Question for young earthers, hint: RJ

Originally posted by twhitehead
You may think what you like. The fact remains that you have failed to provide any alternative explanation for the data despite claiming that alternative explanations exist.
And you have failed to back up your claim that anything not written by humans is subject to error. All you are really doing is denying the facts that are there in front of your eyes because your religion tells you to.

Not at all, I'm quite fine saying it could be accurate, but the truth of the matter
remains all of our alternate methods of dating the past share the same issues
that ice core testing does with respect to not really knowing if they are true or
not.

If you cannot acknowledge that as true, I'd say your belief system has built
in blinders.
Kelly

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That's not the issue. The issue is you claiming that there are 'many', your words not mine, scientists who think that the ice caps have only existed for a few thousand years. When asked to produce these 'many' scientists you simply can't. So you are either lying, seeing as how you are a known engine user this is natural to you, or simply confused about what it is you're talking about.

Okay since I can't produce many names then would "a few" be acceptable
to you? What number would do you consider many and can you produce that
number on your side and what are their names?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Okay since I can't produce many names then would "a few" be acceptable
to you? What number would do you consider many and can you produce that
number on your side and what are their names?

'Almost none' would be more accurate don't you think?! That the ice caps have been in existence for more than a few thousand years is universally accepted by scientists around the globe, i would imagine that every scientist working within academia in the UK accepts that.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Not at all, I'm quite fine saying it could be accurate, but the truth of the matter
remains all of our alternate methods of dating the past share the same issues
that ice core testing does with respect to not really knowing if they are true or
not.

No, they don't. Every dating method has different issues. Even recorded history has issues, yet you seem quite comfortable with accepting that as fact.

If you cannot acknowledge that as true, I'd say your belief system has built
in blinders.
Kelly
It is clearly you that has blinders. You refuse to acknowledge that some things can be known with more surety than others via scientific methods and via methods of confirmation via different techniques. What is most damning is that you show strong selective bias towards disputing science that contradicts your belief system but have no problems with science that agrees with your belief system.
Even though there is only one reasonable explanation for ice core data that has been suggested, you claim there may be other explanations and that all other explanation are equally likely. This is simply not true. As long as there is only one reasonable explanation available, that is the most reasonable explanation.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
'Almost none' would be more accurate don't you think?! That the ice caps have been in existence for more than a few thousand years is universally accepted by scientists around the globe, i would imagine that every scientist working within academia in the UK accepts that.

There are scientists that accept a lot of things that they do not have
any direct knowledge of. We can both imagine many things, but I
gave two scientists that have direct knowledge of ice cores and things
like this. You have yet to give any on your side. Spanky. 😏

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, they don't. Every dating method has different issues. Even recorded history has issues, yet you seem quite comfortable with accepting that as fact.

[b]If you cannot acknowledge that as true, I'd say your belief system has built
in blinders.
Kelly
It is clearly you that has blinders. You refuse to acknowledge that some things can be known wit ...[text shortened]... is only one reasonable explanation available, that is the most reasonable explanation.[/b]

I have just given you another explanation of the ice core data. Were you
sleeping? And if you want to talk about bias, how about your bias in not
mentioning the bias of the evolutionary scientist when they explain things?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The education system has been propagandized by the evolutionist for
so long it should be understandable to most intelligent humans that
the tendency of most humans is to go along with the accepted view.
So it is natural that at this time in history that there would be more
scientist going along with the evolutionary view, just like in an
earlier time most believed every thing revolved around the Earth.

Then it goes without saying your religion is guilty of that 20 times over since your religion has been around 20 times longer than modern science. So it is you and your kin who would have their head's up their collectives assses, refusing to see what is right before their very eyes.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes but once you stop treating the bible as being literally true and thus inherently open to
be interpreted then it ceases to have any value as a guide because you can interpret it to
mean almost anything you want.

If you are interpreting it (or your preacher is) then you have to have faith that either you or
you and your preacher are interpreti ...[text shortened]... ral guide then why not abandon it altogether and
decide based on evidence and reason?

The point you are missing, however, is that the bible isn't meant to be interpreted. If Jesus wanted people to know exactly what he was saying he wouldn't have taught in parables. The bible clearly states "the rules" with no need for interpretation, there are ten of them, but Jesus didn't come to repeat the commandmants he came to show and teach people the correct way to live.

Trying to rationalize the bible is like trying to rationalize love. If believing in God was rational then we wouldn't need faith to do it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There are scientists that accept a lot of things that they do not have
any direct knowledge of. We can both imagine many things, but I
gave two scientists that have direct knowledge of ice cores and things
like this. You have yet to give any on your side. Spanky. 😏

Well here's a link to a research article indicating the Guliya ice cap on the Qinghai-Tibetan plateau to be 500,000 years old. It has 10 authors, which is five times the number you produced and it took only one article.

http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/lgt-sci-98.pdf

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, they don't. Every dating method has different issues. Even recorded history has issues, yet you seem quite comfortable with accepting that as fact.

[b]If you cannot acknowledge that as true, I'd say your belief system has built
in blinders.
Kelly
It is clearly you that has blinders. You refuse to acknowledge that some things can be known wit ...[text shortened]... is only one reasonable explanation available, that is the most reasonable explanation.[/b]

They can be done differently; however, are they good measures of the distant
past? Are they correct, are they off, are we really seeing all that needs to
be seen when we look into the distant past? Yes, they share the same issues,
because they have the same problem, we don't know if they are right or not
we only know that they give us results that if we actually have all the data
required we may be good, if not we could be off and who knows by how
much?
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, they don't. Every dating method has different issues. Even recorded history has issues, yet you seem quite comfortable with accepting that as fact.

[b]If you cannot acknowledge that as true, I'd say your belief system has built
in blinders.
Kelly
It is clearly you that has blinders. You refuse to acknowledge that some things can be known wit ...[text shortened]... is only one reasonable explanation available, that is the most reasonable explanation.[/b]

I've never said we can not know anything by scientific methods, stop putting
words in my mouth, that is very dishonest of you. I'm only saying that if you
want to call methods dating the distant past and you want to call those dates
facts you so off base it isn't even funny. They are not facts, at the very best
you should say according to our current dating methods the dates are X,
whatever those dates are according to today's methods, who knows what
tomorrows methods will tell us, you have to say this because what call the
lastest greatest methods today were not ours not to long ago.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, they don't. Every dating method has different issues. Even recorded history has issues, yet you seem quite comfortable with accepting that as fact.

[b]If you cannot acknowledge that as true, I'd say your belief system has built
in blinders.
Kelly
It is clearly you that has blinders. You refuse to acknowledge that some things can be known wit ...[text shortened]... is only one reasonable explanation available, that is the most reasonable explanation.[/b]

"As long as there is only one reasonable explanation available, that is the most reasonable explanation."

Okay, sure, no problem...as long as you are willing to say you know what is
reasonable why not? I guess if you can set the rules up on what is or isn't
reasonable you should be able to say what is the most reasonable eplanation.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I haven't seen it. Are you sure that that is what he actually said, or are you paraphrasing based on what you remember?

It was an interview on camera, unless they cut and spliced it to oblivion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course its more contrived. Its little more than playing with numbers to try and give the illusion that the Bible has some truth to it, it has nothing to do with trying to work out how something actually happened.

[b]Again, I DON"T know if he is right or not but I have a feeling he is on to something. Before bashing it you may want to have a peak.[/ ...[text shortened]... word until the text starts to make sense, then saying "Hey, I think he's onto something!"

Look, you have not read his work and have no idea what you are critizing. Essentially, his theory is that time was effected by such things as speed and mass, for which we all know is sound scientific thought. So think about it. Does time pass the same on earth as it does, say on another body that is traveling twice the speed? Nope. So how would time have passed say the first billion years immediatly after the Big Bang? Would it be equal to the last billion? No.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Well here's a link to a research article indicating the Guliya ice cap on the Qinghai-Tibetan plateau to be 500,000 years old. It has 10 authors, which is five times the number you produced and it took only one article.

http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/lgt-sci-98.pdf

The article says, "Cl data suggest that the deepest 20 meters of the core
may be more than 500,000 years old."

Notice the words "suggest" and "may". So even they are not saying that
it is more than 500,000 years old, as you say. So again, it comes down
to interpretation. The two scientist I mentioned have a different way of
interpreting the data that makes it only a few thousand years going back
to a short time after the flood of Noah's day.

More scientists on your side does not necessarily mean that is the right
interpretation; it could just as easily be a few thousand as the scientists
that agree with me state.