A Calculating Age

[RickG]

That''s what I hear you "claiming," yet presnt no facts to argue against anything.

Then you are not reading my posts. I have provided some very specific information showing exactly how your are wrong, WHOOPS! I mean your source is wrong; you know the M.D. with his intellectual dishonesty. I wonder if he would me mind publishing a made up medical procedure and distributing it to his patients. After all, I don't know squat about medical science.

So you will ignore all the layers which must have both occurred and disappeared to keep your faith????

What layers that disappeared? You aren't talking about the diffusion of the stable isotopes are you. If any layers disappeared then that means that the ice core ages are actually older than what they show.

So despite your claims of accuracy, you ignore that 3 to 4 miles of data - and it's respective time frame is missing, yet date them as if it was a continuous process?? I'm at a loss to understand how you justify such a dating method that ignores what science believes to have occurred?

What miles of data, you have shown nothing but misrepresented science from a person not qualified to provide the information you have been regurgitating.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would say without a doubt that your claim that the "lost squadron" nullify's ice core chronology demonstrates a total ignorance of the process.

I wonder how many times that "process" has been changed over the years?

I'm wondering if creationist debate after creationist debate pwned and pwned ice core dating, until scientists, under the guise of "discoveries," finally got a process so believable that it can no longer be pwned (other than THE BIBLE SAYS IT, THAT SETTLES IT)?

Proverbs 27:17a Iron sharpeneth iron;

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What layers that disappeared? You aren't talking about the diffusion of the stable isotopes are you. If any layers disappeared then that means that the ice core ages are actually older than what they show.

But that's not what you claim. You "claim" we can consistently date the layering back to 100,000 years or 2.6 million by some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_core_project
"Studies of isotopes and various atmospheric constituents in the core have revealed a detailed record of climatic variations reaching more than 100,000 years back in time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
"By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist."

then ignore that very data which shows it should have increased and retreated several times just in 400,000 years.

Are you now trying to say that during those other warm periods (periods warmer than today) the ice never retreated???? That layer upon layer would not have been added, melted, added, melted, over and over with each cycle????? If your dating was even remotely accurate as you claim, you would have a reason to claim it was older, but you "claim" a consistent layering and dating pattern, with no gaps whatsoever caused by that melting over and over.

You can't even keep up a consistent argument - but try to worm your way out of facing up to the facts.

What miles of data, you have shown nothing but misrepresented science from a person not qualified to provide the information you have been regurgitating.

So you disregard your own scientists? the data from ice ages is from scientists, not from any creationist website. Another strawman that you should by now know better than to even attempt with me.

Those miles of ice that formed and melted that you keep wanting to ignore. Why are you ignoring scientific theory of ice ages if your dating is so accurate???? Why are you ignoring the ice that must have been added, melted, added, melted every 125,000 years over and over in the past 2.6 million years you claim the ice age existed - despite you also claiming that just in 400,000 years we have gone into 4 other warming periods even warmer than this one? But Antarctic, Greenland and Arctic ice only melts during this time frame and remains constant during all the other warming periods every 125,000 years over 2.6 million?

Like I said, you can't even keep your argument consistent with the claims science makes - a sure sign of glossing over facts in favor of mere fantasy. or you just plain do not know what science actually says. i suspect the latter. Since those core temps show higher than today - more ice should have melted than we observe today. Just as those cold periods are where the ice would have been miles thick. And where does one get 2.6 million years, when the data only goes back 400,000 years? if we apply a consistent timeline it would have repeated the same cycle for as long as you care to age the earth.

"of the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist."

The Greenland ice - since it still exists by your scientists own claims, should show an age of close to 2.6 million years if as claimed your dating was correct. Since it does not, we can only logically assume your dating methods are flawed along with your chronology - since neither match.

Your sad attempts at diverting attention away from your inconsistent arguments is just that - sad.

 

[RickG]

I wonder how many times that "process" has been changed over the years?

I'm wondering if creationist debate after creationist debate pwned and pwned ice core dating, until scientists, under the guise of "discoveries," finally got a process so believable that it can no longer be pwned (other than THE BIBLE SAYS IT, THAT SETTLES IT)?

Proverbs 27:17a Iron sharpeneth iron;

Can you name a single creationist who has any background whatsoever in Paleoclimatology/Glaciology? Any?

 

[dad]

How does any of that support your position? Are you focusing solely on the problems that can be encountered? If so, that is intellectual dishonesty. That is, focusing only on things that appear to support your position while ignoring everything that does not.

It supports my position science doesn't know, clearly, because science does not know. The methods all require and are based solely on a same state past, nothing else whatsoever in any small way.

Which has nothing to do with your made up dream world changed-state-past.

The world described in Scripture is anything but made up. The unproven dream state you base all things on is made up in entirety.

Another thing you ignored. Your source is nothing more than an outline, not to mention you are ignoring the context of what is meant by pre determined ages. It doesn't mean that they make up ages.

If you disagree with the facts there explain. Otherwise, it is a simple expose of what you guys are really up to.

Again, there is no evidence to support any changed state past. NONE!.

There is no evidence for a same state past in science or we would see it here. No need for shrill cries for mercy, just fess up and you'll be OK.

Do you even know how annual layers are determined?

Would it have anything to do with how things now happen? If there is some aspect of this you think you can illuminate for us that helps your religion, go for it.

Here's an example you may be able to understand:

Adam buys a car.

Problems: -----
Things ignored:

There is NOTHING to ignore since you clearly demonstrate in technicolor that a same state past is just a belief.

This is easy!

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you name a single creationist who has any background whatsoever in Paleoclimatology/Glaciology? Any?

Nope.

Should I have to?

 

[dad]

Can you name a single creationist who has any background whatsoever in Paleoclimatology/Glaciology? Any?

Can you name one that has a background in disbelief, being antichrist, opposing Jesus directly, or such things? The godless paleo gang of doubt spinners and fable meister so called sciences are merely a hellish expression of man's doubts.

I don't think that would be a natural place for a bible believer to gravitate.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Can you name a single creationist who has any background whatsoever in Paleoclimatology/Glaciology? Any?

From the track record, I'd say your reliance on arguments from authority are pure arguments of fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

According to those same authorities the ice age has been around since 2.6 million years ago until recently. Then those ice cores you affirm as fact directly refute this - showing periods of warming every claimed 125,000 years higher than today which means that ice age stopped and started again every 125,000 years - not been consistent over 2.6 million. Unless I am to believe that in periods of higher global temperatures than today - the ice never melted???? Reliance on people that have been wrong over and over and over again - is not much of an argument to claim any sort of correctness if you ask me. But we are just laypeople and couldn't possibly understand, right?

 

[Loudmouth]

then ignore that very data which shows it should have increased and retreated several times just in 400,000 years.

Most people would figure out that just because the glaciers retreated in the temperate zones does not mean that the ice retreated nearer the poles. The locations in Greenland and Antarctica were chose because they have never melted during those periods.

In other news, it is raining in Seattle so it must be raining everywhere in the World.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Most people would figure out that just because the glaciers retreated in the temperate zones does not mean that the ice retreated nearer the poles. The locations in Greenland and Antarctica were chose because they have never melted during those periods.

In other news, it is raining in Seattle so it must be raining everywhere in the World.

So we can ignore science claiming the ice in Greenland and the poles is declining in their global warming propaganda campaign????? Your ice cores show those periods were warmer than today. So I am to believe the ice at the poles and in Greenland is melting today, but never melted in past times when temperatures were higher than they are now?

Again, I see you too can not even keep a consistent argument going to cover your fallacies.

So I guess we can throw all the science out because now suddenly you don't want it to melt????

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/greenland/

What, the data is good for your claims of global warming until it contradicts your ages based on ice ages???????? Then suddenly it doesn't melt at all?

http://www.livescience.com/7331-ancient-greenland-green.html

So much for consistent ice that doesn't melt.

 

[Loudmouth]

So we can ignore science claiming the ice in Greenland and the poles is declining in their global warming propaganda campaign?????

We can ignore your inability to realize just how big those places are, and that melting at the coasts does not indicate that ice is melting in the interior.

If Seattle gets 100 inches of rain a year, does this mean that Las Vegas also gets 100 inches of rain a year because they are on the same continent? If it is 80 degrees in Florida during December, shouldn't it also be 80 degrees in Diluth, MN?

 

[dad]

Most people would figure out that just because the glaciers retreated in the temperate zones does not mean that the ice retreated nearer the poles. The locations in Greenland and Antarctica were chose because they have never melted during those periods.

In other news, it is raining in Seattle so it must be raining everywhere in the World.

Never melted? How do you explain tropical trees or cold blooded animal fossils near the poles?

 

[Loudmouth]

Never melted? How do you explain tropical trees or cold blooded animal fossils near the poles?

The sections of the ice that they have recovered are from a period in those parts of Antarctica and Greenland where ice has not melted in recent history, relatively speaking. Those ice cores extend back to a little bit less than 1 million years. The fossils you are talking about come from tens of millions of years before that, when Antarctica was closer to the equator.

 

[dad]

The sections of the ice that they have recovered are from a period in those parts of Antarctica and Greenland where ice has not melted in recent history, relatively speaking.

That says very little. Recent history is relative to one's belief about nature.

Those ice cores extend back to a little bit less than 1 million years.

Since the KT layer may be near the flood layer, a mere million years isn't much in imaginary time.

The fossils you are talking about come from tens of millions of years before that, when Antarctica was closer to the equator.

In other words the continents moved. Imaginary years aside that was probably around 4400 years ago. If the fossils pre dated the move, they could be up to say about 1700 years old. Have you any reason to claim there was ice somewhere at the time when the continents moved?

 

[Loudmouth]

That says very little. Recent history is relative to one's belief about nature.

It says everything. Pointing to fossils that are tens or hundreds of millions of years old are irrelevant if we are asking about the last 1 million years on the ice cap.

Since the KT layer may be near the flood layer, a mere million years isn't much in imaginary time.

It may be? Sorry, but your made up fantasies are not fact or science.

In other words the continents moved. Imaginary years aside that was probably around 4400 years ago.

Where is the geologic evidence to back up this claim?

 

[dad]

It says everything. Pointing to fossils that are tens or hundreds of millions of years old are irrelevant if we are asking about the last 1 million years on the ice cap.

It says that animals lived there earlier on. So ice wasn't always there. What is your point? Of course the land masses moved also later. That happened to be around the time after the flood presumably, so naturally the older fossils would have been there before the ice. Duh. Why say it as if it helps you?

Where is the geologic evidence to back up this claim?

Science says the land moved. The only issue is when. I have all the evidences you do plus the true history of man. Together, they dance all over your imaginary made up ages.

What have you got to say that it was a slow move? Present rates of movement? Ha. Isotope patterns religiously interpreted to refelect a same state past nature? Ha. Anything else? Magnetic reversals? Ha. That is expected in a true nature change where everything was affected and even moving. Hotspots? Ha. That is expected when land is moving! There is no wind in your sails.

 

[Loudmouth]

It says that animals lived there earlier on. So ice wasn't always there. What is your point?

You presented the fossils as an attempt to refute the claim that the ice caps haven't melted for the time period covered by the ice cores. Are you still sticking with that claim?

That happened to be around the time after the flood presumably,

Presumably? Where is the geologic evidence?

Science says the land moved. The only issue is when. I have all the evidences you do plus the true history of man.

Where is the geologic evidence for your claim that land masses moved great distances just 4,400 years ago?

 

[dad]

You presented the fossils as an attempt to refute the claim that the ice caps haven't melted for the time period covered by the ice cores. Are you still sticking with that claim?

The time period of imaginary years is faith based and animals would not really matter. The fact the cold blooded animal fossils have been found in the arctic for example shows that it was warm there once. In other words NOT covered in ice.

Presumably? Where is the geologic evidence?

The evidence doesn't tell us how fast the continents moved or when. We need Scripture to fill in missing pieces and science doesn't do that. They made stuff up instead.

Where is the geologic evidence for your claim that land masses moved great distances just 4,400 years ago?

The same evidence that you have for any movement, minus your imaginary time based on religion.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We can ignore your inability to realize just how big those places are, and that melting at the coasts does not indicate that ice is melting in the interior.

If Seattle gets 100 inches of rain a year, does this mean that Las Vegas also gets 100 inches of rain a year because they are on the same continent? If it is 80 degrees in Florida during December, shouldn't it also be 80 degrees in Diluth, MN?

Says the man that argued for global warming because the ice was melting. Who now argues differently because now he doesn't want the ice to melt because man didn't cause it.

And so according to the ice layering, would have done so every 125,000 years - almost like clockwork. Your ice cores show a consistent pattering. So yes, a scientist would definitely say the same thing is recurring now that happened then - the ice melting. And then I guess somehow between those warm spells even though we have ice miles deep across the continents - Greenland and the Antarctic kept the same amount of ice. But since the Greenland ice sheet is still here since it can't have melted before - it should date to 2.6 million years - but it doesn't.

Hey - they are your ice cores, creationists didn't dig em up. Stop rejecting your own science.

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/

 

[Loudmouth]

Says the man that argued for global warming because the ice was melting.

Ice on the coasts of Antarctica is melting at unprecedented levels. Ice melting on the coasts does not mean that ice must also melt in the interior of Antarctica.

Why is this basic logic so hard for you to grasp?