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

Someone prove to me that the earth didn't start last Thursday with all the age and history as part of that beginning.

The bottom line is you can't prove the past, only what is happening right now.

There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago.

My biggest problem with proving history, is proving the present. For example, I do not get involved in politics but I watched the debates last night. After the debates, I saw a reporter on CNN calling all 17 people extremists. WTF? She must be on a different planet, because I might not agree with certain points of views, but I saw nothing that they said that could be called extremism.

So if we have retarded idiots like that making stupid baseless assumptions about today's news, how the heck could we expect any objective insight on archaeology from thousands of years ago? It's just pathetic.

originally posted by: [post=19670798]TheChrome[/post

So if we have retarded idiots like that making stupid baseless assumptions about today's news, how the heck could we expect any objective insight on archaeology from thousands of years ago? It's just pathetic.

*shakes head*
*hair flies all over the place*
(no wonder I'm balding).

"I know, right? I mean, like because we can't comment on opinion as stated and recorded we have such a biased (*read: non-Christian) view of what was occurring because the scientific method is obviously failed and all the archaeologists are obviously paid shills via the Smithsonian and their basement is ever-expanding and they prefer to keep things there ad infinitum rather than destroy them outright...

...sorry, who was it you were referring to as : direct quote: "retarded idiots"?

You're a #ing fool.

originally posted by: CB328

Why do atheists/evolutionists think the bible says the earth was created 6000 years ago?

You must be new to the forum. At least half the people here are Christian fundamentalists and many of them believe the young earth theory.

Young Earth followers and Creationists are also hypocrites. The same science that they use every day, particularly in the area of medicine, is the same science methodology that is used to determine the age of fossils, the Earth or how long a person who shows up at the morgue is dead. They have no problem getting an MRI or an xRay. But when it comes to their crackpot religion, immediately they do a 180 degree and deny that it works.
Inexplicable? No. Hypocrisy? Yes.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Ok,I mispoke about it being strictly our perception of time, however it is basically the same thing. Human perception of time would be different depending on where we are. You are correct about that, but you still ignored the rest of my post which talked about how we would notice an expansion as fast as you are claiming. You only responded to my very first line, the rest was dead on.

Using relativity to suggest young earth creationism is a bit over the edge. That would indicate super fast expansion, and we would be able to measure this fast expansion on a yearly basis in order to cram 13.8 billion years into 6000. It would be a HUGE difference. Unfortunately there is no evidence that it is expanding THAT fast.

Just keep in mind that the way we experience time on earth is the standard we use to calculate the age of the universe. Watching the expansion from outside of the universe or away from an object of large mass, would mean a different standard of calculation. It wouldn't mean that our calculations were wrong. They apply to earth time.

You suggested that all rates were slower because matter was more condensed, but the earth hasn't changed in that manner, it has been separate from the rest for a long time. What you are talking about is more about the super dense singularity that likely existed prior to the big bang. If all matter was expanding as fast as you suggest, we would be able to measure that, but the earth density has not really changed since it was formed because it already expanded away from the other matter. If you think earth was more dense, then you need evidence.

Also from my understanding it's not just about being condensed it's about the total mass and density. If the earth was more condensed years ago, then why would it have higher mass if it didn't contain other matter as well? If I'm wrong about this, please show me the science. It sounds like you are mixing up concepts, but I admit when I'm wrong, something I doubt you would ever consider despite posting tons of demonstrably wrong things about evolution over the years.

debunked? probably not... Dismissed? what's new????

Have you even read the post I am referring to? It was debunked. If you've got an argument against it, please make one. Planes crashing into the ice and getting snowed on for 40 years does not prove anything about ice core data.

originally posted by: TheChrome
No, I don't think atheists believe that, but atheists quote people who are not knowledgeable about science and the bible. If I did not have my knowledge of the bible, I would be atheist myself. As I stated, nowhere does the bible indicate the earth is 6000 years old. It can be proven, by the speed of light, that the farthest object we as humans have observed via telescope, is billions of years old. (It takes that long for the light to travel here to earth) So the time frame in which God created such galaxies, must also be that old. That does not contradict the time frame of "the creative days" mentioned in the bible.

I agree with you completely. This is why the "atheists" and others that understand science try to debunk that notion. I don't think there is any justification for the young earth view and the bible definitely does not make that claim, but people still champion the cause, so most of us try to debunk it and set the record straight. Most Christians are rational people and do not generally subscribe to YEC, that is more a fringe group in the bible belt. I'm agnostic, I don't know whether god exists and I'm content not knowing. What I do know is that I have not seen any objective evidence for a creator, so my view remains neutral until I do.

originally posted by: TheChrome
So if we have retarded idiots like that making stupid baseless assumptions about today's news, how the heck could we expect any objective insight on archaeology from thousands of years ago? It's just pathetic.

I think it's a little bit flawed to assume that because media anchors and reporters are idiots, that scientists are wrong about the past. Politics and media is a completely different beast than science and experiments. I agree with you to a certain extent about written history, much of it is obviously biased, but not scientific history.

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: [post=19670798]TheChrome[/post

So if we have retarded idiots like that making stupid baseless assumptions about today's news, how the heck could we expect any objective insight on archaeology from thousands of years ago? It's just pathetic.

*shakes head*
*hair flies all over the place*
(no wonder I'm balding).

"I know, right? I mean, like because we can't comment on opinion as stated and recorded we have such a biased (*read: non-Christian) view of what was occurring because the scientific method is obviously failed and all the archaeologists are obviously paid shills via the Smithsonian and their basement is ever-expanding and they prefer to keep things there ad infinitum rather than destroy them outright...

...sorry, who was it you were referring to as : direct quote: "retarded idiots"?

You're a #ing fool.

Perhaps you and I are different. I generally don't consider a person an extremist just because they have a different viewpoint or opinion. As I said, I do not take sides in politics, so objectively I watched a crazy woman on CNN call all the folks in the debates Extremists. If you think I am a fool for allowing differences of opinion, without calling people extremist, well I am glad to be called such by you.

Nice to see that every criationist ignored my post. I also agree, it's hard to argue against arguments when your only source of information is a silly book.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Don't keep us in suspense! What exactly are these assumptions you allude to.

The most obvious thing would be the assumption that the climate has remained consistent. A major melt would be undetectable. The theory of dating ice cores is based on the assumption that it snows EVERY year. And so on and so forth.

You're a genius... Figure it out.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Pretty much everything you just said was completely wrong.

Nobody in science claims that the climate of earth has remained consistent. It has been changing since the earth first formed. In fact "change" is the only thing consistent about the environment.

A major melt would be undetectable? Why do you say that? You do realize geologists can find evidence of past floods, right? They can tell if the layers have melted Do you honestly believe they just go down there and count rings?

The theory of dating ice cores is based on the assumption that it snows EVERY year.

Probably the worst argument I've ever read in regards to this. It doesn't even warrant a response. You are going to need to back up your claims. If you are going to attack something, at least familiarize yourself with the science behind it instead of pulling arguments out of thin air.

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
It can't. Unfortunately I rank the young earth believers about the same as those who believe the earth is flat.

It's just ridiculous frankly.

and yet they wield extraordinary power in federal, state, and local governments

a reply to: Barcs

This outlines some of the problems...

Here

The insults are unnecessary.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69


Ice Core Basics

Other ice-core uses

The vertical profile of an ice core gives information on the past surface temperature at that location[6]. In Greenland, glass shard layers from volcanic eruptions (tephra) are preserved in ice cores. The tephra ejected in each volcanic eruption has a unique geochemical signature, and large eruptions projecting tephra high into the atmosphere results in a very wide distribution of ash. These tephra layers are therefore independent maker horizons; geochemically identical tephra in two different ice cores indicate a time-synchronous event. They both relate to a single volcanic eruption. Tephra is therefore essential for correlating between ice cores, peat bogs, marine sediment cores, and anywhere else where tephra is preserved[12, 13].

...and cetera.

...and here...

Ice cores provide information about past climate and environmental conditions on timescales from decades to hundreds of millennia, as well as direct records of the composition of the atmosphere. As such, they are the cornerstones of global change research. For example, ice cores can play a central role in showing how closely climate and greenhouse gas concentrations were linked in the past, and in demonstrating that very abrupt climate switches can occur.

...but feel free to rebut decades of research in a few minutes or hours.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs

This outlines some of the problems...

Here

Could you actually illustrate what YOU believe the problems are with dating ice core samples. You're a genius so it should be an easy task to actually explain your own position instead of sending people on a snipe hunt, right? It's not really a conversation or discussion if you're not willing to articulate your own case.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

If it's an insult to tell you that you are wrong, and that you are coming from an unscientific position of ignorance, then I don't know what to say. The link you just posted supports ice core data, it doesn't claim it's unreliable or that facts are assumed. I don't see the problems you refer to. Can you at least quote them?

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs

This outlines some of the problems...

Here

The insults are unnecessary.

You're article is far behind the curve. First of all, the article is addressing Immanuel Velikovsky's 1950 publication "Worlds in Collision". He says very little about ice core dating methodology. In addition, the article you linked was written in 1995 - very far behind the curve.

Ice core dating is currently done using krypton, which is a noble gas with a half life of about 230,000 years. It's very stable and doesn't react chemically with surrounding elements and compounds.

A new instrument was developed for Laser Atom-Trap Analysis of Radiokrypton. One of its first successes was dating ice cores in the Antarctic which were shown to be at least 800,000 years old.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Don't keep us in suspense! What exactly are these assumptions you allude to.

The most obvious thing would be the assumption that the climate has remained consistent. A major melt would be undetectable. The theory of dating ice cores is based on the assumption that it snows EVERY year. And so on and so forth.

You're a genius... Figure it out.

Wrong.

a reply to: aorAki

Six American fighter planes and two bombers that crash-landed in Greenland in World War II have been found 46 years later buried under 260 feet of ice

Article here

If ice core dating were accurate this would be impossible...

a reply to: peter vlar

For example when counting the layers...

Deep and older layers become thin and stretched - Molecular isotopes tend to diffuse over time.

It is considered impracticable below certain depths because the layers become to thin for analysis.

Annual counts can lead to under and over counts.

This is not maths. This is not an accurate science and should not be heralded as such.