07 Feb 12
Originally posted by RJHindswhat doofus pseudo-scientist doesn't tell you is that ice from different locations has different accumulation rates and this little tidbit is known by real scientists and they have ways of determining the approximate age (ice core dating is not an exact science and never claimed to be) of the ice.
For sunhouse:
http://www.icr.org/article/ice-cores-age-earth/
07 Feb 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThanks for this little tidbit:
what doofus pseudo-scientist doesn't tell you is that ice from different locations has different accumulation rates and this little tidbit is known by real scientists and they have ways of determining the approximate age (ice core dating is not an exact science and never claimed to be) of the ice.
"(ice core dating is not an exact science and never claimed to be)"
That is what sunhouse needs to understand. So coming from someone
that is not a YEC, perhaps he will believe it. There is no way that they
can know exactly what happened in the distant past, before we have been
gathering weather data, to know what all the layers represent.
07 Feb 12
Originally posted by RJHindsCan you not understand the difference between 'approximation' based on the evidence and 'wild guess'? You seem to think the two are mutually exclusive.
Thanks for this little tidbit:
[b]"(ice core dating is not an exact science and never claimed to be)"
That is what sunhouse needs to understand. So coming from someone
that is not a YEC, perhaps he will believe it. There is no way that they
can know exactly what happened in the distant past, before we have been
gathering weather data, to know what all the layers represent.[/b]
Here's a scenario for you -
A human being is presented to you, you have never see this person before in your life and you are asked state what you think their age is. Now of course you're not going to be able able to produce the exact date and time of when they were born, but by looking at the 'evidence' you are going to make a reasonable assumption. For instance if the person is less than 2 feet long as is crawling around on the floor you can assume that person is under the age of 2 years. If the person has not reached puberty yet you can assume they are under the age of 12/13 years and on and on. Claiming that scientists can't distinguish between ice core samples that are a few thousand years and hundreds of thousands of years old is similar to claiming you can't distinguish the difference between a small child and a 70 year old person.
07 Feb 12
Originally posted by FMFSee there, the weather is unpredictable. The scientist do what they can,
When I lived in Japan, I once woke up to find 3 metres of snow had fallen overnight. perhaps we can extrapolate from this that the world is only a few hundred years old?
but they are not infallible.
07 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobThere are a lot more room for error when dealing with thousands of years
Can you not understand the difference between 'approximation' based on the evidence and 'wild guess'? You seem to think the two are mutually exclusive.
Here's a scenario for you -
A human being is presented to you, you have never see this person before in your life and you are asked state what you think their age is. Now of course you're not going g you can't distinguish the difference between a small child and a 70 year old person.
vs. months and years. And we still have a lot to learn about ice cores to
be assuming things to prove other things. And I do understand that they
are not just making complete wild quesses, but I don't believe the have
enough verifiable evidence to make the guesses they are making. Who
knows how the weather was thousands of years ago, especially if the
world wide flood is true.
07 Feb 12
Originally posted by RJHindsYou knew nothing about ice core samples a few days ago, how you can now make statements like these is astonishingly arrogant -
There are a lot more room for error when dealing with thousands of years
vs. months and years. And we still have a lot to learn about ice cores to
be assuming things to prove other things. And I do understand that they
are not just making complete wild quesses, but I don't believe the have
enough verifiable evidence to make the guesses they are making. ...[text shortened]...
knows how the weather was thousands of years ago, especially if the
world wide flood is true.
And we still have a lot to learn about ice cores to be assuming things to prove other things
and
but I don't believe the have enough verifiable evidence to make the guesses they are making
You know nothing of the subject apart that it conflicts with your religious beliefs so therefore it has to be wrong.
07 Feb 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobI did not say I did not know nothing of the subject. I said the following:
You knew nothing about ice core samples a few days ago, how you can now make statements like these is astonishingly arrogant -
And we still have a lot to learn about ice cores to be assuming things to prove other things
and
but I don't believe the have enough verifiable evidence to make the guesses they are making
...[text shortened]... he subject apart that it conflicts with your religious beliefs so therefore it has to be wrong.
"I don't know much about what scientists are doing with ice cores. I have
not gotten interested in that subject. Sorry."
Not knowing much and not knowing nothing is not the same. And with you
guys harrassing me, I had to get interested to respond. 😏
07 Feb 12
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsThere are a lot more room for error when dealing with thousands of years
There are a lot more room for error when dealing with thousands of years
vs. months and years. And we still have a lot to learn about ice cores to
be assuming things to prove other things. And I do understand that they
are not just making complete wild quesses, but I don't believe the have
enough verifiable evidence to make the guesses they are making. ...[text shortened]...
knows how the weather was thousands of years ago, especially if the
world wide flood is true.
vs. months and years.
You can look at someone who appears to be 70 years old and make an estimate of their age to within 7 years each way (10% ).
Likewise you can look at an ice core that appears to be 70,000 years old and be accurate to within 7,000 years each way (10% ).
So essentially there is no difference. The researchers are aware of the error ranges and they take them into account.
--- Penguin.
07 Feb 12
Originally posted by RJHindsIf a dating method relies on something that is believed to be constant such as nuclear decay, then it will have a fixed error margin that is a percentage of the time period in question. Although this may be slightly larger in magnitude for large time scales, it will not be larger in proportion. In many cases, the reverse is true ie it will not be accurate at small scales. Even ice core data is practically useless for measuring anything on scale of days or weeks, but because of yearly layering can be very useful for measuring years.
Explain please. That does not make sense to me.
There is nothing inherent to time that makes measuring long periods inaccurate.