Any Yec's Care To Explain

[Canada 0]

How we get 800,000+ years of history from ice that can only be 6000 years old?Linky

[FOOSE1 0]

How we get 800,000+ years of history from ice that can only be 6000 years old?Linky

Same argument . . . how do we know that it is 800,000+ years of history? . . . answer . . . we don't. Nor do we know that it is only 6,000 years old. There . . . I ended the argument for both sides in post . . .

[Canada 0]

Same argument . . . how do we know that it is 800,000+ years of history? . . . answer . . . we don't. Nor do we know that it is only 6,000 years old. There . . . I ended the argument for both sides in post . . .

Hardly.The people doing the research can tell you exactly how you measure the age of an ice core.The long and short of it is that it is similar to rings on a tree and is clearly defined.In fact it is repeatable, measurable, predicatable and therefore provable beyond reasonable doubt.To suggest otherwise is not very realistic

[dimseven 0]

Same argument . . . how do we know that it is 800,000+ years of history? . . . answer . . . we don't. Nor do we know that it is only 6,000 years old. There . . . I ended the argument for both sides in post . . .

JS

[DonkSlayer 1]

Hardly.The people doing the research can tell you exactly how you measure the age of an ice core.The long and short of it is that it is similar to rings on a tree and is clearly defined.In fact it is repeatable, measurable, predicatable and therefore provable beyond reasonable doubt.To suggest otherwise is not very realistic

Wait, I agree with scientists quite a bit of the time, but this bit of science is a little gray. What do your terms mean in this situation?Repeatable: I can find many examples of "old" ice that have similar traits.Measurable: I've assigned a "value" to each sample.Predictable: The repeatables and measurables are consistent within the samples.BUT:I've found many samples, so this is "repeatable"...but I haven't proven a control group. I cannot travel into the past.Measurable: I had to create a system of measure before I applied it to the samples, so I cannot be sure it is accurate or merely a guess or figment.Predictable: Consistencies continue to show up, but conclusions/causation do not come from consistences, only correlation. Am I off here or do you need to be more specific, Canada?

[Canada 0]

Wait, I agree with scientists quite a bit of the time, but this bit of science is a little gray. What do your terms mean in this situation?Repeatable: I can find many examples of "old" ice that have similar traits.Measurable: I've assigned a "value" to each sample.Predictable: The repeatables and measurables are consistent within the samples.BUT:I've found many samples, so this is "repeatable"...but I haven't proven a control group. I cannot travel into the past.Measurable: I had to create a system of measure before I applied it to the samples, so I cannot be sure it is accurate or merely a guess or figment.Predictable: Consistencies continue to show up, but conclusions/causation do not come from consistences, only correlation. Am I off here or do you need to be more specific, Canada?

Thanks for a response with some thoughtThere are a number of methods for dating ice cores, but I'll just refer to the simplest which is counting the annual layers.These are measurable in the sense that can be seen, but more importantly can be measured by their Oxygen 18 to Oxygen 16 ratios which vary based on seasonal temperature fluctuations. Also to avoid the problems of 'warm winters' and 'cold summers' they can be measured using (ir?)radiation markers which I am less familiar with. I beleive that there are elements in the upper atmoshpere that are more/less prevelant when solar radiation is higher/lower. So when the polar regions are in winter it sees no sun and the prevelance changes giving you another seasonal cycle.As I said there are other methods for measuring cores that are used to corroborate results, but I think I've answered the measurable component.The results are predictable in 2 directions. Firstly you can choise a point, place a mark and come back in x number of years. If you take climatic measurements for that time you can then predict what the 'contents' of the ice core will be. Conversely if you examine the ice core you can predict what the climate measurements will show. Given that we have sufficient documented climate records for a number (read hundreds) of years and the measurements from the cores match it is safe to say we have made and confirmed predictions.The repeatablity I mention means that we still have seasons and we still have layers being created as we speak so we can repeat the measurement and prediction process any time now and in the future to confirm their accuracy.You could also use your example of extra sample sets as you don't have to travel into the past if historical data exists to help predict your expected results.Obviously we don't have accurate climatic data going back 800,000 years on a detailed scale but this is where inference kicks in. If you can show n and demonstrate that n+1 holds based on n at some point you can accept a truth. Like the tree rings I mentioned before, you take a core and count the rings of a tree and it matches its age in years. (if you know when the tree was planted you can also make the prediction of how many rings there will be) You then come back for 100 years and take another core and each year there is 1 more ring. You eventually end up with a tree that looks like swiss cheese and solid evidence that trees add a ring each year.Hope that helps explain my statements

[LongLiveYorke 38]

This is also 1 small piece of evidence out of an entire planet's worth. It's really not even close. Nice post, Canada. Yours are always so thorough and well backed. Keep it up.

[DonkSlayer 1]

This is also 1 small piece of evidence out of an entire planet's worth. It's really not even close. Nice post, Canada. Yours are always so thorough and well backed. Keep it up.

This is the real point, I suppose. I think ice sucks in the "consistency" department, and I'd much rather be sold on something radioactive decaying at a constant. I don't disbelieve you, though. Funny, because in the Christian denomination I was brought up in, I was never taught to even consider that the 7 days of genesis meant 7 days, and that our own time measurements were equal to those mentioned in the old testament or that actually took place. Surreal how it's so close at some points and very far in others.

[Canada 0]

This is also 1 small piece of evidence out of an entire planet's worth. It's really not even close. Nice post, Canada. Yours are always so thorough and well backed. Keep it up.

Many thanks. The respect is mutual B)

This is the real point, I suppose. I think ice sucks in the "consistency" department, and I'd much rather be sold on something radioactive decaying at a constant. I don't disbelieve you, though.

Would it help if I told you that radioactive dating was one of the other methods that I mentioned but didn't mention?I'm reasonably (80%) sure this is the case

[mcsoupman 0]

Canada, thanks for the question. Part of the problem lies in the fact that it is hard to know precipitation rates each year. Some planes from WWII were found after 50 years under over 250 ft of ice. At that rate it would take only a few thousand years to build even the depths talked about in the article. It is hard to know just how much precipication was received in each area and for that long of period. If we are experiencing global warming then we could expect less precipitation now and therefore ice formations today than just 200 years ago.

[Canada 0]

Canada, thanks for the question. Part of the problem lies in the fact that it is hard to know precipitation rates each year. Some planes from WWII were found after 50 years under over 250 ft of ice. At that rate it would take only a few thousand years to build even the depths talked about in the article. It is hard to know just how much precipication was received in each area and for that long of period. If we are experiencing global warming then we could expect less precipitation now and therefore ice formations today than just 200 years ago.

Precipitation is irrelevant to the banding. Because the bands are visually and chemically different, if you have more snow/rain in one year you simply get bigger bands. So 100 years of ice could be 12 inches thick or it could be 200 ft thick, you would still have 100 distinct bands.It is the same with the trees. In a good year with a lot of rain the tree will grow more and the ring for that year will be thicker, however it is still clearly identifiable as a ring for a single year.

[Sluggo 0]

Canada, thanks for the question. Part of the problem lies in the fact that it is hard to know precipitation rates each year. Some planes from WWII were found after 50 years under over 250 ft of ice. At that rate it would take only a few thousand years to build even the depths talked about in the article. It is hard to know just how much precipication was received in each area and for that long of period. If we are experiencing global warming then we could expect less precipitation now and therefore ice formations today than just 200 years ago.

Is it possible to believe in global warming and a young Earth simultaneously?

[Balloon guy 158]

Is it possible to believe in global warming and a young Earth simultaneously?

You believe in global warming and you imply Christians of being wrong in their conclusions?Kettle meet Pot.... Pot, Kettle.And OP, Straw man argument. The ice isn't 800,000 years old, it's 4,300 years old

[Sluggo 0]

You believe in global warming and you imply Christians of being wrong in their conclusions?

Where did I say I believed in global warming? Where did I imply Christians were wrong in their conclusions?I merely asked if it was possible to believe in the science of global warming (which uses data and natural cycles over 6,000 years old) and believe in an Earth younger than 6,000 years at the same time.

Kettle meet Pot.... Pot, Kettle.And OP, Straw man argument. The ice isn't 800,000 years old, it's 4,300 years old

A straw man is misrepresenting an opponent's side. How does pointing out the number of ice layers do that?Or are you saying that calling the ice 6,000 years old is wrong because it's only 4,300 years old?

[Balloon guy 158]

Where did I say I believed in global warming? Where did I imply Christians were wrong in their conclusions?I merely asked if it was possible to believe in the science of global warming (which uses data and natural cycles over 6,000 years old) and believe in an Earth younger than 6,000 years at the same time.A straw man is misrepresenting an opponent's side. How does pointing out the number of ice layers do that?Or are you saying that calling the ice 6,000 years old is wrong because it's only 4,300 years old?

Glad you admit global warming is bogus.Quoted from Dennis Miller:I guess I just don't put much stock in the belief that in 1805 Obadiah and Nehamiah were very careful when they slid that candle wick down the gopher hole and got a reliable reading of the temprature of the earth's magma to use as a benchmark for future generations.

[Sluggo 0]

Another straw man!Where did I admit global warming is bogus???(I will admit that I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" and it was stupid)

[Balloon guy 158]

Another straw man!Where did I admit global warming is bogus???(I will admit that I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" and it was stupid)

So you admit that Bush was the better choice in 2000?

[Sluggo 0]

No. I admit that I didn't like "An Inconvenient Truth."

[DonkSlayer 1]

Global warming isn't bogus. In the short-term, it has gotten warmer.What's bogus is coming to the conclusion that it wouldn't have gotten warmer if humans didn't act like they did/do as far as pollution, and that we can somehow stop something if we made changes so abrupt that it would be catastrophic to the world economy.

[Sluggo 0]

The economy would be damaged in the short term. In the long run, it would actually help the economy. Anyway, the economy isn't an end in itself.I really dislike environmentalists who are like "let's the save the fish because they are cute." The reason we need fish quotas is so that we can save the fishing industry and continue to harvest fish as a resource.

[Canada 0]

And OP, Straw man argument. The ice isn't 800,000 years old, it's 4,300 years old

I'm guessing you are not familiar with what a straw man argument is. You know, a debate is a little bit like a game of poker. If you don't bring anything to the table you are not wanted

[the shank 0]

theres no point in trying to reason with christians. as you can see they will say that the earth is flat and 6 thousand years old and that evolution never happened. even ppl with down syndrome dont say anything that stupid.

[Canada 0]

theres no point in trying to reason with christians. as you can see they will say that the earth is flat and 6 thousand years old and that evolution never happened. even ppl with down syndrome dont say anything that stupid.

Actually the point of this thread is to show that every aspect of life points to an Earth that is older than 6000 years. All too often these discussions end in an Creationism vs Evolution debate that has been done to death.I thought it would be interesting to see if any YEC's could show reasons why other observed evidence was faulty and not just focus on Darwin.That said as no-one has countered the evidence for ice-cores other than to say 'its not true nah-nah-nah', I'll take it as read that you can't and move onto the next. (Feel free to go back to the ice-cores at any stage if you come up with something)Do we have any (rational) explainations for light from supernovae taking 400 million years to reach us.Oh, and don't bother with Humphreys. He has already been shown to be wrong by countless others.Linky

[DonkSlayer 1]

Interesting article:Science FrustratingBasically, we're still getting things right/clarified. Like with Pluto. Science is great because it always questions itself...doesn't ever get conservative and say "this is the way it happens and it's unquestionable."Doesn't really help one side or the other in this argument, j/s. I would hope that people who believe humanity has figured it all out would be much more willing to say "Well, maybe." when somebody makes what they think is an off-the-wall claim, and those who are deeply religious would cut science some slack when it's been misguided but willing to correct itself.

[Oneeydjaq 0]

Ice is cold.