plants seem to have managed the same trick as your agile creatures. They only appear in the higher strata. They raced to the high ground as well! They move pretty quick for vegetables!
Of course they don't, they are in the higher strata because they evolved more recently and the higher strata are more recent. Why else should we only find flowers in rocks that are higher than Jurassic strata? Why else would we only find pines in rocks that overlay Mississippian strata? Why should ginkos be any better at getting away from floods than club mosses?
And why do we see overlapping environments, with marine layers and terrestrial layers alternating, as at the Grand Canyon?
From the floodist perspective, the reason there are relatively few mammal, bird and mankind fossils is that they were the most mobile. That makes sense. No?
No. Frankly it is an explanation so astonishingly naive that it sounds like the answer a child would give.
Your prediction, with faster animals near the top of the geologic column, simply isn't what we see. Instead we see many complex layers of alternating environments, each with biota suited to that environment. We don't see some naive pattern of more agile animals toward the top of the column. It just isn't there outside of creationist fantasies.
You've totally ignored all of my points and analogy in regurgitating fossil dates.
There's no need to appeal to specific dates, we can just use relative dating. The young corals appear higher in the column than the older fish fossils. The flowering plants can't escape a flood any better than any other plant, but they only appear in the higher part of the column relative to horsetails or club mosses. Your prediction is falsified.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2011 10:26 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by AdminPD, posted 10-30-2011 4:36 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


(1)
Message 38 of 48 (639348)
10-30-2011 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Granny Magda
10-30-2011 12:57 PM


Peanut Gallery
The Peanut Gallery is to talk about the debate going on in the Great Debate, not to debate with the participants in the Great Debate.
Please refrain from asking questions of the Great Debate participants of the "What variety of creationist is Buzsaw" thread.
Thanks
AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Granny Magda, posted 10-30-2011 12:57 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(4)
Message 39 of 48 (641837)
11-22-2011 6:25 PM


Think about this question Buz. If you want to disprove the dating of sedimentary rocks why do you refuse to talk about the methods actually used to date sedimentary rocks ? It was bad enough when you were simply ignorant of the facts - but now you know better it's outright dishonest.
You might also reflect that a good analogy is one that accurately reflects the thing it is supposedly analogous to. Not one that misrepresents it in order to "prove" a point.
(Note that the Peanut Gallery thread is deeply buried, probably the reason why nobody bothered to post here)

  
Meddle
Member (Idle past 1270 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


(4)
Message 40 of 48 (642236)
11-26-2011 9:21 PM


Buzsaw in message Message 71 wrote:
Your problem applies to both. Your dating methodology dates both, the wall and the fossils as old because the sediment making up the sedimentary rocks are being dated as old rocks just like the rocks in the wall are old rocks and do not necessarily determine the date the wall was constructed.
But in general radiometric dating is not directly performed on the sedimentary rock, instead we date igneous rock which border the sedimentary layer. So to apply this to your analogy, we wouldn't date your stone wall we would date the floor/foundations it sat upon and the ceiling it is supporting. We can then infer that the stone wall was placed there between those two dates, and that the nail, which is analogous to a dead organism deposited at the same time, would also be placed in the same time frame. Unless you can describe a method by which the stone wall was put in place after the floor and ceiling were built (without the house falling down of course).
As for index fossils, wikipedia has a good overview here. In general, organisms used as index fossils include corals, brachiopods, trilobites and other marine invertebrates (so no need to 'run' up hills to escape the water). These organisms would have been very widespread and easily fossilised with their calcium carbonate shells.
These are examples of macrofossils used as index fossils, but there are also microfossils which are also used by the oil industry to identify the age of the rocks in the search for mineral resources.

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 41 of 48 (642353)
11-27-2011 11:25 PM


Buz and dating
Put another way, doesn't the age of the fossil in the sedimentary strata play a role in dating the time the igneous was deposited, being the instrument would be unable, in itself, to date the old material making up the igneous strata deposited?
No Buz as has been explained to you multiple times, the igneous layers are dated directly using the various radiometric dating methods.

God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 11-28-2011 12:34 AM DrJones* has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 42 of 48 (642361)
11-28-2011 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by DrJones*
11-27-2011 11:25 PM


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

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by DrJones*, posted 11-27-2011 11:25 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 43 of 48 (642388)
11-28-2011 9:54 AM


I notice that Buz is busy claiming that geology is wrong as part of his proof that ToE is wrong.
He obviously doesn't care that for geology to be wrong many other sciences would also have to be wrong ( e.g. chemistry, particle physics, biology, archaeology, etc.)
But since he thinks that rabies is caused by demons in the blood, I have no idea why he even bothers to talk about science.
I wonder what he thinks makes his PC work. Perhaps electric fairies and silicon golems?

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 44 of 48 (642390)
11-28-2011 10:16 AM


Buz and Dating yet again
Secondly, their direct dating methodology directly dates the materials making up igneous rock which are, indeed, old, being unable in itself of determining when the strata was deposited...
Not true. The various radiometric dating methods produce the age of the igneous layers measured from the time that they were deposited.

God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by NoNukes, posted 11-28-2011 1:41 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 48 (642404)
11-28-2011 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by DrJones*
11-28-2011 10:16 AM


Re: Buz and Dating yet again
The various radiometric dating methods produce the age of the igneous layers measured from the time that they were deposited.
Yes. Exactly as Coyote, Malcolm, Moose, and others have already explained more than once, and exactly as was explained directly to Buzsaw in one of the last few scientific threads he was allowed to start. Buz doesn't seem to disagree with what he's been told, he just doesn't let facts get in the way of his opinions.
Meanwhile, the great debate proceeds at glacial speed. No matter what points Moose makes, it's as though he were arguing with a man with no short term memory. Is there anyone here other than Buz that doesn't understand the problems with the old brick analogy?
Not to say that the discussion is pointless. If anyone doesn't know what variety of creationist Buzsaw is, the Great Debate thread is classic Buz. Chock-a-block full of "sig" material.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by DrJones*, posted 11-28-2011 10:16 AM DrJones* has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024