Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9045 total)
527 online now:
dwise1, jar, kjsimons, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 523 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,404 Year: 5,050/14,102 Month: 648/707 Week: 46/157 Day: 12/16 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


(1)
Message 5 of 84 (318511)
06-06-2006 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Minnemooseus
06-05-2006 12:18 PM


Re: New material
Minnemooseous writes:

And it seems that for many of 's non-YEC creationists, statements of being non-YEC are obscure at best. Perhaps they have stated their non-YEC creationist position, but such gets lost in the clutter of the older topics. Or perhaps they do not have a clear personal opinion on the age of the universe / age of the Earth (as I found out about Randman via the Yec/Not Yec? - A "let's keep it short topic" topic).

But, in my opinion, those ages are most fundamental in the whole creationism/evolution debate.

Hi Minnemooseous. You've gone to a lot of work here. Thanks much! I am pleased to be able to clarify my position on these things, since what I call my Buzsaw Hypothesis on origins and creationism science is quite unique and easily confused when it's dealt out piecemeal in various threads over a long period of time.

Btw, are you ok with me using "Moose" for brevity? Please feel free to say so if you'd rather have your username in full. "Buz" is fine with me if you wish so as to save some typing. An old 1950's Air Force buddy in my squadron was "Moose." (abe: Disregard. I've decided to go with the whole username.)

Minnemooseous writes:

My impression, from the material presented in message 1, is that you have no great conflicts with much of evolutionary theory, be it biological or non-biological. Your main creationist differences seem to kick in concerning the events of creation day 6.

Quoting from my version of the Bible, concerning "Sixth day: animals and man" (Genesis 1:24-27, it also continues on through verse 31):

24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth," 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

The only evolution I can accept would be possibly some micro type adaptations within a species. I see in your next post you acknowledge that you missread so I understand why you had this wrong here.

Minnemooseous writes:

First comment - Awful lot of redundant text there.

I am thinking that the key part of the above quoted is the "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." I am also thinking that you believe that that creation is a matter of spiritual and not physical image and likeness.

Actually I believe that though God is spirit, he has a literal glorified glowing image resembling ours in form. He is complex and beyond our comprehension, having a multi-present spirit known as the Holy Spirit being the formless member of the trinity, also being the spirit of Jevovah the father as well as Jesus, the son. Whenever a theophany of God appeared to men/mankind, it was in the form of a man, sometimes referred to the angel of God. So we, being uniquely intelligent beings are created very much like God in form/image as well as spirit unlike the other earthly creatures/brute beasts. Angels also appear to be always in like image, often being mistaken for earth men. If you need clarification on my position on this, say so and I'll do the best I can to explain my position.

Minnemooseous writes:

If I am interpreting your position correctly, you are very far from being a young universe, young Earth creationist.

That is correct, the universe being eternal having no beginning perse. Everything in the universe proceeded from God in some form or another as per TD1 science. All that exists today has existed in some form or another eternally, either as engergy/matter within the being of God or as matter/energy proceeding forth from God intelligently designed (ID) for his purpose. Colossians 1:17 would at least imply this when referring to Jesus who come from the Holy Spirit it says that he was before all things which were created and all things consist in him. This statement is not easily comprehended but I see it as at least implicating my above statement.

Minnemooseous writes:

I see you as being able to accept the evolution of the human species from earlier life forms, to later (roughly 6000 years ago) be given by God the spiritual image of God.

That is incorrect. Adam was the first earth man ever, created in one literal day roughly six milleniums ago as the perfect man who being created perfect was far superior to any since the fall in every respect, body soul and mind, but nevertheless totally human as we are.

Minnemooseous writes:

As such, I would file you under "theistic evolutionist". Again, I see no major conflicts between your creationist viewpoint and the mainstream scientific evolutionary viewpoint. But then, I may be substantially misunderstanding your position.

This is incorrect. I'll proceed to your next message to address that since you missread as you have stated in that message.

Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-05-2006 12:18 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 84 (318538)
06-07-2006 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Minnemooseus
06-05-2006 4:38 PM


Re: Minnemooseus misreading corrected by Minnemouseous
Minnemooseous writes:

Essentially the Buzsaw position seems to be "day 4 and earlier - old Earth is acceptable"; "day five and later - young Earth". I thought I had made sense of the Buzsaw position, but now I'm boggled. Like I said above, "Buzsaw is a semi-YEC"?

Now ready for Buzsaw input.

Perfecto! Since the sun and moon were as stated in the text "for seasons, for days and for years," the text, imo, implies that previous to these bodies and since it is not given how long it took in day for for them to be finished, there is no criteria in the first four days to determine the length of them, the light of them being furnished by God and by another source.

In Revelation 21:23 we read that in the New Jerusalem of the new earth (future) "it has no need of the sun, neither of the moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God did lighten it." I assume that the glory of God's Holy Spirit furnished the light for planet earth in the first four days before the sun and moon were created.

Why did God wait until day four? The Buzsaw Hypothesis (BH for the purpose of this thread) has it that since there would be widely varying requirements of heat for effecting the various processes of creation, some monumetal, the HS (Holy Spirit) emmited the exact amount of energy needed to effect each desired application. This would include preparing planet earth with ample vegitation so as to be in place for the living creatures after day four. Thus day three being pre sun and moon for the plants. Likely a literal day, though not impossible with God, would not be the best way to go.

Again, for clarification on anything or if I have failed to address some point, just say the word.

Btw, I've decided to edit your full username into the other messages in place of "Moose" since once I get use to typing it it goes fast.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-05-2006 4:38 PM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-07-2006 2:13 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 84 (318661)
06-07-2006 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Minnemooseus
06-07-2006 2:13 AM


Re: Point clarification.
Moose writes:

Your second paragraph (further elaborated on in your third paragraph) anticipated what was going to be my second question. I had, at least generally, accurately predicted to myself what your response would be. Again, I find your answer acceptable, at least in the context of the debate so far.

I didn't have a third question lined up, or if I did, I sure can't remember it now.

1. I need to clarify one thing regarding message 6. When I said it is unknown how long the first four days were, I meant that to mean these days could even have been 24 hour days but imo, not likely that short. After all, the creator, being omnipotent could have effected a great deal of change in one day, having his mighty spirit effecting the geological change, et al and not relying on the natural processes via the sun, et al to provide the energy and change desired.

2. Even if days one through 4 were literal days, the earth and heavens would not be young. Why? Because Genesis 1:1, imo doesn't begin until the Holy Spirit began to "move upon the waters." The statement, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is simply an introductory statement regarding the origin of the earth and the universe, being an appropriate beginning statement to God's manual/book for mankind.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-07-2006 2:13 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-08-2006 2:09 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 84 (319379)
06-08-2006 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Minnemooseus
06-08-2006 2:09 AM


Re: Just a short response - Young Earth made to appear old?
Moose writes:

In the above quoted and also in message 6, in an obtuse sort of way, you seem to be saying that God had the power to created a young Earth with an appearance of a much older age, and that maybe he did.

Do you agree with that statement, and if so, might such have also extended into the creations of days 5 and 6?

I'm not saying he did it with planet earth. I do believe he likely did it with the sun and moon. The protostar stage of sun, as I understand it is about 30 million years, so the sun would have to appear likely much older than that and I doubt that day four was that long. We just don't know as the text info isn't that imphatic. Many moons ago I had an inthread mini debate with Eta Carina in which imo I emperially established that if the sun were created relative suddenly by God, it would have had to appear with the appearance of age, i.e. 30 million years plus.

Moose writes:

(Being an obtuse) Moose

:D..........:cool:

Moose writes:

Were there other "simular to man, but not man" creatures created in day 6, perhaps prior to the creation of Adam? Creatures not quite up to being "in God's image"?

Imo, as per text, the most intelligent lower creatures to man were the serpents/reptiles/dinosaurs (dinos as per Buz hypothesis), who before the fall were as the text implies more intelligent than any of the other creatures of the field.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-08-2006 2:09 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-25-2006 11:08 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 84 (415598)
08-11-2007 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Minnemooseus
08-25-2006 11:08 PM


Re: Just (another) short response
Moose writes:

But some creatures were created prior to day 5. You are a "Some creatures are old, some creatures are young" creationist. Which still puts you outside of the worldly evidence of the creation story.

Hi Moose. Sorry I missed this updated message. Thanks for the bump. I don't consider plants as creatures, plants being the only living organisms before day 5. Do you consider plants to be creatures?

I see Mirriam Webster includes inanimate as a creature property, but I don't recall anyone referring to plants as creatures in the common usage of the word.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-25-2006 11:08 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 84 (415601)
08-11-2007 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Minnemooseus
08-05-2007 6:33 AM


OEC/YEC Clarification
Moose writes:

As I see it, you are part OEC, part YEC. You do compress a big chunk of (distorted) Earth history into the 5000 to 10,000 years, or whatever it is.

I consider myself to be OEC all the way but no possible way to determine how old. As I stated before, imo, the opening statement of Genesis 1:1 is not part of day one perse, but an introductory prefacing the six day creation account to the effect that whenever the universe and earth were created it was God who created them. I pretty much go with the Bishop James Ussher geneology record which is about 6000 years for both man and all other living things except plants. I will concede however that that the six milleniums is not set in stone, so to speak with me, in that perhaps one might question the prefall existence of Adam and Eve as to whether their prefall time was calculated in the Biblical geneological record. I do tend to assume that they were included.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-05-2007 6:33 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-11-2007 1:34 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 84 (415612)
08-11-2007 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Minnemooseus
08-11-2007 1:34 AM


Re: I say you're essential a YEC
Moose writes:

Mainstream science has animal life going back to somewhere prior to the Cambrian (aka the pre-Cambrian). This is 550+ million years ago. You put this into +/-6000 years - I call that essentially YECism.

Also, perhaps you would like to elaborate on your IDisms in this topic?

OK I see the problem. My statements were relative to earth, the planet but yes, things on the planet pertain to earth so in that sense you were correct in that there is an element of YEC in my OEC position. Perhaps we need to get up a couple more terms here, like OPEC (old planet earth creationism) and/or OPEYAC (old planet/young animal creationism) ;)

Now that we have that clarified imo we can proceed with understanding.

Oh yes, the wonderful ID factor - I'll need to get into that another time and will do so soon.

Off to sabbath school and church services tomorrow after which wifie and I join some of our church friends at our favorite restaurant. We do observe Sabbath Fri eve til Sat eve but since the restaurant folks don't anyhow, we have no scruples about letting them serve us so we can eat, leave the dishes on the table and go on our way.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-11-2007 1:34 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-11-2007 2:31 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 84 (415780)
08-12-2007 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Minnemooseus
08-11-2007 2:31 AM


Re: I say you're essential a YEC
Moose title writes:

Re: I say you're essential a YEC

Since my position is that the planet earth is old I regard myself as essentially an OEC with the exception of sea and animal/human life.

Moose writes:

I neglected to point out / emphasize that there is also a big chuck of geology (aka "the rocks") that are the same age as the fossils they enclose. Your position is also putting all those 550+ million year old rocks into +/- 6000 years. You're crunching the record/evidence of a lot of geological process by a factor of about 1000. Well, thank God you have the wonder flood to do miracles for you. It can somehow pull off a vast array of processes, and do it fast.

If you would be so kind as to cite this I will have a look before responding.

Moose writes:

Or would you prefer to pursue the "young but looks old" variety of creationism? Personally, I would prefer to believe the evidence presented in the product of the creation over the story of a book.

1. When the book contains the highlights of the history of the world from beginning to end, so far pretty much on tract as prophesied and corroborated by a significant amount of archeological evidence such as the chariot wheels and other Exodus evidence to also corroborate that, we have a problem with either your alleged millions of years or the array of corroborating evidence supportive of ID and the book's story.

2. We haven't come to the ID segment of our debate yet. This also, imo, significantly bolsters the book record and weakens the confidence in dating technology.

3. Your most significant evidence appears to hinge on accuracy of dating events millions of years ago. AIG and other creationist science oriented organizations offer an array of questionable factors regarding dating tech for millions of years ago. I am not qualified to significantly debate these factors but some appear to raise some reasonable doubt about the claims of science in dating methodology.

4. My evidence, though not recognized by mainline secular science is manifold with numerous corroborating factors supportive to ID, the prophecies, the archeology, the fact that all human cultures throughout history have been religious, compatibility with basic thermodynamic laws, Solar related sun, moon & atmospheric data supportive to ID, social benefits of Biblical principles et al.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-11-2007 2:31 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by anglagard, posted 08-12-2007 2:46 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 23 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-26-2007 12:57 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 84 (443048)
12-23-2007 3:26 PM


The Buzsaw Hypothesis Bump
Since so many still don't get my unique position right regarding origins etc I'm bumping this thread up to remind folks what my position is.
Perhaps Moose will respond to my last message if he wishes to continue the dialog. I'll let him make that decision. If he has no desire to continue one on one he can open it up to the membership at large. Please do not post any responses unless Moose so designates.


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 24 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-28-2007 7:52 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 84 (444285)
12-28-2007 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Minnemooseus
12-26-2007 12:57 AM


Re: Non-Young Life Forms.
Hi Moose. Thanks for being patient.

1. The Bible leaves a lot of ambiguity relative to germs and other organisms as to when they were created. We know that the plant kingdom, both on land and in the sea require non-plant organisms and insects etc for pollination, propagation and sustenance. The land and sea plant kingdom was created on the 3rd day, before the sun & moon were in place to determine properties pertaining to the days. Thus imo, the insects and other organisms were likely created along with the plants. That is nothing I can verify but I tend to apply the science when applicable so long as it doesn't contradict Biblical doctrine. I see nothing in the Genesis record either pro or con to my logical position.

2. I see nothing in the Genesis record indicative of how long days one two three and four lasted.


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 Minnemooseus, posted 12-26-2007 12:57 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-11-2008 11:10 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 84 (453599)
02-03-2008 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Minnemooseus
01-11-2008 11:10 PM


Re: The U.S. history analogy to the Earth's geologic history (or something like that)
Moose writes:

My essential point of the moment is, an old Earth and life history are interlinked. Do deny old life is to deny old Earth. Thus, as I see it, your position is very close to “pure” YEC.

If I'm reading you right, no; my position is not YEC, because remember, no determined timespan of a day until day five as per my previous posts. Thus the Buzsaw Hypothesis has it that the age of the plant kingdom and likely other organisms below what we call animals, like the age of the earth are unknown as per a literal reading of Genesis 1.


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 26 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-11-2008 11:10 PM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-09-2008 3:48 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 84 (459477)
03-07-2008 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Minnemooseus
02-09-2008 3:48 AM


Re: You're trying to have it both ways
Wow! I've been remiss in weighing in on the debate. Thanks for being patient.

Moose writes:

Mainstream scientific thought:
Origin of the Earth - ~4.5 billion years ago.
Origin of animal life - At least 600 million years ago.

The Buzsaw line:
Origin of the Earth - Unknown, 4.5 billion years ago an acceptable possibility.
Origin of animal life - 5 to 10 thousand years ago.

Buz, your animal life number is roughly 1/100,000th that of the mainstream science number. Sorry, but I can't look at compressing 600+ million years into 5-10 thousand years as being anything other than young Earthism.

1. YEC is just that, young earth creationist. I see nothing in the Genesis record indicating a time for creation of planet earth, the Solar System including the sun and cosmos. All one could conclude from a literal reading of Genesis 1 is that planet earth was created at some point before the rest of the Solar system and perhaps even before the Milky Way Galaxy. The plant kingdom on earth also pre-existed the Solar system etc but came about after an unknown period of the events of days one and two. There is no time frame given for the plant kingdom except that it preceeded the Solar system etc.

2. The planet earth is just that; a planet. The animal kingdom and mankind are just that as well, animals and man. The record states clearly that they were created by design in one sun-measured day which would be 24 hours. That is the version of IDist I am, one who's hypothesis of origins is based on the literal reading of Genesis one.

I see the Biblical ID creator as a mighty immensely intelligent artisan, active in design whereas evolutionist Christians regard his role as designer in a more passive light. Their focus glorifies the object of design more so than the designer. I see them as denying the wonders of his creative power, majesty and greatness.

3. Factoring in all of the corroborating supportive data relative to the Biblical record, I work to apply any supportive science, anecdotal factors along with historical accounts etc to formulate the Buzsaw Hypothesis. I do as other theorists and hypothesists. I formulate with whatever evidence I can apply.

4. All theories and hypotheses have bizzare and mysterious aspects of how they are suppose to play out. How you or others may regard my hypothesis is no more bizzare to you than yours is to 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 28 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-09-2008 3:48 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-08-2010 10:22 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
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

  
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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021