18 May 11
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThis paragraph on dating the ice core which contains the plants also dating
What specifically leads you to believe that the "50,000 year old date appears to be an error"?
to a little over 5,000 years ago is what led me to that belief. He does not
acknowledge the 50,000 year old date as accurate and therefore does not
even mention it here. Since the ice core the plants were frozen in were
about 5,000 years old and the the plants were dated to 5,200 years old,
the prepondance of the evidence, as the judge says, supports the 5,200 year
old dating. So the 50,000 year old dating must be an error.
"As snow falls on these ice caps and is packed tightly over time, it forms
stratigraphic layers indicating annual accumulations. Researchers
can estimate the age of a core by counting these layers just as biologists
date forests by counting tree rings."
18 May 11
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsFor one, the news release is focused on a 5200 year old climate change. The fact the he doesn't mention the finding of a 50,000 year old sample UNRELATED to the focus of the release in question doesn't mean he didn't find one. To make a leap that the separate release about the 50,000 year old sample was therefore in error is extremely illogical.
This paragraph on dating the ice core which contains the plants also dating
to a little over 5,000 years ago is what led me to that belief. He does not
acknowledge the 50,000 year old date as accurate and therefore does not
even mention it here. Since the ice core the plants were frozen in were
about 5,000 years old and the the plants were dated to 5,2 e of a core by counting these layers just as biologists
date forests by counting tree rings."
For another, the release about the 5200 year old climate change was last updated on 11/6/03. The release date about the finding of the 50,000 year old sample was 12/15/04. This was over a year AFTER the other release. Rather difficult to mention something unknown to him even if it were relevant, don't you think?
You shouldn't allow your desire for possible evidence of the Biblical Flood to impede your ability to be objective and think logically.
18 May 11
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe other article that mentions a 50,000 year old dating
For one, the news release is focused on a 5200 year old climate change. The fact the he doesn't mention the finding of a 50,000 year old sample UNRELATED to the focus of the release in question doesn't mean he didn't find one. To make a leap that the separate release about the 50,000 year old sample was therefore in error is extremely illogical.
For a ...[text shortened]... evidence of the Biblical Flood to impede your ability to be objective and think logically.
also reports he believed the 50,000 year old dating was
unreliable, if the reporter reported him correctly. So the
50,000 year old dating is still at odds with all the other info.
Therefore, since there is more info for the 5,200 year dating;
then it is the logical choice for the correct date.
18 May 11
Originally posted by RJHindsHe states that the 50,000 year old dating of one sample is not accurate. He does not say it is unreliable as in it might be 5,000 years, what he means is it might be 45,000 years or 55,000 years.
The other article that mentions a 50,000 year old dating
also reports he believed the 50,000 year old dating was
unreliable, if the reporter reported him correctly. So the
50,000 year old dating is still at odds with all the other info.
Therefore, since there is more info for the 5,200 year dating;
then it is the logical choice for the correct date.
But most importantly, you seem to be totally missing the point that the 50,000 year old sample is a totally separate sample from a different location generally unrelated to the 5,000 year old sample. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the two are the same age. Nor does one being right make the other wrong. The dates are not 'at odds' with each other.
18 May 11
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsRead the release on the 50,000 year old finding again:
The other article that mentions a 50,000 year old dating
also reports he believed the 50,000 year old dating was
unreliable, if the reporter reported him correctly. So the
50,000 year old dating is still at odds with all the other info.
Therefore, since there is more info for the 5,200 year dating;
then it is the logical choice for the correct date.
Here are some key points:
The tests showed that the samples of the third plant patch were greater than 48,000 years old[/b], according to NOSAMS, and greater than 55,500 years old, according to LLNL – more than 10 times older than the earlier finds.”
So on this latest expedition, he found a DIFFERENT PATCH (from the 5200 year old samples) which contained the 50,000 year old sample.
But, Thompson pointed out that carbon-dating is unreliable for samples older than 50,000 years, so all he can accurately say at this point is that they are at least that old. He cautiously admits that they might be older but adds that there are no good methods to confirm that.
So there is no question that it is AT LEAST 50,000 years old. The only question is how much older it might be.
So what's clear is that some parts of the ice cap have receded to a point that had been covered for 5200 years and at least one other part has receded to a point that had been covered for at least 50,000 years.
If you'd been able to read the release objectively, you'd have realized it. In fact, it's clear that the purpose of the release was to point out that "The plant had to have remained covered and protected for most of that time, which means that the ice cap most likely has not deteriorated to its current size for any length of time in more than 50,000 years."
So once again, "You shouldn't allow your desire for possible evidence of the Biblical Flood to impede your ability to be objective and think logically."
I know you'd like your position to be true, but c'mon you need to exhibit at least a little intellectual honesty.
18 May 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThe date is unreliable because the sample is so old. If it was 5,000 years old the date would be reliable.
The other article that mentions a 50,000 year old dating
also reports he believed the 50,000 year old dating was
unreliable, if the reporter reported him correctly. So the
50,000 year old dating is still at odds with all the other info.
Therefore, since there is more info for the 5,200 year dating;
then it is the logical choice for the correct date.
18 May 11
3 edits
Yes, polar icecaps did recede due to global warming around that time, starting in about 15,000 BCE and ending in about 3000 BCE (dates are approximate) The water they held raised the sea level, creating the Persian Gulf, Nordic Fjords etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Glacial_Maximum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flandrian_transgression
http://www.jamestown-ri.info/holocene.htm
18 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think the 50,000 year old date is an older thought, the best I can get out of it.
I checked his first link and it contradicted what you said. Does his second link have anything that supports your comments? If so, what do I click on to get there? (Its not on the first page that comes up when I go to his link and I don't think they show the whole episode).
18 May 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobScience as well as many things in life that man is still learning is usually never correct the first time or the second or somethimes the true answer is never found. Right?
Note that when creationists find some scientific piece of evidence that they feel supports their religious beliefs there is no questioning of the methods involved. Yet when the same scientific procedures contradict their religious beliefs, it is of course 'unsound science'.
18 May 11
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneCommon sense. If you suddenly thrust trillions of tons of water on the surface of the earth and with the crust being different thicknesses with different strengths, then you would easily have some of the crust sinking to lower levels and then some of the crust being pushed up to higher levels.
[b] Only the tremendous weight of extreme floodwaters could have done this.
This conclusion seems illogical. Is it Thompson's conclusion or your own speculation? Can you provide detail on how this conclusion was arrived at?[/b]
The fact that many mountain tops have shell fossils up that high would prove that.
19 May 11
Originally posted by RJHindsi'm sorry, in what way is reason and logic in any way contravening with god's laws? and while it is true that the holy bible gives stories of what had happened because of disobedience it also gives stories of wars and genocides done solely to give the israelites somebody else's country. one should question whether what happened at jericho, or the barbaric laws are truly the work of a just and benevolent god or just some fabrication of a barbaric people who needed a way to control and to justify the conquest of a nation.
You stated earlier that the rules were incomprehensible.
God's rules are:
1. Worship the creator God only.
2. Don't make an idol.
3. Don't take the name of the Lord God in vain.
(That is, considering the authority of God of little importance.)
4. Rest one day of the week doing no work.
5. Honor you father and your mother.
6. Do not murde ...[text shortened]... and I
do not think it would benefit the modern world by expunging them
from the literature.
19 May 11
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou apparently misunderstood me. God's laws do not oppose
i'm sorry, in what way is reason and logic in any way contravening with god's laws? and while it is true that the holy bible gives stories of what had happened because of disobedience it also gives stories of wars and genocides done solely to give the israelites somebody else's country. one should question whether what happened at jericho, or the barbaric l ...[text shortened]... on of a barbaric people who needed a way to control and to justify the conquest of a nation.
logic and reason in any way. The Holy Bible says that God's
way is higher than our ways. So since God is the creator of
the universe, He certainly must know what He is doing, even
though we may not understand everything.
19 May 11
Originally posted by galveston75But you are not answering my question. Do you have any way I can verify what you say in the OP is actually in the tv program?
I think the 50,000 year old date is an older thought, the best I can get out of it.
So far all the evidence suggests you misunderstood what was said in the tv program or the tv program itself deliberately misquoted the expert. The expert has found two samples from two neighboring valleys of the same age and either you or the tv program interpreted that as a being almost all ice caps.
In addition either you or the tv program ignored his third finding of a 50,000 year old date. In this case it might be due to him not having found the third sample at the time the program was made. However it remains the case that you or the tv program made a rather sweeping conclusion based on two samples from the same place. I am just curious to know whether it was you or the tv program.
19 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo I have no way of verifying anything on the TV show I watched. It is what it is and if you want this verification you can research that yourself. It ws just a TV show clear and simple with this guy saying wha the said. If he didn't know what he was talking about then one way or the other that's something you can find out if you want.
But you are not answering my question. Do you have any way I can verify what you say in the OP is actually in the tv program?
So far all the evidence suggests you misunderstood what was said in the tv program or the tv program itself deliberately misquoted the expert. The expert has found two samples from two neighboring valleys of the same age and eithe ...[text shortened]... two samples from the same place. I am just curious to know whether it was you or the tv program.
19 May 11
Originally posted by galveston75The fact that mountains have shells on top is evidence of plate tectonics.
Common sense. If you suddenly thrust trillions of tons of water on the surface of the earth and with the crust being different thicknesses with different strengths, then you would easily have some of the crust sinking to lower levels and then some of the crust being pushed up to higher levels.
The fact that many mountain tops have shell fossils up that high would prove that.
To answer your point above, again this is a classic case of you picking and choosing which bits of science are correct and which bits are wrong. Your quite happy to accept the carbon dating of this plant as accurate as you can bizarrely link it to your Biblical story. But i guess the dates of the shells found of mountain tops are obviously incorrect as they don't conform to your Biblical story?!