It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How can young earth creationism stand up to ice core data?

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: starfoxxx

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: starfoxxx
The ice core data could be wrong.


The only way you would know it was "wrong" is if you conducted a similar study under the same initial conditions and came up with very different data. You didn't do that. So why make a statement that 1) you can't verify and 2) has such a low probability of being correct that it's statistically irrelevant???




OP asked a question i answered it...

Let me guess, you also believe the 'global warming' science... They said 20 years ago all the ice caps would be melted
by now... Science is not a religion, do not use it as one..


You didn't answer the question. All you said was that "it could be wrong". What's that supposed to mean? How does that answer the question??




posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: starfoxxx

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: starfoxxx
The ice core data could be wrong.


The only way you would know it was "wrong" is if you conducted a similar study under the same initial conditions and came up with very different data. You didn't do that. So why make a statement that 1) you can't verify and 2) has such a low probability of being correct that it's statistically irrelevant???





OP asked a question i answered it...

Let me guess, you also believe the 'global warming' science... They said 20 years ago all the ice caps would be melted
by now... Science is not a religion, do not use it as one..


You didn't answer the question. All you said was that "it could be wrong". What's that supposed to mean? How does that answer the question??


Pretty straight forward.... no need to explain what 'it could be wrong' means, if you do not get it.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: starfoxxx

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: starfoxxx
The ice core data could be wrong.


The only way you would know it was "wrong" is if you conducted a similar study under the same initial conditions and came up with very different data. You didn't do that. So why make a statement that 1) you can't verify and 2) has such a low probability of being correct that it's statistically irrelevant???




OP asked a question i answered it...


No you didn't. Answers have explanatory power.


Let me guess, you also believe the 'global warming' science... They said 20 years ago all the ice caps would be melted by now...


uproxx.files.wordpress.com...

en.wikipedia.org...


Science is not a religion, do not use it as one..


Science isn't a pick'n'mix where you get to choose which parts you like.
edit on 14-8-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: starfoxxx

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: starfoxxx

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: starfoxxx
The ice core data could be wrong.


The only way you would know it was "wrong" is if you conducted a similar study under the same initial conditions and came up with very different data. You didn't do that. So why make a statement that 1) you can't verify and 2) has such a low probability of being correct that it's statistically irrelevant???





OP asked a question i answered it...

Let me guess, you also believe the 'global warming' science... They said 20 years ago all the ice caps would be melted
by now... Science is not a religion, do not use it as one..


You didn't answer the question. All you said was that "it could be wrong". What's that supposed to mean? How does that answer the question??


Pretty straight forward.... no need to explain what 'it could be wrong' means, if you do not get it.



You suggested the possibility that the results are wrong. You haven't presented any evidence that there's even a remote possibility that the results are wrong. We have to assume that you don't know anything about the experiment or the results or you would have stated your case. Therefore, the OP's question is NOT answered in a logical, meaningful way.

In other words, you don't know jack "s" about the issue, but still think you answered the question. You need a few lessons in critical thinking.



edit on 14-8-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

I don't have the time of inclination to prove that ice core dating is inaccurate. I'm similarly disinclined to prove or disprove the young earth creation type theory's.

What I am sick of is having science shoved down my throat and passed off as irrefutable proof. What I am sick and tired of is people belittling others because of some perceived difference between science and religion.

Are we all so narrow minded here that we believe that science is somehow without fault and that religion is nothing but a collection of unprovable fairy tales? I have upheld my statement and shown that dating ice cores is based upon assumptions.

If the OP and any one else for that matter is able to address the issue objectively and without bias then it is not so difficult to see why some people may not have faith in ice core dating. It doesn't make them any less of a person then believing that ice core dating is infallible or somehow based upon infallible and provable science. The only true science is Math.

That being said, are we all so ignorant and desperate to argue and to prove our point of view to be correct, that we assume that there are only two options? What a ridiculous concept.



Antarctic Ice Cores The claims that layers of ice were formed 160,000 years ago or more come primarily from interpretation of ice cores in Antarctica . The Soviet Antarctic Expeditions at Vostok in East Antarctica recovered an ice core which was almost 7,000 feet long in a region where the total ice thickness is about 12,000 feet . Since the current precipitation rate is so much less than Greenland (on the order of one inch per year) the crude calculation of age, without corrections for compression and horizontal motion for the lowest layers is more than 100,000 years. However, such estimates are critically based on the assumption that the accumulation rate has not varied greatly over the past.


See there?

"However, such estimates are critically based on the assumption that the accumulation rate has not varied greatly over the past"

And this is a rather important point. It clearly says "Assumption" and b) Climate change is given. There is no way of proving that precipitation rates have remained consistent and no reason to believe that they have. Evidence shows that Antarctica used to be covered in tropical rainforest...



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: hudsonhawk69




Are we all so narrow minded here that we believe that science is somehow without fault and that religion is nothing but a collection of unprovable fairy tales?

Has anyone said that science is without fault?
On the other hand, is there any way to prove that religion is not anything but fairy tales?

Seems you've set up sort of a strawman false dichotomy. A double logical fallacy. Cool.

The interpretation of science is one thing. The data it presents is something else.
Religion, on the other hand... "God did it"...gets you nowhere but the middle ages.

edit on 8/15/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Actually I'm not wrong about "memory"... It's part of the "Universal law of radioactive decay"



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: hudsonhawk69




Are we all so narrow minded here that we believe that science is somehow without fault and that religion is nothing but a collection of unprovable fairy tales?

Has anyone said that science is without fault?
On the other hand, is there any way to prove that religion is not anything but fairy tales?

Seems you've set up sort of a strawman false dichotomy. A double logical fallacy. Cool.

The interpretation of science is one thing. The data it presents is something else.
Religion, on the other hand... "God did it"...gets you nowhere but the middle ages.


Good. So both agree then. I have supported my statement that ice core dating is based upon a whole host of assumption and we can all understand how other people may have issue with the accuracy of ice core dating.

Great everybody wins.

Since you bring it up many aspects of spirituality are now completely provable through quantum physics and I fail to see why the young earth theory should be any less believable than than ice core dating? You see that the young earth theory is based upon unprovable fairy tales and others see that ice core dating is based upon a host of equally unprovable scientific "beliefs".



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: hudsonhawk69




Good. So both agree then. I have supported my statement that ice core dating is based upon a whole host of assumption and we can all understand how other people may have issue with the accuracy of ice core dating.

I'm afraid we don't. I'm afraid you haven't. I'm afraid we can't.




Since you bring it up many aspects of spirituality are now completely provable through quantum physics
So. Have they been? Proven, I mean? Which ones?





edit on 8/15/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/15/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Phantom423

Actually I'm not wrong about "memory"... It's part of the "Universal law of radioactive decay"


The "memory" referred to in the universal law has to do with the mathematics of radioactive decay. A nucleus doesn't experience time. In other words, it doesn't age. And that fact is totally irrelevant to the OP's post. The fact that the nucleus does not age gives decay mathematics that much more validity when determining historical lifetimes.

You don't understand the physics. Give it up already.


edit on 15-8-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: hudsonhawk69




Are we all so narrow minded here that we believe that science is somehow without fault and that religion is nothing but a collection of unprovable fairy tales?

Has anyone said that science is without fault?
On the other hand, is there any way to prove that religion is not anything but fairy tales?

Seems you've set up sort of a strawman false dichotomy. A double logical fallacy. Cool.

The interpretation of science is one thing. The data it presents is something else.
Religion, on the other hand... "God did it"...gets you nowhere but the middle ages.


Good. So both agree then. I have supported my statement that ice core dating is based upon a whole host of assumption and we can all understand how other people may have issue with the accuracy of ice core dating.

Great everybody wins.

Since you bring it up many aspects of spirituality are now completely provable through quantum physics and I fail to see why the young earth theory should be any less believable than than ice core dating? You see that the young earth theory is based upon unprovable fairy tales and others see that ice core dating is based upon a host of equally unprovable scientific "beliefs".


If that's the case and you've supported your statement, then discuss why the 81Kr method which I posted above is wrong.
If the results of the experiment are an "assumption", give me your rationale and I'll write a letter to the authors of the paper. I'm sure they'll be very interested in your opinion.

In the meantime, you have shown absolutely nothing that would suggest that the results of ice core data are "assumptions". All you have done is avoid the science in favor of an irrational opinion that you can't back up with evidence.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   


What I am sick of is having science shoved down my throat and passed off as irrefutable proof. What I am sick and tired of is people belittling others because of some perceived difference between science and religion.
a reply to: hudsonhawk69


Science doesn't produce irrefutable proof. It's a process of discovery. And science is shoved down your throat every day - every time you turn the ignition on your car, when you open the refrigerator door (in your illiterate science world, you probably would open the door of the refrigerator to cool the room), light the stove, go for an MRI (which of course is entirely bogus in your world - remember spectroscopic methods of fossil dating are all wrong), take an aspirin for a headache (hell, we can't have any chemistry!!), turn on your computer and post on ATS (Hudsonhawk69 says to self: Hell I didn't realize I was contradicting my own arguments!!)

Ignorance might be bliss. But it is never the truth.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: hudsonhawk69




Good. So both agree then. I have supported my statement that ice core dating is based upon a whole host of assumption and we can all understand how other people may have issue with the accuracy of ice core dating.

I'm afraid we don't. I'm afraid you haven't. I'm afraid we can't.




Since you bring it up many aspects of spirituality are now completely provable through quantum physics
So. Have they been? Proven, I mean? Which ones?




Start a thread. Do some research. Find out.

Here however you could at least pretend to stay on topic.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: hudsonhawk69



Start a thread. Do some research. Find out.

On what? I have. What?


Here however you could at least pretend to stay on topic.
You're the one who brought up "aspects of spirituality."



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: hudsonhawk69






If the OP and any one else for that matter is able to address the issue objectively and without bias then it is not so difficult to see why some people may not have faith in ice core dating. It doesn't make them any less of a person then believing that ice core dating is infallible or somehow based upon infallible and provable science. The only true science is Math.


If the only true science is mathematics, then please explain why the ice core experiment violates the mathematics of radioactive decay.






posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: hudsonhawk69



Start a thread. Do some research. Find out.

On what? I have. What?


Here however you could at least pretend to stay on topic.
You're the one who brought up "aspects of spirituality."



I brought it up in respect to the OP's original question.

You seem to have to raised it simply to be argumentative.

I'm simply requesting that you stay on topic.

Start an appropriately titled thread and I will comment there...



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: hudsonhawk69






If the OP and any one else for that matter is able to address the issue objectively and without bias then it is not so difficult to see why some people may not have faith in ice core dating. It doesn't make them any less of a person then believing that ice core dating is infallible or somehow based upon infallible and provable science. The only true science is Math.


If the only true science is mathematics, then please explain why the ice core experiment violates the mathematics of radioactive decay.








You misunderstand me. 1 + 1 will always equal 2.

However what you are doing here is using math to try and justify a scientific theory or theories.

These are two completely different things.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

????????

Could you please explain your 'reasoning'?

The previous poster showed the mathematics to support her/his argument.

C'mon Kiwi, c'mon:



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

The ice core experiment is not a "theory". It's an experiment the results of which have been independently verified.

You haven't posted a single iota of evidence that the current model for radioactive decay is incorrect.

And BTW, mathematics is ALWAYS used to validate theories and hypotheses. That's why it was developed. So please correct your thinking on that.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Phantom423

Actually I'm not wrong about "memory"... It's part of the "Universal law of radioactive decay"


The "memory" referred to in the universal law has to do with the mathematics of radioactive decay. A nucleus doesn't experience time. In other words, it doesn't age. And that fact is totally irrelevant to the OP's post. The fact that the nucleus does not age gives decay mathematics that much more validity when determining historical lifetimes.

You don't understand the physics. Give it up already.



It's kind of comical. They don't understand basic physics, yet champion things like theoretical physics as proof. I think this guy has been reading too many creationist sites.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join