Unintelligent Design

Originally posted by sonhouse
That's a laugh. What about this: do you believe it is possible for geologists to deduce what is under the Earth with seismic wave analysis?:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/access/id/349344/description/_

Are seismologists also deluded?

The ones that believe in evilution are. 😏

Originally posted by stellspalfie
exactly, in [b]'unusual seasons' extra rings can grow. the word unusual is key, meaning rare. the oldest ice samples have 750,000 rings, in unusual seasons extra rings may appear. for the earth to be 6,000 years old it would mean there would be 694,000 rare rings, which wouldnt make them very rare.

this would mean at some point in the las ...[text shortened]... be, much bigger than a flood. yet no mention of it in the bible or anywhere else. how strange.[/b]

It was not just any flood. It was the beginning of all floods, a worldwide flood. 😏

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Why do you think I would recquire validation from a fool as to what I believe?
This is not the first time you or another pompous arse Christian has given your
blessing and allowed an atheist their opinion. What little kick do you get out of that?
Are you having a little childish snigger? Better go pray for some more humility,
afterall you have a lot to be humble about.

We would rather be humble before God than before man. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Why do you think I would recquire validation from a fool as to what I believe?
This is not the first time you or another pompous arse Christian has given your
blessing and allowed an atheist their opinion. What little kick do you get out of that?
Are you having a little childish snigger? Better go pray for some more humility,
afterall you have a lot to be humble about.

You don't require my blessing to believe anything you want. You can also go
back and look at everything I have said as far as you want and you will never
see one word from me stating what you believe is wrong or not correct. I do
see that you are unable to have someone disagree with you without going
personal.

Since you are not able to carry on a conversation without going personal I'll
just leave you to your insults and thoughts and wish you well on this topic.
Kelly

Originally posted by stellspalfie
do you believe you can age a tree by counting its rings?

I believe trees get rings over time yes, can we use them for dating...maybe
from what others have told me some trees are better than others for that which
leads me to believe there is room for error there.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You don't require my blessing to believe anything you want.

WTF
There you go again!
Advising me that I dont require your blessing!

What is the matter with you people?

Originally posted by sonhouse
What kind of a stupid statement is that "you don't know how the ice got there'.

Just exactly how did you THINK ice is going to get where it is wherever that is, say Antarctica?

Did you think maybe it all began with a a huge rain of milkshakes or frogs? What a mind bogglingly stupid statement.

Last time I checked, ice came about when water got REAL cold. Maybe I'm wrong but that has been my working assumption.

You don't know when it started, you don't when or how anything started!
It is the same issue I've presented you forever and a day. You assume a great
deal on methods that in short term can give us time/dates; however, that does
not mean those methods or like methods can give us time/dates for long term
dates. It could be true, but without knowing how it all started, if it started with
a bang (unlikely since it doesn't answer where everything came from), or fully
formed the distant past will remain a matter of faith. If you want to say your
methods give you factual dates and times, okay...but you assume a great deal
when you do it.
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
It was not just any flood. It was the beginning of all floods, a worldwide flood. 😏

why mention the flood??? are you suggesting its responsible for causing the effect of 600,000 years of ice layers??

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe trees get rings over time yes, can we use them for dating...maybe
from what others have told me some trees are better than others for that which
leads me to believe there is room for error there.
Kelly

if you accept trees can be aged, with room for error either way. you accept that we can roughly age a tree. the ice core has rings similar to trees, we can see the rings building year upon year. so why do you not accept that ice sample give us a rough date of their existence?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You don't know when it started, you don't when or how anything started!
It is the same issue I've presented you forever and a day. You assume a great
deal on methods that in short term can give us time/dates; however, that does
not mean those methods or like methods can give us time/dates for long term
dates. It could be true, but without knowing how it ...[text shortened]... give you factual dates and times, okay...but you assume a great deal
when you do it.
Kelly

why are you mentioning the big bang????? the big bang was about 14 billion years ago. the ice only dates back to 600,000 years. which makes it part of recent history. the ice does not tell us about the beginning of the universe. it tells us about the conditions of the earth over the last 600,000 years. the key point for you is it tells us the earth is older than 6,000 years.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
if you accept trees can be aged, with room for error either way. you accept that we can roughly age a tree. the ice core has rings similar to trees, we can see the rings building year upon year. so why do you not accept that ice sample give us a rough date of their existence?

We can plant a tree watch it grow and monitor it from beginning to end, this
is not true with things we claim belong to the distant past. With tree rings its
been a long time since I've looked into it, but if I'm not mistaken rings can be
caused by changes in weather too, so you can with conditions have errors. I've
also been told by someone else that some trees are better than others when
it comes to rings which blows out a standard as far as I'm concern if true.
Kelly

Originally posted by stellspalfie
why are you mentioning the big bang????? the big bang was about 14 billion years ago. the ice only dates back to 600,000 years. which makes it part of recent history. the ice does not tell us about the beginning of the universe. it tells us about the conditions of the earth over the last 600,000 years. the key point for you is it tells us the earth is older than 6,000 years.

I've been mentioning the beginning of all things since I've joined this discussion
and with my main point being no one really knows how this all started! That
said, if we don't know how it started than we have no idea what the condition
was at the beginning, if it did small and grow large or started fully formed as
far as we are concern. Without that information we are left with assumptions
and guesses about the past, including your dating the big bang 14 billion years
ago as if you know for a fact it not only occurred, but did it when you think
it did.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe trees get rings over time yes, can we use them for dating...maybe
from what others have told me some trees are better than others for that which
leads me to believe there is room for error there.
Kelly

Here's the deal with ice core samples Kelly. As the layers of snow build up year upon year whatever is lying on top of the snow gets trapped. Forever. What concerns us for this discussion is ash, volcanic ash. When a volcano erupts, massive amounts of ash and sulphur are blown into the atmosphere, eventually it will fall back to earth and settle. Now some of this ash and sulphur will end up on the ice of Antarctica or Greenland or somewhere else where it will remain until the next snow of winter begins to fall, trapping it forever. Or until a beady-eyed scientist digs it up and starts to analyse it under their electron microscope.

Ice core samples work like tree rings, especially at the top of the sample, you count back through the layers one at a time year by year. Now we know when big volcanic eruptions have occurred during recorded history, for example the eruption of Krakatoa happened in 1883 and sure enough the ice core samples show volcanic ash and a massive sulphur spike relating to that period. In 1600 Huaynaputina erupted in Peru, and again if you count back through the layers of the ice, volcanic ash and a spike in sulphur can be found. The same for Vesuvius in 79AD, evidence for it's eruption cabe found in ice cores form Iceland.

Here's a paper which looks at volcanic ash and sulphur deposits contained within an ice core sample from Antarctica looking back over 4100 years.

http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/dai00-1.pdf

The 4100 years contained within this ice core sample in this study is 200m long, yet the ice sheet in East Antarctica is over 3km thick. Surely you can see the implications of that?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Here's the deal with ice core samples Kelly. As the layers of snow build up year upon year whatever is lying on top of the snow gets trapped. Forever. What concerns us for this discussion is ash, volcanic ash. When a volcano erupts, massive amounts of ash and sulphur are blown into the atmosphere, eventually it will fall back to earth and settle. Now som ...[text shortened]... e ice sheet in East Antarctica is over 3km thick. Surely you can see the implications of that?

You are assuming just time can play a part in this and not events, if your
right okay... if not...well you've placed your faith in something amiss.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are assuming just time can play a part in this and not events, if your
right okay... if not...well you've placed your faith in something amiss.
Kelly

Elaborate please Kelly. I have no idea what you're talking about.