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

[StanJ]

Thread is about the apparent age of the earth, how about getting off evolution and getting back on topic. What problem is there with Vostok? Ice core chronologies go back 800 Ka.

Asked and answered.

 

[lesliedellow]

Well then you should know all about it if that is your degree.

If you are not spouting hogwash, perhaps you would like to complete that aspect of my mathematics education, which the University of Leeds so carelessly left out.

 

[StanJ]

Unfortunately, it has been falsified.

Not quite, it has just been overshadowed by another theory.

 

[StanJ]

If you are not spouting hogwash, perhaps you would like to complete that aspect of my mathematics education, which the University of Leeds so carelessly left out.

Wouldn't it be your responsibility to make sure that your degree with complete?

 

[lesliedellow]

Not quite, it has just been overshadowed by another theory.

It has been falsified, in countless different ways.

 

[lesliedellow]

Wouldn't it be your responsibility to make sure that your degree with complete?

Where do you suggest I should look? Complex Variable Analysis? Banach Space Theory? Differential Geometry? Point Set Topology? Measure Theory?

 

[The Cadet]

Wouldn't it be your responsibility to make sure that your degree with complete?

Why are you so reluctant to actually share the basis of your claims? You keep throwing out claims - "Vostok ice cores are flawed" "Math proves evolution wrong" - and yet when people ask you what you mean, you refuse to answer. Why is that? In the past, whenever I've seen such behavior, it's been because the person making the claims knew that the claims were baseless and just felt like wasting everyone's time. Is that what you're doing? Either way, let's all just not respond to StanJ until he shows us that this isn't what he's doing.

 

[StanJ]

It has been falsified, in countless different ways.

For a purported mathematician you're pretty vague and general. How exactly has it been falsified.

 

[StanJ]

Why are you so reluctant to actually share the basis of your claims? You keep throwing out claims - "Vostok ice cores are flawed" "Math proves evolution wrong" - and yet when people ask you what you mean, you refuse to answer. Why is that? In the past, whenever I've seen such behavior, it's been because the person making the claims knew that the claims were baseless and just felt like wasting everyone's time. Is that what you're doing? Either way, let's all just not respond to StanJ until he shows us that this isn't what he's doing.

Not surprisingly, considering the known variability in ice preservation, measured carbon dioxide concentrations in the trapped gases of many cores older than about 300 years hold remarkably constant over the last 7-8000 years of ice accumulation. This constancy is incompatible with other data, including that from other ice cores and from preserved Ginkgo leaf stomata, both indicating significant variation during that period. Stomata are pores through which a plant takes in carbon dioxide. They vary in size depending on the carbon dioxide concentration in the air, and preserved stomata suggest that carbon dioxide levels ranged between 270 and 326ppm over the last 7-8000 years.

I'm not even trying hard and I can find snippets of stuff like this.

 

[StanJ]

Where do you suggest I should look? Complex Variable Analysis? Banach Space Theory? Differential Geometry? Point Set Topology? Measure Theory?

Don't ask me, it's your credentials you're talking about.

 

[RickG]

You also claim to be a scientist who did research on all these issues. Why is it you now refuse to acknowledge the issues with Vostok?

I don't acknowledge any issues with Vostok because there are none. You said there were, now what are they?

 

[lesliedellow]

Not surprisingly, considering the known variability in ice preservation, measured carbon dioxide concentrations in the trapped gases of many cores older than about 300 years hold remarkably constant over the last 7-8000 years of ice accumulation. This constancy is incompatible with other data, including that from other ice cores and from preserved Ginkgo leaf stomata, both indicating significant variation during that period. Stomata are pores through which a plant takes in carbon dioxide. They vary in size depending on the carbon dioxide concentration in the air, and preserved stomata suggest that carbon dioxide levels ranged between 270 and 326ppm over the last 7-8000 years.

I'm not even trying hard and I can find snippets of stuff like this.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's exactly my point... Why is it still a germ Theory when it's been proven, and why is evolution considered factual when it is still called a theory and hasn't been proven?

I know that I told you this once before. Theory is as good as it gets in science. In science an idea is not called a theory until it has been "proven". Though that is a poor word to use. An idea is not a theory unless it has been tested many times. Until it has passed tests it is a hypothesis at best.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quite convenient for the scientists that formulated their own theories. Maybe those of you who push evolution and take a tip from Albert Einstein, when he wrote; "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Why pursue and believe in something that can never be proven right? There are just so many inconsistencies in this area.

No scientific idea can be proven right, and that included the germ theory of disease. That is why I said your use of "proven" was a poor term. An idea can be shown to be correct in many different instances, but a scientist must be open to the idea that his idea could be wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Asked and answered.

Wrong, asked and ducked.

When a person makes a claim in a debate the burden of proof is upon that person. If that person cannot support his own claim it can be safely assumed to be false in that debate.

 

[RickG]

Not surprisingly, considering the known variability in ice preservation, measured carbon dioxide concentrations in the trapped gases of many cores older than about 300 years hold remarkably constant over the last 7-8000 years of ice accumulation. This constancy is incompatible with other data, including that from other ice cores and from preserved Ginkgo leaf stomata, both indicating significant variation during that period. Stomata are pores through which a plant takes in carbon dioxide. They vary in size depending on the carbon dioxide concentration in the air, and preserved stomata suggest that carbon dioxide levels ranged between 270 and 326ppm over the last 7-8000 years.

I'm not even trying hard and I can find snippets of stuff like this.

What does carbon dioxide in ice cores have to with ice core chronology? I'll save you the trouble, nothing. Perhaps you need to try harder.

 

[RickG]

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.

What I am trying demonstrate with StanJ is to show how wrong his Ken Ham parroted claim "were you there" is just plain silly. The case being that we observe the accumulation of annual layers of ice today and they are the same chronologically back in time before humans.

 

[The Cadet]

Not surprisingly, considering the known variability in ice preservation, measured carbon dioxide concentrations in the trapped gases of many cores older than about 300 years hold remarkably constant over the last 7-8000 years of ice accumulation. This constancy is incompatible with other data, including that from other ice cores and from preserved Ginkgo leaf stomata, both indicating significant variation during that period. Stomata are pores through which a plant takes in carbon dioxide. They vary in size depending on the carbon dioxide concentration in the air, and preserved stomata suggest that carbon dioxide levels ranged between 270 and 326ppm over the last 7-8000 years.

I'm not even trying hard and I can find snippets of stuff like this.

Ah. Googling this sourced it to SEPP, here:

http://www.sepp.org/science-editorials.cfm?whichcat=Global Warming&whichsubcat=Ice Cores

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?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah. Googling this sourced it to SEPP, here:

http://www.sepp.org/science-editorials.cfm?whichcat=Global Warming&whichsubcat=Ice Cores

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?

What!!?? You are bad mouthing SEPP now? I am sure that they are a fair and unbiased source. They would not have any reason to do this except for the goodness of their own hearts. Right?



"S. Fred Singer has acknowledged that he has received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. He also acknowledged that SEPP is partially funded by Exxon, as reported by an article in The Heat is Online examining industry funding of the “greenhouse skeptics.” [3]"

http://www.desmogblog.com/science-and-environmental-policy-project

Oops, never mind.

 

[RickG]

Ah. Googling this sourced it to SEPP, here:

http://www.sepp.org/science-editorials.cfm?whichcat=Global Warming&whichsubcat=Ice Cores

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?

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.