08 Jul 13
Originally posted by sonhouseOne can only go back so far. Then the assumptions have no way to be verified and uniformity over long periods of time has already been proven to be a false assumption. One has to account for things like the great flood actually happening and the possible effects.
The volcano from 1815 caused the year without a summer. The sulfur and other particles were trapped in ice core data so there is a 200 year verified data base upon which to judge older dates.
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-volcanic-ice.html
The Instructor
08 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsHA! You swallowed the bait🙂
One can only go back so far. Then the assumptions have no way to be verified and uniformity over long periods of time has already been proven to be a false assumption. One has to account for things like the great flood actually happening and the possible effects.
The Instructor
08 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsWhy not? What stops verification after a certain date? What date exactly is that?
One can only go back so far. Then the assumptions have no way to be verified ...
Warning: I once pushed Kelly on the same claim and he decided never to speak to me again.
The fact is that you fully admit that we can verify something that happened 200 years ago, before either of us were born, so there must be something special about going back further than the date you have in mind.
08 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe may be able to go back a few hundred years, however, there is a point that I can not pinpoint with a date that we don't have enough knowledge at present to know what other factors have invalidated our simple model of uniformity of ice core build up.
Why not? What stops verification after a certain date? What date exactly is that?
Warning: I once pushed Kelly on the same claim and he decided never to speak to me again.
The fact is that you fully admit that we can verify something that happened 200 years ago, before either of us were born, so there must be something special about going back further than the date you have in mind.
Science should be based on facts and not assumptions. Therefore, we can not be sure if our assumptions are correct, if we do not have accurate data or information going back to the date in question.
The Instructor
08 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsHow did you pinpoint that that point was greater than a few hundred years? How much knowledge would be required to know what other factors are involved? If I presented your required amount of knowledge, would you change your beliefs, or would you in fact, do as I suspect you would, and admit that no amount of knowledge would satisfy you.
We may be able to go back a few hundred years, however, there is a point that I can not pinpoint with a date that we don't have enough knowledge at present to know what other factors have invalidated our simple model of uniformity of ice core build up.
Science should be based on facts and not assumptions. Therefore, we can not be sure if our assumptions are correct, if we do not have accurate data or information going back to the date in question.
How do you know if data is accurate? I think the data is accurate going back to the date in question. You say it is only accurate going back a few hundred years. What criteria did you use to determine the few hundred years data accurate? Why can't I apply similar criteria to data for older dates?
Is it only when it contradicts your precious book that you suddenly realise a lack of accuracy? Or do you have an actual methodology other than making stuff up?
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou seem to be just ranting and making little sense. Do you have a specific question? If so, ask it in a comprehensible way.
How did you pinpoint that that point was greater than a few hundred years? How much knowledge would be required to know what other factors are involved? If I presented your required amount of knowledge, would you change your beliefs, or would you in fact, do as I suspect you would, and admit that no amount of knowledge would satisfy you.
[b]Science sho ...[text shortened]... ly realise a lack of accuracy? Or do you have an actual methodology other than making stuff up?
The Instructor
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYou claim we do not have enough knowledge beyond a certain date. I want you to be more specific about exactly how much knowledge would be required.
You seem to be just ranting and making little sense. Do you have a specific question? If so, ask it in a comprehensible way.
The Instructor
You believe we have enough knowledge about the 1800s but not the 1500s. Why?
Are we talking about your personal knowledge, or what you think scientists know?
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadTo my knowledge there were no ice core scientists in the 1500s. However, I was thinking more in the range of several thousand years that puts us back to the beginning of recorded history.
You claim we do not have enough knowledge beyond a certain date. I want you to be more specific about exactly how much knowledge would be required.
You believe we have enough knowledge about the 1800s but not the 1500s. Why?
Are we talking about your personal knowledge, or what you think scientists know?
I don't think it is possible to use the dating methods of ice cores to date what year things happened back that far.
The Instructor
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsWere there any in the 1800s? Is that your criteria? That there must have been ice core scientists at the time?
To my knowledge there were no ice core scientists in the 1500s.
However, I was thinking more in the range of several thousand years that puts us back to the beginning of recorded history.
So is your criteria 'human records'? Is it your claim that we cannot know anything unless there are human records about it? I don't think anyone has ever witnessed a bone being fossilized. Does this mean we cannot know that fossils actually came from animals?
I don't think it is possible to use the dating methods of ice cores to date what year things happened back that far.
We have already established that you don't think so, what I am trying to establish is why you don't think so. What exactly is different between 200 years ago and 5000 years ago?
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThe issue is this, volcanic ash can only come from a volcanic explosion. The intense heat and pressure of a volcanic explosion 'fragments' the ash making it unique. So when volcanic ash is found in ice core samples it can only have got there as a result of a volcanic explosion. Sure enough scientists have found volcanic ash correlating with known volcanic explosions in ice core samples. But the issue for you and other fundamentalist Christians who think that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is that evidence of volcanic explosions, ie volcanic ash, is found in ice core samples going back and back. The Vostock ice sheet is about 2 miles thick with volcanic ash being found right through it, the same applies to all the other ice sheets.
To my knowledge there were no ice core scientists in the 1500s. However, I was thinking more in the range of several thousand years that puts us back to the beginning of recorded history.
I don't think it is possible to use the dating methods of ice cores to date what year things happened back that far.
The Instructor
How did it get there Ron?
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadTIME. I am talking about time and dates.
Were there any in the 1800s? Is that your criteria? That there must have been ice core scientists at the time?
[b]However, I was thinking more in the range of several thousand years that puts us back to the beginning of recorded history.
So is your criteria 'human records'? Is it your claim that we cannot know anything unless there are human reco ...[text shortened]... i] you don't think so. What exactly is different between 200 years ago and 5000 years ago?[/b]
The Instructor
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by Proper KnobNobody knows all the details. They can only guess. The further back in time we go the more chance of error. So to think we can get a date that way because volcanic ash is found and it lines up with known volcanic explosions at some point does not mean it will continue to produce correct dates back beyond 5,000 years and is worse than playing hope chess.
The issue is this, volcanic ash can only come from a volcanic explosion. The intense heat and pressure of a volcanic explosion 'fragments' the ash making it unique. So when volcanic ash is found in ice core samples it can only have got there as a result of a volcanic explosion. Sure enough scientists have found volcanic ash correlating with known volcani ...[text shortened]... right through it, the same applies to all the other ice sheets.
How did it get there Ron?
The Instructor
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsHow does volcanic ash end up in an ice sheet 2km thick? How does is get there?
Nobody knows all the details. They can only guess. The further back in time we go the more chance of error. So to think we can get a date that way because volcanic ash is found and it lines up with known volcanic explosions at some point does not mean it will continue to produce correct dates back beyond 5,000 years and is worse than playing hope chess.
The Instructor
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThe only reason and I do mean the ONLY reason you doubt date lines is because of your precious creationism fairy tale. You get upset when we use the actual intelligence we were evolved with to actually figure things out for ourselves, thus becoming more god like as each century passes. THAT is what is unforgivable to you.
Nobody knows all the details. They can only guess. The further back in time we go the more chance of error. So to think we can get a date that way because volcanic ash is found and it lines up with known volcanic explosions at some point does not mean it will continue to produce correct dates back beyond 5,000 years and is worse than playing hope chess.
The Instructor
Thus your ridiculous stance on the age of the earth, you will go to your grave with that stance. Good luck with that one. Meanwhile those of us who are NOT relics go on to greater and greater discoveries.