In reference to God creating an earth made with apparent age,

[StanJ]

Now maybe I'm missing something, but just what has the usefulness of ice cores in monitoring climate change, got to do with their usefulness in demonstrating the Earth to be older than a few thousand years?
It is like saying that, because an pneumatic drill has limited usefulness in repairing a computer, it must also have limited usefulness in digging up a road.

You may want to spend more time on those analogies but in any event you obviously don't get my point.

 

[StanJ]

While it is slightly above my pay grade, I would be very surprised if the claims therein held up to scrutiny. SePP is not a reliable source for information about climate change.
But that's all completely irrelevant, because nothing therein disputes the use of ice cores as a time proxy, and nothing therein supports your point. Y'wanna try again?

And this type of reply is exactly why I don't bother with you guys. You dismiss everything and discount everything and refuse to actually contribute any facts. Above all you are able to do is opine, so no I don't want to try again because it's basically pursuing an untamed ornithoid.

 

[lesliedellow]

You may want to spend more time on those analogies but in any event you obviously don't get my point.

That's because you haven't got a point.

 

[StanJ]

The article was by Dr. Harrison "Jack" Schmitt, who was an astronaut and geologist. He is also known for his denial that CO2 is mostly responsible of the current global warming. He is nothing more than an appeal to authority, having no background whatsoever in climate science, much less the use of ice cores in the field of paleoclimatology, and even less ice ages, which was my specialized area in my M.S. in Earth Science. Furthermore, the article has nothing to do with disputing ice core chronology as you mentioned. The site is climate change denial site.

It was an example, but as usual people of your ilk won't accept anything except the sight of your own opinions. Talk about inculcated!

 

[StanJ]

That's because you haven't got a point.

No it's because you're blind bias prevents you from seeing.

 

[lesliedellow]

It was an example, but as usual people of your ilk won't accept anything except the sight of your own opinions. Talk about inculcated!

It was an irrelevant example.

 

[lesliedellow]

No it's because you're blind bias prevents you from seeing.

No, its because climate change has got absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Earth is only 6,000 years old, but ice layers laid down over a period of 50,000 years directly falsify any claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

 

[StanJ]

It was an irrelevant example.

As is your response.

 

[StanJ]

No, its because climate change has got absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Earth is only 6,000 years old, but ice layers laid down over a period of 50,000 years directly falsify any claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Right, because that method of dating is just so accurate and has no flaws in it whatsoever. (I hope this conveyed my sarcasm)

 

[lesliedellow]

Right, because that method of dating is just so accurate and has no flaws in it whatsoever. (I hope this conveyed my sarcasm)

Unfortunately, the same process can be observed going on today.

 

[RickG]

It was an example, but as usual people of your ilk won't accept anything except the sight of your own opinions. Talk about inculcated!

The example you presented had nothing to do with ice core chronologies. I actually reviewed the article from which you got that information as I explained in my previous post. Carbon dioxide concentrations are not used to date ice cores. However, their varying concentration levels are important in evaluating paleoclimates.

 

[The Cadet]

And this type of reply is exactly why I don't bother with you guys. You dismiss everything and discount everything and refuse to actually contribute any facts. Above all you are able to do is opine, so no I don't want to try again because it's basically pursuing an untamed ornithoid.

Look, I'm sorry, but if the best you have to offer is a cite from a source like sepp.org that doesn't even support your own point, then of course we're going to dismiss it! I promise you, the moment you cite scientifically valid information, we'll gladly give it the due diligence it deserves, but would some random yuppie saying "the bible is wrong and I know because <insert bad reasons here>" convince you to change your mind? Obviously not - you'd point out where the reasoning goes wrong, or ignore it altogether. We're not ignoring anything you have to say. It's just that it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Why are you so willing to be wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

Right, because that method of dating is just so accurate and has no flaws in it whatsoever. (I hope this conveyed my sarcasm)

Be careful, bro.

I'd hate to see you get moderated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You may want to spend more time on those analogies but in any event you obviously don't get my point.

There was no point made nor valid source used.

 

[StanJ]

The example you presented had nothing to do with ice core chronologies. I actually reviewed the article from which you got that information as I explained in my previous post. Carbon dioxide concentrations are not used to date ice cores. However, their varying concentration levels are important in evaluating paleoclimates.

The point is it's not an infallible fully proven process regardless of how it is used. I'm sure in 10 or 20 years that we something else to come about that will be reported to be the best thing since sliced bread. I probably won't be here then but I'm not too concerned about it.
I know who created the earth and the universe personally.

 

[StanJ]

Look, I'm sorry, but if the best you have to offer is a cite from a source like sepp.org that doesn't even support your own point, then of course we're going to dismiss it! I promise you, the moment you cite scientifically valid information, we'll gladly give it the due diligence it deserves, but would some random yuppie saying "the bible is wrong and I know because <insert bad reasons here>" convince you to change your mind? Obviously not - you'd point out where the reasoning goes wrong, or ignore it altogether. We're not ignoring anything you have to say. It's just that it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Why are you so willing to be wrong?

It wasn't meant to support my POV, because my POV, is creation. It was meant to show that the scientific community itself can't even agree on everything that you and others here say is solid evidence and accurate processes. All your claims here apparently are more filled with bravado than any actual understanding.

 

[lesliedellow]

The point is it's not an infallible fully proven process regardless of how it is used. I'm sure in 10 or 20 years that we something else to come about that will be reported to be the best thing since sliced bread. I probably won't be here then but I'm not too concerned about it.
I know who created the earth and the universe personally.

For heaven sake, I am not an Earth scientist, but even I can understand that counting the number of layers of ice in a core, is not the same thing as measuring the amount of carbon dioxide in a layer.

 

[The Cadet]

It wasn't meant to support my POV, because my POV, is creation. It was meant to show that the scientific community itself can't even agree on everything that you and others here say is solid evidence and accurate processes.

Right, and it doesn't even do that. It's not a peer-reviewed paper. It's not written by an expert in paleoclimatology. It's written by an organization that more or less exists to disseminate fear, uncertainty, and doubt about climate change, and it doesn't actually hold up to scrutiny. And even then, guess what: it doesn't disagree that the ice core was laid down over hundreds of thousands of years. Because nobody can reasonably disagree with that.

 

[RickG]

The point is it's not an infallible fully proven process regardless of how it is used. I'm sure in 10 or 20 years that we something else to come about that will be reported to be the best thing since sliced bread. I probably won't be here then but I'm not too concerned about it.
I know who created the earth and the universe personally.

I am not suggesting anything is infallible. What I am asking is for you to tell me what the problems are with Vostok ice cores with respect to ice core chronology that you keep saying they have. Once you cite what you perceive to be a valid problem then we can discuss it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right, because that method of dating is just so accurate and has no flaws in it whatsoever. (I hope this conveyed my sarcasm)

Radiometric dating is a tool. And like all tools it can be used correctly or incorrectly. It is very accurate when used correctly, which means paying attention to the limitations of that tool. But if you give a hammer to a monkey you should not complain if a window or two gets broken. It does not mean that hammers do not work. There is a more obvious lesson to be learned.