1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThere is one thing that defeats that poor attempt at science. It takes X amount of snow to make say 1 mm of ice. If it snows 10 feet there will certainly be a thicker coating of ice than if it was a 1 foot snowfall. The snow starts to compact pretty quickly. So if there was a massive sustained snowfall it would be obvious as the nose on your face in the ice core record and it for absolute fact is not, only average seasonal falls for the past 100 thousand years, up and down of course but NOTHING like what you are describing is in the records.
These cores represent snowfall that has turned to ice. Can we know how often it snowed every year of the past 4000 years after the worldwide flood?
Some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood. Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood. enland
Geological Evidence Indicates Rapid Formation
http://www.icr.org/earth-formation/
They have to come up with evidence better than that pseudo scientific nonsense to make a real dent in science.
They can make up any data they want, bend it any way they choose but they will not make data that shows any kind of 500 year long sustained snowfall. That is a creationist wet dream.
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfieAs I pointed out before, I can simulate time while stressing a DUT (device under
if an event occurred that caused the equivalent of 500,000 years of ice to build up in 3,000 years do you think the deposits of ash from volcanic eruptions would be the same as if the ice had actually taken 500,000 years to build? would we find less, more or equal amounts in each layer?
test) to make it look like it went through years of normal use. The end result
would be it would look like 4 years of normal use had occurred, when in fact I
just applied stresses to it. The end result appears the same, but time through
normal use didn't play a part.
With all dating methods you have to assume that time and just those processes
you are giving credit to were the only things that were in play. With all of our
processes we assume there was that much time to begin with so that those
types of processes could occur as we believe. So both of those assumptions or
just one of them could cause us to be completely wrong.
Assuming the earth is old automatically discredits a young earth, assuming the
earth is young automatically discredits an old earth...declaring your right is
a major brain-fart on our part no matter what side of the debate your on, due
to the FACT none of us knows how this all started! If it started as fully formed
our looking at form will not give us any clue as to its age. I actually have never
heard anyone come up with a reason for all things to be with an older universe
since basically all they do is simply push back this caused that until they run out
of ideas and answers, so they just declare it isn't a question worth looking into.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThis sounds like you do not believe or have faith in the Genesis account of creation. Is that right?
As I pointed out before, I can simulate time while stressing a DUT (device under
test) to make it look like it went through years of normal use. The end result
would be it would look like 4 years of normal use had occurred, when in fact I
just applied stresses to it. The end result appears the same, but time through
normal use didn't play a part.
Wit ...[text shortened]... out
of ideas and answers, so they just declare it isn't a question worth looking into.
Kelly
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseI think the other side of this issue needs to come up with more evidence. They don't have evidence going back 10,000 years and that is the fact. So there is no need for me to change my belief in the truth of the Holy Bible. 😏
There is one thing that defeats that poor attempt at science. It takes X amount of snow to make say 1 mm of ice. If it snows 10 feet there will certainly be a thicker coating of ice than if it was a 1 foot snowfall. The snow starts to compact pretty quickly. So if there was a massive sustained snowfall it would be obvious as the nose on your face in the ice ...[text shortened]... e data that shows any kind of 500 year long sustained snowfall. That is a creationist wet dream.
P. S. Your explanation just shows your ignorance and unwillingness to educate yourself on the facts. You base your beliefs on the assumptions of others and not on any facts you actually know about. I base my beliefs on the fact that the Holy Bible has never been proven wrong.
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you explain to me how two miles of ice could come about in a mere 500 or so years? 10000 feet of ice. 500 years. 20 feet of ice per year sustained. That is so preposterous as to not even be worth the time to think about it. Talk about ignorant.
I think the other side of this issue needs to come up with more evidence. They don't have evidence going back 10,000 years and that is the fact. So there is no need for me to change my belief in the truth of the Holy Bible. 😏
P. S. Your explanation just shows your ignorance and unwillingness to educate yourself on the facts. You base your beliefs on t ...[text shortened]... ly know about. I base my beliefs of the fact that the Holy Bible has never been proven wrong.
You have it in spades plus the inability to change. I can change and by the way, it is not a belief system I have it is the quality of evidence. You want to force the word 'belief' as if it had independent meaning which it doesn't.
It doesn't matter to you WHAT evidence comes about in regards to the age of the Earth or evolution, whatever ANY scientists finds about those fields will ALWAYS be wrong and you will ALWAYS be right. That is the key sign of a mind, your so-called mind, unable to change.
There has NEVER been a shred of evidence of a massive long term snow fall, it would be obvious in the ice core record. All they find is year after year of same ole same ole with pluses and minuses of course, but within a small window of differences overall.
If you studied real sciences instead of pseudo science quacks with an obvious agenda you would find the truth but instead you go along with such quackery because they bias science in such a way as to ALWAYS support the biblical version of the fairy tales of creation.
They will be showing the same ole same ole pseudo science a hundred years from now totally ignoring any new science in the meantime, as they have for the past 100 years of science. There is nothing new in their so-called science, they just want weapons to defeat evolution and such. They haven't the SLIGHTEST interest in actual scientific knowledge, far from it, they want to DESTROY real science and get people back to the tenth century when the church controlled directly everyone's life.
That is the ultimate goal and you and your buddies cannot hide that ultimate goal from people who can actually think things through for themselves and not having to rely on some church deluded guru who has NOTHING but words in an ancient text that was not inspired by an actual god but inspired by people eating too much peyote. Or whatever mind altering drug was available at that time. They wanted nothing more than the absolute control of people they suckered into their fairy tales so they could build up a political power base that could challenge the rule of Rome back in the day. That is the sum total of it. Nothing more.
You and a billion other people remain duped to this day and that is a sad thing. The same with Islam, the so-called religion of peace. Paulism doesn't even PRETEND to be a religion of peace. The bible and the Quran are both FULL of verses about your so-called god inspiring people to kill in wartime. Some religion you have there. SO peaceful.
And your present day young Earth creationists have the same agenda. Not even CLOSE to peaceful coexistence, they want to RULE. That is the goal. And all the posturing by you and your buddies will not hide that ultimate fact.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by KellyJayhow much stress would you need to condense 700,000 years into 500? and how would you get the seasonal rings to form in the ice......and the water particles with different mass due to the temperature they were trapped at. how do you explain results found around the globe all matching historically like historical finger prints, how do you explain the the ice ages being reflected in the ice and in rocks found around the planet, all telling the same story.
As I pointed out before, I can simulate time while stressing a DUT (device under
test) to make it look like it went through years of normal use. The end result
would be it would look like 4 years of normal use had occurred, when in fact I
just applied stresses to it. The end result appears the same, but time through
normal use didn't play a part.
Wit ...[text shortened]... out
of ideas and answers, so they just declare it isn't a question worth looking into.
Kelly
what examples do you have for science getting it completely wrong other than things that conflict with your religion. are you another one who coincidentally only disagrees with scientific facts when it suits you. can you think of anything even close to getting muddled up between billions of years and 6000. can you explain why everybody keeps making the same mistake, why hasnt anybody come up with some serious evidence to prove the earth is young.......do you think its a huge conspiracy between all the scientists on the planet????
anywhooo im done wasting time on you, you and rj kinda make me sad. its like talking to confused, crazy old people, trapped in the memories of a long-ago time.
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseI gave you references and links on this already. If you would use your brain to think and reason about it, then it would not be so prepsterous as you claim. Have you heard of the hole in the ozone layer or depletion of the ozone layer of the stratosphere? If not, educate yourself on it. Then consider that there are differnt layers in the sky above the earth. Young earth creationinst believe that Genesis speaks of a firm layer capable of holding a large quanity of water above it. It is translated as the firmament in Genesis. These different layers diffused the light and heat from the sun, so that in the beginning the earth's temperature was evenly warm all over the surface of the earth.
So you explain to me how two miles of ice could come about in a mere 500 or so years? 10000 feet of ice. 500 years. 20 feet of ice per year sustained. That is so preposterous as to not even be worth the time to think about it. Talk about ignorant.
You have it in spades plus the inability to change. I can change and by the way, it is not a belief system I the goal. And all the posturing by you and your buddies will not hide that ultimate fact.
Something happened to this firmament that caused it to leak out and release this water above the firmament and earthquakes and such caused the springs to burst forth with the water that was trapped under the earth. The result was the worldwide flood.
The Holy Bible says that it did not rain until this time, but the springs under the earth spewed up water to moisten the land. It also did not snow because there was no cold spots on earth. But now we have hot spots, like along the equator, and cold spots, like the North Pole. You want find any ice cores in Egypt because it don't snow there. Go to south Texas and see if you can find any ice cores there. You have to go to some place like Greenland to find any ice cores.
In these cold spots the rain is snow because the water freezes in those areas. It then hardens and turns to ice. However, right after the flood not all the water went into lakes and seas, but water that was covering the north and south poles became frozen. It has been proven that these areas was not always covered with ice. That supports what Genesis tells us about the earth.
Now over 4000 years it has snowed and layed down layers of snow that turned to ice and sometimes I would think it must have snowed more than just one time a year, especially in such cold climates. It would be rare to get a snowfall here in Georgia and it would melt very quickly, if we did get one every year.
I said all this to point out that we have no scientific way of knowing how much ice was already there when the snow started falling or how many times layers of snow built up during each year during all those 4000 years. So the scientist can count until they are blue in the face and still can't be sure of how long it has been accumulating because no scientist was there at the beginning. It is not scientific to just assume something when something else could also be assumed. 😏
Originally posted by RJHindsOnly in your deluded so-called mind is there any doubt as to the age of the ice. The REAL world knows pretty well just how old things are.
I gave you references and links on this already. If you would use your brain to think and reason about it, then it would not be so prepsterous as you claim. Have you heard of the hole in the ozone layer or depletion of the ozone layer of the stratosphere? If not, educate yourself on it. Then consider that there are differnt layers in the sky above the ea ...[text shortened]... It is not scientific to just assume something when something else could also be assumed. 😏
Like I have said many times, you are an anachronism, a relic from 200 years ago and you would be much happier to be back when the church ruled everyone and you didn't have to think about anything, just accept any rot the church decided to tell you and you would just swallow it hook line and sinker.
You are so deluded you don't know which way is up any more.
There are less and less relics like you as each year goes by.
The way science wins a lot of times is the old guard just dies off and there is nobody left to bitch and moan about how it isn't like that in the bible.
There are less and less of you as time goes on and you in particular are getting to the age where you have less and less time as the years roll on.
Me, I know how old I am but I relish the thought when Paulism is banished from the face of the Earth like ridding the world of sly cockroaches.
The same with Islam.
Originally posted by sonhouseNo. your REAL world doesn't know shiitt about the age of the ice or the earth.
Only in your deluded so-called mind is there any doubt as to the age of the ice. The REAL world knows pretty well just how old things are.
Like I have said many times, you are an anachronism, a relic from 200 years ago and you would be much happier to be back when the church ruled everyone and you didn't have to think about anything, just accept any rot ...[text shortened]... from the face of the Earth like ridding the world of sly cockroaches.
The same with Islam.
No, I would not be happier to live 200 years ago and the church did not rule everything then anyway.
No, I am not deluded and can still tell directions.
Yes, I became 69 this month, so I am getting closer to your decade of old farts.
Of course, I am with you on Islam, one of Satan's counterfeit religions.
Originally posted by RJHindsThere's no fool like an old fool.
No. your REAL world doesn't know shiitt about the age of the ice or the earth.
No, I would not be happier to live 200 years ago and the church did not rule everything then anyway.
No, I am not deluded and can still tell directions.
Yes, I became 69 this month, so I am getting closer to your decade of old farts.
Of course, I am with you on Islam, one of Satan's counterfeit religions.
Originally posted by KellyJayGeologists have employed radioisotope dating to determine that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Different isotopes may be used to do this, but they all converge on the same approximate value.
As I pointed out before, I can simulate time while stressing a DUT (device under
test) to make it look like it went through years of normal use. The end result
would be it would look like 4 years of normal use had occurred, when in fact I
just applied stresses to it. The end result appears the same, but time through
normal use didn't play a part.
Wit ...[text shortened]... out
of ideas and answers, so they just declare it isn't a question worth looking into.
Kelly
Meanwhile, perhaps you are not aware that astronomers have determined that the sun is 4.5 billion years old through entirely independent means not at all dependent on radioisotopes. Astronomers have countless stars that they can observe at different stages of their life, and so can fashion computer models of stellar evolution that produce results consistent with other models.
Many other ways of determining the age of the Earth abound, and they all point to the same figure of ~4.5 x 10^9 years.
You can claim that processes proceeded at different rates in the past, but it is highly unlikely that the difference would be exactly the same across all processes no matter how disparate. The rational mind will believe what is most probable, which is to say the most consistent with observation. You deny observational data, and therefore are bound to an intellectual cul-de-sac that leaves you with naught to do but cast stones at those whizzing by you on highways of progress.
If you know anything about differential equations, say, you would know that you do not need to know a system's initial conditions to make predictions about its nature in the past or the future. Physical processes are continuous in nature on the macro scale.
Originally posted by stellspalfieNo one wants to believe the earth is young, it would turn everyone's world
how much stress would you need to condense 700,000 years into 500? and how would you get the seasonal rings to form in the ice......and the water particles with different mass due to the temperature they were trapped at. how do you explain results found around the globe all matching historically like historical finger prints, how do you explain the the ...[text shortened]... sad. its like talking to confused, crazy old people, trapped in the memories of a long-ago time.
views upside down...things like right and wrong would come into play....there
is NO way people in science will promote it even if it can be shown real, they
would have to much to lose.
Kelly
Originally posted by SoothfastThey may give the same values, but that mean they are getting the dates right,
Geologists have employed radioisotope dating to determine that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Different isotopes may be used to do this, but they all converge on the same approximate value.
Meanwhile, perhaps you are not aware that astronomers have determined that the sun is 4.5 billion years old through entirely independent means not at all ...[text shortened]... ure in the past or the future. Physical processes are continuous in nature on the macro scale.
or just same values? Getting consistent values means your tests are consistent
that does not speak to the fact if your conclusions are accurate. If you want to
call your beliefs facts, by all means do so, it is arrogantly delusional, but people
act that way all the time when they think they cannot be wrong or go wrong.
Kelly