Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth

Originally posted by RJHinds
So you join Dasa in thinking you are both honest and do not need a savior.
Good luck with that. 😏

what makes you think that having flaws requires a savior?

Originally posted by CalJust
That was exactly my point...

For self-sufficient, arrogant man read pridefully ignorant buffoon

But why advertise it every time - yourself????

😕

that's where the pride comes in 🙂

Originally posted by sonhouse
You claim we are dishonest by seeing the data all fits an age of the Earth far older than you believe. I simply asked you to provide the evidence you want us to provide to make science infallible. Give us your scientific evidence that the Earth is only 6000 years old. I will refute it.

YouTube

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html

P.S.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
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.

🙂 laughable that only those scientist that disagree with them are called names
by them.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, actually there isn't. There is nothing inherent to time that makes longer time periods more prone to error than short time periods.

Don't you believe time can change that it isn't constant under all conditions?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Don't you believe time can change that it isn't constant under all conditions?
Kelly

Its all relative. And its not a belief, its a fact. One that I can not be wrong about. It is as factual as the fact that World War I took place. I have no way of directly witnessing either, but my GPS wouldn't work without one, and those films from World War I would have been pretty hard to fake.
But I don't see how this is relevant to my claim.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its all relative. And its not a belief, its a fact. One that I can not be wrong about. It is as factual as the fact that World War I took place. I have no way of directly witnessing either, but my GPS wouldn't work without one, and those films from World War I would have been pretty hard to fake.
But I don't see how this is relevant to my claim.

Maybe I misunderstand your claim. What exactly is your claim? Can you
explain it so us morans can understand it?

Originally posted by RJHinds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1msS71xL00

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html

P.S.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html

Your first link starts out by saying EVOLUTIONISTS tell us what the age of the Earth is. That is the first straw man. Evolutionists say NOTHING about how old the Earth is. That is an indication of how tied up by delusion this 'chemist' is by the dreaded idea of evolution. He is so tongue tied about evolution he can't even give the proper science of determining the age of the earth. Another thing he says, about generations, he says lets give 50 years between generations. That is interesting. 2000, 4000 years ago people had kids a lot earlier than that. Even NOW the average generational difference is less than 30. So he preps his math right up front. Why can't you find someone less biased?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Your first link starts out by saying EVOLUTIONISTS tell us what the age of the Earth is. That is the first straw man. Evolutionists say NOTHING about how old the Earth is. That is an indication of how tied up by delusion this 'chemist' is by the dreaded idea of evolution. He is so tongue tied about evolution he can't even give the proper science of determin ...[text shortened]... s less than 30. So he preps his math right up front. Why can't you find someone less biased?

Why don't you do the figures the way you think makes sense and let us
know what you come up with?

P.S. Start refuting as you said.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe I misunderstand your claim. What exactly is your claim? Can you
explain it so us morans can understand it?

Which claim? The one where I said that there is no reason to think that we are less accurate just because we are talking thousands of years instead of months?
My claim is this:
If I am investigating something that happened thousands of years ago, I am not necessarily more likely to be wrong about my conclusions than if I am investigating something that happened days or weeks ago. My conclusions are dependant on the available data and that data is not necessarily destroyed in proportion to the passage of time. I know you and Kelly believe it is, but you cannot prove it and some trivial examples would disprove such a belief.

Originally posted by RJHinds
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]

Robbie said something genious. Sometimes he is bright.

I quote: "...do try to learn something, anything would be better than this ill informed and blatantly ignorant projection of ignorance, its not an attempt to condescend to you in any way, but your lack of understanding is really incredulous. To project it on to others, immoral. ..."

Listen at robbie.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Robbie said something genious. Sometimes he is bright.

I quote: "...do try to learn something, anything would be better than this ill informed and blatantly ignorant projection of ignorance, its not an attempt to condescend to you in any way, but your lack of understanding is really incredulous. To project it on to others, immoral. ..."

Listen at robbie.

The Watchtower Society is robbie's source of wisdom and knowledge.
Enough said. 😏

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which claim? The one where I said that there is no reason to think that we are less accurate just because we are talking thousands of years instead of months?
My claim is this:
If I am investigating something that happened thousands of years ago, I am not necessarily more likely to be wrong about my conclusions than if I am investigating something that ...[text shortened]... y believe it is, but you cannot prove it and some trivial examples would disprove such a belief.

I think your atheism is causing you to become delirious.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Watchtower Society is robbie's source of wisdom and knowledge.
Enough said. 😏

Same goes for you, RJHinds, you and Dasa are also creationists without knowledge about science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why don't you do the figures the way you think makes sense and let us
know what you come up with?

P.S. Start refuting as you said.

For one thing, evolution says nothing about either the beginnings of life or the beginning of the universe, yet that is explicitly what he says in the first minute.

The bit about generations coming at 50 year intervals is clearly a dodge, a guess he knows is BS, just to further his ridiculous argument, so he can come up with a number of generations given in the bible, Job begat, yada, yada, yada.

So, lets say he is going for 6000 years, divide by 100 gives 60, twice that for 50, so 120 generations to make up 6000 years. If he did the numbers the real way, where each gen is more like 20 years, then it ends up being 300 generations, way too many to line up with the biblical myth. My guess is back in those days it was more like 15 years between generations, making it more like 400 generations to go back 6000 years. People died young and therefore had to bear children very young.

I don't need anything more than that to see he is making up BS as he goes along.