Dat Noah Flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-04-2015, 01:02 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(14-04-2015 11:50 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 09:18 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  For example, not one post in this 26-long pages of thread (unless I missed it) addressed my point re: the Greenland Ice Core research--that once you are taking cores of compacted snowfall, there is no way to determine the age of such snowfall, and therefore uniformitarian assumptions regarding a very old Earth are employed.

BS I answered it in great detail here:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid759674

You are spouting more ignorance of the facts as usual. We CAN determine the age of the ice cores, what caused each ring and how long ago. Read the post, click the link. You are smarter than this Q, I just know it.

With respect, that post debunked the comment I made regarding a buried plane. There is nothing at all on that page that shows how the ice core reviewers determined the age of the ice core shown.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 01:07 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(14-04-2015 05:05 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(02-04-2015 10:22 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Actually, there are thousands of webpages online debunking uniformitarian science and a very old Earth.
(13-04-2015 01:49 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Interesting points all--where to drill for oil, however, has nothing to do with how ice cores are reviewed--just look at the post nearby where a skeptic says, "Gee, is it really impossible to determine the age of snow/ice"?

Yes, beyond 2,000 years without adding assumption to assumption--we know Greenland must be millions of years old so we must be looking at 800,000 years of snowfall.

Then we have to assume multiple ice ages and receding snow. Say there is an average of 7 feet of snowfall in Greenland per annum. You can imagine what 800,000 years of snowfall would be without the ice and snow receding as well.

We know that incorrect first premises lead to incorrect conclusions.

Q, my commentary was about uniformitarianism. I didn't specifically address ice core data. It's not a specific area of expertise for me therefore I little to contribute to that topic. I have a general understanding of how ice cores are counted and I understand the error margins for the counts are fairly well understood - and that these account for a few percentage points of error rather than the mountain of error you seem to require to come to your conclusions. Tree ring data is counted in roughly the same way and also goes back well beyond most creation models based on Genesis.

The real point here though is that what you are willing to dismiss with a wave of your hand is knowledge carefully obtained, measured, and tested. It is not a guess or one person's account. It is a range of interconnected fields producing consistent results that verify each others' predictions and which consistently conflict with the models you are working from. Nor is this some global conspiracy to stick it Christianity, but rather many good Christian men gathered the data and fearlessly followed it to conclusions that spun their faith into an entirely new context. This has been consistently the case for at least a hundred years now close to two hundred years, and this was not driven by some idle speculation or desire to destroy someone's worldview but by the cold hard dollar. Being right about these things has been and continues to be vital to the way our global economy runs. We simply cannot afford to be wrong or ignorant on these subjects.

As much as a man like Ken Ham is proud to don his biblical glasses and let conflicting information bounce off his visor never to interrupt his certainty, I hope that a man such as yourself can one day consider and evaluate the evidence on its merits rather than on its fit to his existing beliefs. If there is a god I would hope he is trustworthy enough for the evidence we find of our world's history can be trusted. Sure we must assume that what we see and find in this world was not planted by a devil, but what good god would allow us to be deceived by such tricks? What good god would present evidence in an old book alongside evidence we can see and touch with our own hands and say "you must trust the old book over all of the other evidence I have given you, or you will burn"? Or worse: "you must trust a particular interpretation of the old book over all of the other evidence I have given you. You must trust the word of Ham over the evidence of God.".

I'm not dismissing anything with a hand wave. I take very seriously the immense, weighty scholarship that goes into the age of the Earth and all that goes along with that. I understand I sound like a crank to go against the scholarship--then again, the Bible says non-Christians get discouraged/disgusted by the news that Jesus saves and they cannot save themselves. However, I'm restating--people drilled down into the ice core of Greenland. After 2,000 years of snowfall, the layer of permafrost beneath is too compacted by weight to do much other than to drill a core and look at it, and say something like, "Look at all the dust/soil inside. This must be X years old." I'll ask you although neither of us are experts in ice core work:

What other known samples of ice cores that are over 2,000 years old did they use for a control sample(s)?

Since no one can use a time machine to go back 800,000 years, on what basis(es) did they date the ice cores?

And yes, the age of the Greenland ice core might affect further assumptions about gas deposits somewhere under the Greenland shelf--but is hardly the matter of grave importance you make it to be. I'm also trying to "ease off" the Greenland stuff about the ice, but people here take it as proof positive that there was no Flood.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2015, 05:33 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(14-04-2015 01:07 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  What other known samples of ice cores that are over 2,000 years old did they use for a control sample(s)?

Since no one can use a time machine to go back 800,000 years, on what basis(es) did they date the ice cores?

So, your position is basically "Since we can't go back and prove that assumptions hold up that far back, we can't really know if science works how we think it does... but I totally am going to put stock in a book that makes numerous unobserved, unrepeatable claims of magic"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RobbyPants's post
15-04-2015, 08:59 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(15-04-2015 05:33 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(14-04-2015 01:07 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  What other known samples of ice cores that are over 2,000 years old did they use for a control sample(s)?

Since no one can use a time machine to go back 800,000 years, on what basis(es) did they date the ice cores?

So, your position is basically "Since we can't go back and prove that assumptions hold up that far back, we can't really know if science works how we think it does... but I totally am going to put stock in a book that makes numerous unobserved, unrepeatable claims of magic"?

You gotta admit, it's a bit charming how hard he's had to try to find something entirely unfalsifiable to stick to. I can't prove the Earth wasn't created last Thursday, either.

CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
15-04-2015, 11:26 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
http://www.icecores.org/index.shtml

I checked out the first web sight on Google it is the National Ice Core Laboratory. They have a few pictures about the different methods they use to get these samples. That then lead me to http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=126761 that talked about resent findings of greenhouse gases that had trapped themselves in these different layers. And how the newest methods from abstract these core samples are able to determinant much more accurate time scales.

Amazing what one can find when you don't have your head stuck up your ass.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Commonsensei's post
15-04-2015, 02:02 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(15-04-2015 11:26 AM)Commonsensei Wrote:  http://www.icecores.org/index.shtml

I checked out the first web sight on Google it is the National Ice Core Laboratory. They have a few pictures about the different methods they use to get these samples. That then lead me to http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=126761 that talked about resent findings of greenhouse gases that had trapped themselves in these different layers. And how the newest methods from abstract these core samples are able to determinant much more accurate time scales.

Amazing what one can find when you don't have your head stuck up your ass.

I looked at your post, and thank you for posting it--but it is recording data from far less than 300,000 years, and it is determining the dates of the compacted snowfall by looking at greenhouse gases trapped within. Determining the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere becomes a little circular in logic because rates would affect the number of presumed ice ages and vice versa, right?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2015, 02:10 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(15-04-2015 05:33 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(14-04-2015 01:07 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  What other known samples of ice cores that are over 2,000 years old did they use for a control sample(s)?

Since no one can use a time machine to go back 800,000 years, on what basis(es) did they date the ice cores?

So, your position is basically "Since we can't go back and prove that assumptions hold up that far back, we can't really know if science works how we think it does... but I totally am going to put stock in a book that makes numerous unobserved, unrepeatable claims of magic"?

That is not my position. A better statement of my position is:

Scientists are making assumptions and data varies widely. These are not tree rings. These are trapped dust particles (and as cited this week, greenhouse gases) being used to set dates--which dates fluctuate based on assumptions regarding the length and number of ice ages! Using ice cores to validate/invalidate ice age theory has some practical applications but also some circular "traps".

Here's the problem as I see it perceptually. On another thread where we participate, I'm being told that clearly since the Law of Conservation of Matter would be violated by a universe appearing from a Big Bang or a Steady State or a Singularity of some type, that it is wrong from a naturalist's viewpoint to assume the Law is always in force. At some point, the Law must have been suspended. Okay...

...Then we come to this thread where I bring forth the point that uniformitarian assumptions are assumptions regarding steady, unchanging rates of growth, rates of change, rates of decay... that couldn't possibly ever change regarding recent catastrophism... not a level playing field here at TTA, especially as we all know a catastrophe might help explain mass extinction(s) in the fossil record.

Again, if there is a lot/little of greenhouse gas inside an ice core we can make assumptions about a period of global heating/global cooling. What about volcanism? What about a catastrophe and etc.?

I'm asking us to consider how to interpret the data involved if there was a Flood. Could that be responsible for an ice age to follow and then we look at the data differently? Again, once you get past about 2,000 years of snowfall it is compacted snow.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2015, 06:12 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(15-04-2015 02:10 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Here's the problem as I see it perceptually. On another thread where we participate, I'm being told that clearly since the Law of Conservation of Matter would be violated by a universe appearing from a Big Bang or a Steady State or a Singularity of some type, that it is wrong from a naturalist's viewpoint to assume the Law is always in force. At some point, the Law must have been suspended. Okay...

That's a different topic, but there is a lot of evidence showing that the universe originated from some location 14ish billion years ago. A lot of it. Even if we can't explain all the specifics of how it started, that doesn't mean we throw the whole thing out.

Also, how is this violating conservation of matter? You're not summing this up as "everything from nothing", are you?


(15-04-2015 02:10 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  ...Then we come to this thread where I bring forth the point that uniformitarian assumptions are assumptions regarding steady, unchanging rates of growth, rates of change, rates of decay... that couldn't possibly ever change regarding recent catastrophism... not a level playing field here at TTA, especially as we all know a catastrophe might help explain mass extinction(s) in the fossil record.

Do you have any compelling reason to believe that we shouldn't hold observable assumptions to be true?


(15-04-2015 02:10 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm asking us to consider how to interpret the data involved if there was a Flood. Could that be responsible for an ice age to follow and then we look at the data differently?

What if there wasn't a flood? How do you interpret it then? You're using circular reasoning to boot strap your way to evidence. This is literally "But if there was a flood, could the evidence be interpreted to say that there was a flood?".


(15-04-2015 02:10 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  IAgain, once you get past about 2,000 years of snowfall it is compacted snow.

Are you saying there was a flood 2,000 years ago? I'm not sure what this means.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2015, 07:26 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
I've seen you decry young Earth creationists on another thread as "unintellectual", but here you are on this thread parroting a young Earth creationist argument for how the ice cores can't be as old as the evidence points to. How do paleontologists arrive at their estimates for the age of our ancestors? Do you think that maybe a similar methodology was used in the ice core data? Do you accept the paleontologists estimates but reject the climatologists methods using similar methodologies?

It's obvious you are depending on Michael J Oard's nonsensical article found here:

Ice Cores vs the Flood


Here's an excellent article that addresses all of the points creationists try to use to cast doubt on ice core ages:

The GISP2 Ice Core: Ultimate Proof that Noah’s Flood Was Not Global

I will use this quote from Seely's article:

Quote:Oard concludes by saying that uniformitarian scientists base their interpretation of the oscillations as annual “on their long-ages model with an ice sheet in equilibrium for several million years” and thus “manage to ‘squeak out’
110,000 years of ‘annual’ cycles by using several parameters.”
Against this interpretation he sets forth “the creationist young-earth model, including a rapid ice age.”41 Thus Oard would have his readers believe that it is
all just a matter of which model one follows. There is a particle of truth in this for some cores other than GISP2 and for the bottom of GISP2 below the 110,000 annual layers; but it is a false and misleading statement with regard to
the 110,000 annual layers counted in the upper part of the GISP2 core, which are not dependent upon a model. In addition, Oard’s young-earth model is essentially
just speculation. It does not have the extensive empirical foundation that underlies the dating of the GISP2 ice core.
As explained and documented above, there is good empirical evidence showing that the light bubbly hoar layers, the heavier dust concentrations, and the greater electrical conductivity of the summer layers are indeed annual, and not from storms or sub-annual differences.
If they had not been annual, they would not have correlated chronologically with the dates of historically known volcanic eruptions and there is no objective evidence indicating that they changed from being annual to being sub-annual indicators.

I will emphasize again, Ooard's entire article at answersingenesis is speculation with no evidence!

I will also emphasize again, you yourself decry the unintellectual thinking of young-Earth creationists, yet you are using their arguments!

Who do you think you are fooling here? Certainly not any of us, we don't doubt actual science backed up with evidence, yet you casually toss aside any evidence against this myth for young-Earth creationist speculation THAT HAS NO EVIDENCE!

This whole thread has been a demonstration of the utter failure of creationists to cast aside science for their presuppositional speculation, this thread has been a demonstration of your inability to accept science and evidence that falsifies the flood myth.

The entire book of Genesis is simply a Babylonian myth regurgitated by ancient Hebrews to spin the Babylonian creation/flood/Tower of Babel myths as their own story. They are plagiarizers, plain and simple. Their myths, and the Babylonian myth that they copied, are all false and science puts the lie to any notion that these ancient myths have any real truth to them.

You seem very much at peace with people that use devious methods to pervert what science says about these things, you accept some things that science says and reject other things, based only on your desire to believe.

When you actually realize that people like Ooard are liars and you get tired and even angry about being lied to, then perhaps you can go beyond these childish fantasies, but until you realize that these creationist goofs are playing you like a fiddle, you will spin in these delusions like a pig on a spit.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheInquisition's post
16-04-2015, 09:39 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(16-04-2015 06:12 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(15-04-2015 02:10 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Here's the problem as I see it perceptually. On another thread where we participate, I'm being told that clearly since the Law of Conservation of Matter would be violated by a universe appearing from a Big Bang or a Steady State or a Singularity of some type, that it is wrong from a naturalist's viewpoint to assume the Law is always in force. At some point, the Law must have been suspended. Okay...

That's a different topic, but there is a lot of evidence showing that the universe originated from some location 14ish billion years ago. A lot of it. Even if we can't explain all the specifics of how it started, that doesn't mean we throw the whole thing out.

Also, how is this violating conservation of matter? You're not summing this up as "everything from nothing", are you?


(15-04-2015 02:10 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  ...Then we come to this thread where I bring forth the point that uniformitarian assumptions are assumptions regarding steady, unchanging rates of growth, rates of change, rates of decay... that couldn't possibly ever change regarding recent catastrophism... not a level playing field here at TTA, especially as we all know a catastrophe might help explain mass extinction(s) in the fossil record.

Do you have any compelling reason to believe that we shouldn't hold observable assumptions to be true?


(15-04-2015 02:10 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm asking us to consider how to interpret the data involved if there was a Flood. Could that be responsible for an ice age to follow and then we look at the data differently?

What if there wasn't a flood? How do you interpret it then? You're using circular reasoning to boot strap your way to evidence. This is literally "But if there was a flood, could the evidence be interpreted to say that there was a flood?".


(15-04-2015 02:10 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  IAgain, once you get past about 2,000 years of snowfall it is compacted snow.

Are you saying there was a flood 2,000 years ago? I'm not sure what this means.

A more recent solar system does not violate my belief that the universe is approx. 14B years old.

Quote:Also, how is this violating conservation of matter? You're not summing this up as "everything from nothing", are you?

Isn't it a mere semantics difference to say the Law says matter or energy may not be created or destroyed so it had to be introduced into this space/time via a catalyst? Our two choices are 1) intelligent design 2) mechanical process - which process or designer MUST violate the Law or there is no matter or energy in the present universe!

Quote:Do you have any compelling reason to believe that we shouldn't hold observable assumptions to be true?

Yes, the fact that people on this thread keep saying "The Law of Conservation as observed currently cannot be assumed to always hold true"!

**No, I'm not saying the Flood was 2,000 years ago. I'm saying that scientists, whether religious or skeptics as individuals, agree that we can accurately look at permafrost and date it to 2,000 years and then the weight of all that snowfall compacts the ice core so utterly that--wait for it--we must then make some assumptions regarding the data for the ice beneath/older than the most recent 2,000 years. In this case, the Greenland permafrost is "800,000 years old because we feel that..." now, what happens if we prove that over a number of ice ages, the area where the core was measured at one point was melted utterly? Then you'll see a note on a website, "scientists re-date ice core age to 400,000 years..."

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: