Time line verification of ice core data:

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

I'm fairly sure that fossilization takes longer than the 5,000 or so years ago the biblical flood is related as happening. Irritatingly the Wikipedia article doesn't give a timescale for fossil formation, but I have an impression of much longer timescales for fossils to form. Various bog bodies and skeletons from 1,500+ years ago found in Britain are not reported as showing signs of fossilization, so I don't think it's plausible that anything would have fossilized from an event that recent.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is the time factor in question, not the identity of the fossils.

Why is it the time factor? Earlier you said it had to to with the availability of human record. No human has recorded fossils being formed. So why do you accept that fossils are formed from animals but have issues with time? What is it about the formation of fossils that makes it possible to know what happened when it is not possible with snow?
Is it simply that you reject anything that contradicts the Bible and have no other criteria whatsoever?

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'm fairly sure that fossilization takes longer than the 5,000 or so years ago the biblical flood is related as happening. Irritatingly the Wikipedia article doesn't give a timescale for fossil formation, but I have an impression of much longer timescales for fossils to form. Various bog bodies and skeletons from 1,500+ years ago found in Britain are n ...[text shortened]... I don't think it's plausible that anything would have fossilized from an event that recent.

You are wrong about how long fossilization takes. It has been scientifically proved that it does not take very long. Water is necessary in fossilization. No water, no fossilization.

The Instructor

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why is it the time factor? Earlier you said it had to to with the availability of human record. No human has recorded fossils being formed. So why do you accept that fossils are formed from animals but have issues with time? What is it about the formation of fossils that makes it possible to know what happened when it is not possible with snow?
Is it simply that you reject anything that contradicts the Bible and have no other criteria whatsoever?

Fossilization has nothing to do with with what I was saying about recorded history. However, science has not advanced to the point of dating fossils correctly either.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Fossilization has nothing to do with with what I was saying about recorded history. However, science has not advanced to the point of dating fossils correctly either.

The Instructor

You can date dinosaur bones by the rocks around it, ratios of lead to U235 shows how old the rocks are and that shows how old the fossil is that is buried in the rock. It is indirect but accurate. Science DOES know how to date fossils. You just can't deal with your own cognitive dissonance about your insistence on the Earth being a few thousand years old.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]Fossilization has nothing to do with with what I was saying about recorded history./b]

And I am asking you why. It seems you don't actually have a reason for differentiating other than religious beliefs. Why is it so hard for you to admit this?

Originally posted by sonhouse
You can date dinosaur bones by the rocks around it, ratios of lead to U235 shows how old the rocks are and that shows how old the fossil is that is buried in the rock. It is indirect but accurate. Science DOES know how to date fossils. You just can't deal with your own cognitive dissonance about your insistence on the Earth being a few thousand years old.

There are many methods that can be used to date things, but not all of them give an accurate date on everything, because there are certain assumptions that must be made, and if those assumptions are incorrect then the dating will be incorrect.

The Instructor

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I am asking you why. It seems you don't actually have a reason for differentiating other than religious beliefs. Why is it so hard for you to admit this?

Sure, I have made it clear many times in the past that my religious beliefs play a part in the reasons I give. However, I see no proof from science that disproves those beliefs. Science only has hypothesis and theories that contradict the Holy Bible.

As you do, I could also accept what man says that contradicts what God has revealed through His Holy Scriptures. However, I have chosen to accept the inspired words by God over the fallible words of man.

The science of ice core and fossil dating is still young and there is still much more to be discovered. I just don't see enough proof in science that make these dating methods laws in science. Apparently, the scientists themselves are not convinced enough to declare these dating methods laws of dating either.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Sure, I have made it clear many times in the past that my religious beliefs play a part in the reasons I give. However, I see no proof from science that disproves those beliefs. Science only has hypothesis and theories that contradict the Holy Bible.

As you do, I could also accept what man says that contradicts what God has revealed through His Holy S ...[text shortened]... e not convinced enough to declare these dating methods laws of dating either.

The Instructor

It matters little WHAT proof science comes up with, your agenda is so overwhelming your brain nothing will sway you. You are deaf to evidence. Your self lobotomized brain sees to that.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Sure, I have made it clear many times in the past that my religious beliefs play a part in the reasons I give.

Except in this case it doesn't just 'play a part' it is the sole reason. If you had any other reason, you would have been able to articulate it, and you haven't.

The science of ice core and fossil dating is still young and there is still much more to be discovered.
So when it gets old, it will be possible to do ice core and fossil dating? That seems to be contradicting your earlier claims that there was some fundamental requirement for human witness documentation or some fundamental aspect of time that made it impossible.
That you keep contradicting yourself proves that none of these are the real reasons. Your only reason is religious belief.

I just don't see enough proof in science that make these dating methods laws in science. Apparently, the scientists themselves are not convinced enough to declare these dating methods laws of dating either.
Its simply not the terminology that would be used.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Except in this case it doesn't just 'play a part' it is the sole reason. If you had any other reason, you would have been able to articulate it, and you haven't.

[b]The science of ice core and fossil dating is still young and there is still much more to be discovered.
So when it gets old, it will be possible to do ice core and fossil dating? That ...[text shortened]... ting methods laws of dating either.[/b]
Its simply not the terminology that would be used.[/b]

Well, instead of spending so much time typing it all out, since I am not that good of a typist, I prefer to reference Youtube videos. However, you refuse to watch any.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, instead of spending so much time typing it all out, since I am not that good of a typist, I prefer to reference Youtube videos. However, you refuse to watch any.

The Instructor

You do however seem to manage to do an awful lot of typing without being able to articulate any reason whatsoever as to why you doubt the findings of ice core data other than your own incredulity.
If you had set out your reasons in your first post, you would have been able to type it out by now. Instead you keep changing your claims, contradicting yourself, avoiding answering certain questions etc. These are not the symptoms of a poor typist, they are the symptoms of someone who is making it all up as he goes along.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You do however seem to manage to do an awful lot of typing without being able to articulate any reason whatsoever as to why you doubt the findings of ice core data other than your own incredulity.
If you had set out your reasons in your first post, you would have been able to type it out by now. Instead you keep changing your claims, contradicting yourse ...[text shortened]... oms of a poor typist, they are the symptoms of someone who is making it all up as he goes along.

I am not interested in typing my reasons out when you have no intention of accepting anything I say. It is really useless to discuss these matters with humy, sonhouse, and you. So I am not going to even try to be an instructor to you guys anymore. So don't respond to my posts or ask me any questions.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not interested in typing my reasons out when you have no intention of accepting anything I say. It is really useless to discuss these matters with humy, sonhouse, and you. So I am not going to even try to be an instructor to you guys anymore. So don't respond to my posts or ask me any questions.

The Instructor

I am not interested in typing my reasons out when you have no intention of accepting anything I say

I think the really fundamental problem here, and this is why none of us scientists can ever take you seriously, we cannot accepting what you say BECAUSE you often refuse to state your reasons! I leave it to you to figure out what you must do about that....

The other fundamental reasons why we cannot accepting what you say includes the fact that you, unlike us, have NO expertise in science, and yet you extremely arrogantly (calling yourself "The Instructor" to us intellectuals is highly condescending and offensive coming from a complete moron like you) lecture to us about science within our fields of expertise as if you somehow understand it better than we do despite you repeatedly demonstrate to us your complete confusion and ignorance of even the most simplest basic concepts in science and, even worse, even in logic.
We are obviously far more intelligent and more knowledgeable in science than you are. I am guessing both twhitehead and sonhouse have at least 20 points more on their IQ than you (probably a lot higher than that and probably higher than my score which I would guess would be somewhere between yours and theirs).

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not interested in typing my reasons out when you have no intention of accepting anything I say.

I am willing to accept a valid argument from anyone. Including you.

It is really useless to discuss these matters with humy, sonhouse, and you. So I am not going to even try to be an instructor to you guys anymore.
Were you ever an instructor? Certainly in this thread you haven't don't any instructing. You have done a lot of inventing of excuses for why you don't accept ice core data. You haven't given any reasonable instruction as to why someone should not accept the ice core data.
If however you expected to instruct us on what the Bible says, you are in the wrong forum. Try it over in spirituality, but you won't get much traction there either because even the theists there are there to preach not to be instructed.