Time line verification of ice core data:

Originally posted by Proper Knob
How does volcanic ash end up in an ice sheet 2km thick? How does is get there?

I am not sure and I doubt anyone else is sure unless they witnessed what caused it.

The Instructor

Originally posted by sonhouse
The 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.

Thus your ridiculous stance on ...[text shortened]... ith that one. Meanwhile those of us who are NOT relics go on to greater and greater discoveries.

Whatever.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not sure and I doubt anyone else is sure unless they witnessed what caused it.

The Instructor

No, OBVIOUSLY, WE ARE SURE. OBVIOUSLY, the volcanic eruption must have happened a very long time ago because it must have taken a very long time for all that ice,, consisting of many thousands of distinguishable layers, to accumulate on top of its ash. OBVIOUSLY, we didn't have to "be there" to see what "caused it", because we already know about snow and how it very slowly accumulates in icy layers because we can see this happening TODAY. You would have to have extremely strong religious reasons to be able to act totally stupid and pretend to be such a moron that you do not see the extremely obvious like this -unless you really ARE that stupid?

Originally posted by RJHinds
TIME. I am talking about time and dates.

The Instructor

But what exactly about time? Why 200 years but not 5000 years? What specifically about time and dates makes one reliable and the other not?
I see you are having great difficulty answering this.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But what exactly about time? Why 200 years but not 5000 years? What specifically about time and dates makes one reliable and the other not?
I see you are having great difficulty answering this.

It may not be reliable either. But it is more likely to be reliable, since we may have recorded history of information that could be used to correspond to ice core layers, etc. that we might be able to use as a dating method for that period of time. That is not likely to be the case as we go further back in history. And the uniformity theory can only be used as far back as we can prove there were no catastrophes or any unusual incidents that would interfere with that theory.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
It may not be reliable either. But it is more likely to be reliable, since we may have recorded history of information that could be used to correspond to ice core layers, etc. that we might be able to use as a dating method for that period of time. That is not likely to be the case as we go further back in history. And the uniformity theory can only be u ...[text shortened]... o catastrophes or any unusual incidents that would interfere with that theory.

The Instructor

Which of course just illustrates your incredibly dense bias in favor of creationism and a young Earth. If you were like a lot of other Christians here who accept the Earth as 4+ billion years old, you would have no problem with date lines and such. But your extreme bias stops you cold from accepting ANY date older than 8000 odd years. Your self lobotomized brain sees to that.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Which of course just illustrates your incredibly dense bias in favor of creationism and a young Earth. If you were like a lot of other Christians here who accept the Earth as 4+ billion years old, you would have no problem with date lines and such. But your extreme bias stops you cold from accepting ANY date older than 8000 odd years. Your self lobotomized brain sees to that.

Skepticism has its place in science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

Scientist skeptical of Darwinism
YouTube

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Skepticism has its place in science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

Scientist skeptical of Darwinism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kf3cZCSvfA

The Instructor

What you are doing is NOT skepticism... it's denial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

Originally posted by RJHinds
It may not be reliable either. But it is more likely to be reliable, since we may have recorded history of information that could be used to correspond to ice core layers, etc. that we might be able to use as a dating method for that period of time.

So we are back to the claim that human record is required to know something?
So I ask again, what about fossils? We have no human records of the formation of fossils. Does this mean we are incorrect to assume that those fossils are the results of the fossilization of bones of living animals? They might be just oddly shaped rocks?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So we are back to the claim that human record is required to know something?
So I ask again, what about fossils? We have no human records of the formation of fossils. Does this mean we are incorrect to assume that those fossils are the results of the fossilization of bones of living animals? They might be just oddly shaped rocks?

RJHinds uses the common tactic of the "Were you there?"-argument as a clumsy cop-out. Of course he doesn't actually believe that one needs to have "been there" for some theory to be valid since it would invalidate most of his own beliefs.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
RJHinds uses the common tactic of the "Were you there?"-argument as a clumsy cop-out. Of course he doesn't actually believe that one needs to have "been there" for some theory to be valid since it would invalidate most of his own beliefs.

Good point!

And he wasn't there when the Earth was 'created'! so, using his own logic against him, that fact alone invalidates his religious belief that it must have been created just a few thousand years ago.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
RJHinds uses the common tactic of the "Were you there?"-argument as a clumsy cop-out. Of course he doesn't actually believe that one needs to have "been there" for some theory to be valid since it would invalidate most of his own beliefs.

Actually it invalidates pretty much all knowledge.

If you are limited to what you have personally seen/experienced then the entire
concept of knowledge that can be collectively shared and built on breaks down.

If he was right this would shatter the entirety of science...


Given the utterly unprecedented and unrivalled ability and success of science and
the technology built on it that rather strongly suggests that his position is wrong...
Even if it were not also completely intellectually flawed and bankrupt.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Skepticism has its place in science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

Scientist skeptical of Darwinism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kf3cZCSvfA

The Instructor

Skepticism is the HEART of science. But only when it is based on rival science with actual research and papers in a respected journal.

What your buddies have is not science, it is pandering to the public in hopes of gaining political coin so they can defeat evolution not in the science world but in the courtroom. They could care less about actual science and a scientist conducting him or herself in a dignified manner by gathering their own evidence and publishing it and waiting for the refutations and so back and forth in paper after paper in journals. No, what they do is LECTURE to weak minded audiences already on board, preaching to the choir. That is NOT science. Not even close. Score RJ, ZERO, science 1.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So we are back to the claim that human record is required to know something?
So I ask again, what about fossils? We have no human records of the formation of fossils. Does this mean we are incorrect to assume that those fossils are the results of the fossilization of bones of living animals? They might be just oddly shaped rocks?

It is the time factor in question, not the identity of the fossils. The fossils were most likely formed due to Noah's flood, an event in recoreded history, because fossilized fish and other fossils of marine animals have been found on high mountains.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is the time factor in question, not the identity of the fossils. The fossils were most likely formed due to Noah's flood, an event in recoreded history, because fossilized fish and other fossils of marine animals have been found on high mountains.

The Instructor

You have a lot to learn. Unfortunately you won't.