Question for young earthers, hint: RJ

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Name me these 'many' scientists.

Larry Vardiman is one. He says the Ice age was brought on due to the
flood and explains how it happened and that it lasted about 700 years
but never covered more tha a third of the earth. He says Ice Cores
can be interpreted to support a young earth. I have to stop now I am
starting to get my company for the Super Bowl party today.

http://creation.com/larry-vardiman-meteorology-in-six-days

Originally posted by RJHinds
Larry Vardiman is one. He says the Ice age was brought on due to the
flood and explains how it happened and that it lasted about 700 years
but never covered more tha a third of the earth. He says Ice Cores
can be interpreted to support a young earth. I have to stop now I am
starting to get my company for the Super Bowl party today.

http://creation.com/larry-vardiman-meteorology-in-six-days

That's one, you said 'many'.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That's one, you said 'many'.

you'll always find somebody sporting a PHD in something or another supporting mass delusions. the question shouldn't be "are there any such people?" the question should be "how is their work received by their peers?"

Originally posted by RJHinds
I was only talking about our Earth. You are either a nitwit of dishonest, as
Dasa would say, if you really don't understand this.

You should not be arguing something you don't understand. You should be
just listening and considering the truth in it.

The fact that there may have been ice in some other place than on Earth
is not the point. That is ...[text shortened]... ww.nytimes.com/1987/03/12/us/whale-fossils-high-in-andes-show-how-mountains-rose-from-sea.html

Dont tell me what I should do,bub.
I was asking sincere questions.
If you cant have the proper personal decorum on , it seems every second question I ask you, then do you believe this sort of action/reaction is conducive to me having any respect for you, and subsequently listening to your "truth" ?

There is another similarity you seem to share with Dasa.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Telling me over and over doesn't make it right. You give no reasonable argument to support such a claim. Why are human records any different?

[b]Can you trust that you have all the necessary data to grasp what it is you’re looking at, that no variable is not what it seems to you, or you are not looking at all that is required?
Yes.

If you wa ...[text shortened]... said no. You don't accept my 'no' but you cant point us to even one alternative explanation.

[/b]I think ice core data is as accurate as anything you cannot show is accurate.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think ice core data is as accurate as anything you cannot show is accurate.
Kelly[/b]

Are you saying ice core data is inaccurate? Not sure I followed that contrived sentence.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think ice core data is as accurate as anything you cannot show is accurate.
Kelly[/b]

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.

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.

Super Bowl party is over now. There are other scientists outside the
evolutionary crowd that interprets the Ice core data differently.
Meteorologists Michael Oard and Larry Vardiman say that ice cores
drilled from the antartic and Greenland ice sheets do contain layers.
These layers are visible in the uppermost section, but it only has
patterns enough for a few thousand years, if it represents annual snow
deposits since the end of the Ice Age. They say that lower down these
so-called annual layers become less distinct and can be understood as
being caused by other mechanisms, such as indiviual storms.

The following is quoted from "The Creation Answers Book".

"The ice core data readily fit a young-Earth model, with the bulk of
the ice sheet thickness having been deposited by the hurricane-like
circulation in the relatively brief 500-year period following the
Flood. In this understanding, oxygen isotope variations, for example,
do not represent annual seasons but individual storms from different
directions depositing water evaporated from oceans differing in
temperature."

Originally posted by RJHinds
Not all scientist believe as you do. There are many scientists that admit
that they just don't know for they don't have enough evidence yet. 😏

No; just all objective, open minded scientists. If a scientist does not adhere to the principles of empirical research then he/she is just another fundaMENTALIST with a delusional axe to grind.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
No; just all objective, open minded scientists. If a scientist does not adhere to the principles of empirical research then he/she is just another fundaMENTALIST with a delusional axe to grind.

In what way do the two, I mentioned, do not adhere to the principles of
empirical research?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think the real scientists of today are going to cause the extinction of the
evolutionists in the future. I just noticed that "The Creations Answer Book"
that I bought awhile back has a Chapter 16 entitled "What about the Ice
Age". The first sentence reads, "The only clear evidence is for one Ice Age."
Perhaps, after I read it, I will know the answers to Ice Core Dating. 😏

your quoting scientists who contribute to creationist diatribes. creationist scientist = liar. i.e "there's a guy works down the chip shop who swears his elvis" etc.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Super Bowl party is over now. There are other scientists outside the
evolutionary crowd that interprets the Ice core data differently.
Meteorologists Michael Oard and Larry Vardiman say that ice cores
drilled from the antartic and Greenland ice sheets do contain layers.
These layers are visible in the uppermost section, but it only has
patterns enough ...[text shortened]... om different
directions depositing water evaporated from oceans differing in
temperature."

So you have two?! That's not 'many' is it?

Originally posted by kevcvs57
your quoting scientists who contribute to creationist diatribes. creationist scientist = liar. i.e "there's a guy works down the chip shop who swears his elvis" etc.

The truth is evolutionary scientist = Liar. 😏

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So you have two?! That's not 'many' is it?

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.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The truth is evolutionary scientist = Liar. 😏

No the point is you cannot enter into scientific research when you already "know" the answer without casting doubt on the veracity of your findings so their either creationists which by definition is an act of faith or your still searching for the empirical truth i.e you dont subscribe to any given creation story. To claim both titles is a lie.