Transitional / intermediate

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
crochet1949
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1467
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:04 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Has liked: 177 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: Transitional / intermediate

#166

Post by crochet1949 » Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:07 am

Audie wrote:
crochet1949 wrote:Hi -- first off -- "Let's see if you actually get what I was talking about" is a bit condescending from My perspective.

Your point was in relation to taking Everything in the bible Literally. And My point has been -- there Are various types of literature In the Bible -- some history-- some poetry -- etc. -- and some is symbolic -- and there are parables. And as a person is Reading various portions -- it's apparently What they are reading.

My point has been that Jesus obviously is a person BUT He is Also the Son of God. And As the Son of God -- He came to earth in order to die for the sins of mankind. "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" -- throughout the Old Testament -- sacrifices had to be made once a year by the Priest - which meant killing an animal / shedding blood/ sacrificial to cover the sins of the people. The death of Jesus Christ was the Final sacrificial death. In the New Testament - on the cross - He said "It is Finished' and Gave up His life.

The intellectual dishonesty was regarding a person who was Not willing to accept 'intellectually sound' information -- was Not being 'intellectually honest' in acknowledging that just Maybe he was wrong -- that Maybe a person Should be willing to change their mind in the midst of such overwhelming evidence that goes contrary to their beliefs that they have long held in high esteem. Because they Might just Be wrong -- about God and about the flood.

You've stated that you don't take much of Anything at face value. That, I'm thinking, after high school you Didn't especially rely on textbooks -- even challenged a prof. as to the accuracy of His material.

And you've used the term 'lamebrain' in referring to the concept of the water after the flood ending up in Neptune. Cause it's not really being respectful to those with that concept. Even though it's definitely Not Biblical -- water recedes and evaporates. But someone could Probably come up with some explanation for how that Could Possibly happen. People who make sci-fi movies for instance. The make-up artists / clothes designers come up with WOW looking characters.

I've Not Been accused Of mocking the Bible. People have mocked Me for holding on to Biblical principals / concepts. The facts that the Bible Does present. So - how do I react to That? Depends on the situation. How have I responded back to You? But you don't Call it 'mocking' -- it's poking fun at. Using terms like 'lamebrain'.

Have a responded to your satisfaction?

So - now - your thoughts concerning the birth of Jesus Christ.
Keeping it simple..you avknowledge that some things in the bible are not to be taken litrrally.
So, what device tells you when it is and when not? This has to be a perfect method.
What is it?

How might one unerringly know that "world wide flood" is it, contrsry to thd resding of manyba bible svholar, and contrary to every single bit of relevant evidence wrutten into thd very earth itself?

I can say this, rigorous intellectual honesty wont go that way.

Intellectual honesty involves among other things recognizing that one could be wrong. You seem to acknowledge that.

Science and law donr do absolutes. It is percents, probabilities. Data.

Now, if we have, say, ten thousand bits of evidence that thd Butler did it in
the parlour, and no evidence whatever to the contrary, well, we'd say thst we can showbeyond z reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

What might we think of the lone holdout in the jury who thinks it could have been Mf. Green because there were, yes, green curtains in the room. Never mind that Mr. Green was bedridden in Budapest at the time. Lamebrain, maybe?

Intellectual honesty in science or any other aspect of life is not about clinging no matter what to a preconceived idea.

I say "no flood". Skipping all the impossibilities that might be glossed over with appeal to miracles,
we end up with, say, ten thousand data points that directly contradict "flood"
(There would be a whole lot more than that). Nothing to favour it.

Which is the intellectually honest response?

A. There certainly was a flood, no possible doubt

B. There almost certainly was no flood.

Audie -- I Know that you're an intelligent person -- you Do recognize 'history' when you read it. And poetry when you read it. And in reading Anything , there is 'context' -- like, which is the correct the use of 'two, too, or to'. The context tells you. God has given you a wonderful brain, Use it. You can tell what it literal and what isn't. Sometimes we simply don't like what 'literal' is saying.

There has only been one world-wide flood recorded in God's Word -- and God even gave us the rainbow as a promise that He'd never Do that again. And, yes, I've Also heard a wonderful scientific explanation of the rainbow.

How about all the evidence that you'd consider as Irrelevant. But others would see as Relevant.

Since when have I acknowledged that I might be wrong about something in the Bible. I Have acknowledged Symbolism.

And science and law DO absolutes. You Do 'scientific absolutes' all the time -- especially to discredit a global flood.

And how many people on the jury have been a 'hold out' Because they were voting their conscience based on the evidence and Later it Was proven that the person on trial Was In Fact Innocent. If he'd caved in and voted Against his conscience , then what would have happened to the Innocent person. And if YOU were that innocent person and Would have gone to prison Except for that one 'hold-out'.

Okay -- what about the birth of Jesus --( a young woman who'd never had sex , getting pregnant by the Holy Spirit and giving birth to Jesus). You've ignored that question.

You already Know my response -- A.

crochet1949
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1467
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:04 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Has liked: 177 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: Transitional / intermediate

#167

Post by crochet1949 » Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:13 am

Kurieuo wrote:I think she's trying to be affectionate.
Yes, I'd have to agree -- she definitely has a 'thing' for RickD. ;) :pound:

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Transitional / intermediate

#168

Post by Audie » Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:30 am

crochet1949 wrote:
Audie wrote:
crochet1949 wrote:What is Your definition of 'mock/ing'? Derogatory comments , then.

Yes, you Do make fun of what YOU consider to be stupid ideas. And, No, that is Not "completely unfair and unreasonable."

You refer to it as intellectual honesty or dishonesty. I call 'it' rationalizing Your reaction to acb's comments and mine as being okay because You KNOW that you're information is correct - beyond a shadow of a doubt - but Our information - obviously has problems because You choose to Not take Bible seriously.

Well -- you do that same with me and my ideas.

What about the comments about Jesus Christ being the Lamb of God or the Door. It's being Symbolism. Jesus, obviously was not a real sheep or a wooden door. But He WAS the Perfect Lamb of God who Did die on the cross For payment of mankind's sins. Jesus Christ was here to show us , by His actions, that there was something 'bigger' than you and me. The miracles that He performed to show Evidence Of that 'something bigger' going on. He prayed to His Father in heaven before He went to the cross -- for Us.

Okay -- your thoughts about the birth of Jesus?

You've shared on PM's about yourself -- I Do/ Have made an effort to understand about your and what you say.

A bit of that came up a while back by another poster. Lots of us have 'stuff' we deal with.
1.
I pointed out that your "mosr everything", twice stated is false. You cannot provide examples,
and cannot simply retract it?

2. Pointing to the laws of physics to show a particular bibke interpretation is dumb is not mocking the bible.
You need to acknowledge that, and quit saying it is mocking. I dont mock thd bible and dont care to be so accused

You might even consider that a person who
actually thinks about what the bible is and what it says is showing more respect for it than one who
just concocts whatever meaning they likr, then says God backs them, "it is God's words."

Surely you dont think all resdings are correct, that none are thoughtless and stupid?


I was asking before -- what is Your definition of 'mocking' / and I changed to the word 'derogatory' comments. So -- what is your definition Of. Because you come across as being offended by such an accusation.

I was using the phrase 'most everything' as a generalization. I think it's an accurate assessment, so No I'm Not going to retract it.

Again -- what Is your definition of 'mocking'. And No you Don't show respect for the Bible -- You DO think about what the Bible is and what it says , but Not showing it much respect.

And I Don't concoct whatever meaning I like, to God's Word , and then say "It's God's Word'. I DO share God's Word --specific passages -- God's Word IS telling mankind about the flood, for instance, since that's been the topic. It's There, in plain English -- or whatever language a person is reading it in.

No part of God's Word is stupid or thoughtless. Segments of 'society' might not Like God's Word's view of morals / ethics. Segments of society don't especially like marriage being between one man and one woman. They feel that physical intimacy between two of the same sex is really okay. When God's Word tells us differently. Which is a whole different topic.

Again --what do You think about the birth of Jesus?

And I DID click into one of the articles about glaciers and ice ages. The author suggests that old earth people assume that the top layers of a glacier are just like the lower layers -- but they aren't necessarily And the comparison to the age rings of a tree to determine it's age. But Those rings and the space between them are not consistent -- depending on what all has happened to the tree - the given climate changes, etc. So - it Apparently depends on the bias of the examiner Of the evidence. Not Everything is as it appears to be.
I asked you to name anything besides "flood" that falls under "most everything".

Evidently you cannot, but you still are going to stand by that gross misrepresentztion?
Provide examples,, or take it back. This isnt negotiable

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21030
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 191 times
Been liked: 1043 times

Re: Transitional / intermediate

#169

Post by RickD » Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:43 am

crochet1949 wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:I think she's trying to be affectionate.
Yes, I'd have to agree -- she definitely has a 'thing' for RickD. ;) :pound:
Please do not insult Audie like that!
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 49 times

Re: Transitional / intermediate

#170

Post by hughfarey » Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:43 am

crochet1949 wrote:And I DID click into one of the articles about glaciers and ice ages.
Terrific. Well done. That's a start anyway.
The author suggests that old earth people assume that the top layers of a glacier are just like the lower layers
Does he? If so, he's completely wrong. I'm not sure who the 'old earth' people are, but if you mean the glaciologists who spend years looking at the layers, then you couldn't be more wrong. They know very well that the lower layers are very different from the top layers. It is the 'creationists' who think that one can extrapolate from 70m of accumulation in 70 years, to 3000m in 3000 years. That's assuming 'the top layers of a glacier are just like the lower layers', and they're demonstrably wrong.
And the comparison to the age rings of a tree to determine it's age. But Those rings and the space between them are not consistent -- depending on what all has happened to the tree - the given climate changes, etc.
Quite so. There are clear annual rings, but they are not all the same. They reflect the growing conditions of the time and the place. Good conditions: wide rings; poor conditions: narrow rings. And the conditions vary from place to place of course, as well as in time. Just like glacier layers, in fact, which depend largely on annual snowfall. Lots of snow: thick layers, not so much: thin layers, and the weather varies from place to place, of course, as well as from time to time. That's why you can't simply say: since 70m of ice accumulated in 70 years in this place, that means that 3000m of ice accumulated in 3000 years in that place. Selecting the places to take ice-cores from requires careful assessment of the conditions; you can't just grab a random drift and expect it to typify global conditions over thousands of years.
However So - it Apparently depends on the bias of the examiner Of the evidence.
What utter nonsense. Nothing in what you have said suggests anything of the kind. The age of an ice core cannot be assessed by assuming that all the layers are the same thickness (unlike the creationist assumptions about the Lost Squadron ice), and where the layers are not clearly visible by eye, then numerous other ways of counting them are called into play. The examiners of ice-cores don't have biases; that's rather the prerogative of biblical literalists.
Not Everything is as it appears to be.
Too right. It all needs interpreting. Keep following the conversation and you'll learn a lot.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21030
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 191 times
Been liked: 1043 times

Re: Transitional / intermediate

#171

Post by RickD » Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:49 am

Hugh,

For reference, would you consider yourself a Theistic Evolutionist?
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 49 times

Re: Transitional / intermediate

#172

Post by hughfarey » Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:29 pm

Well spotted. The clue is on my identity panel to the right.....

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21030
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 191 times
Been liked: 1043 times

Re: Transitional / intermediate

#173

Post by RickD » Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:32 pm

hughfarey wrote:Well spotted. The clue is on my identity panel to the right.....
I guess you didn't know that Theistic Evolutionists are creationists, did you?
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 49 times

Re: Transitional / intermediate

#174

Post by hughfarey » Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:39 pm

Not according to Wikipedia... What makes you think that?

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21030
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 191 times
Been liked: 1043 times

Re: Transitional / intermediate

#175

Post by RickD » Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:47 pm

hughfarey wrote:Not according to Wikipedia... What makes you think that?
You believe God created the universe, correct?

A creationist can be anything from a Theistic Evolutionist on one end, to a young earth creationist on the other end.

It's simply a term that acknowledges that God is the creator.

Creationist is also a pejorative term used in place of young earth creationist.

Edit:
Another name for Theistic Evolutionist, is Evolutionary Creationist. Don't believe me? Check Wikipedia. ;)
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 49 times

Re: Transitional / intermediate

#176

Post by hughfarey » Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:56 pm

Whatever... It's not something I'm going to lose sleep about. I doubt if anybody is confused about what I think.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21030
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 191 times
Been liked: 1043 times

Re: Transitional / intermediate

#177

Post by RickD » Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:58 pm

hughfarey wrote:Whatever... It's not something I'm going to lose sleep about. I doubt if anybody is confused about what I think.
:lol:

If you only knew....

:lol:
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

crochet1949
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1467
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:04 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Has liked: 177 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: Transitional / intermediate

#178

Post by crochet1949 » Mon Jan 02, 2017 1:40 pm

Audie wrote:
crochet1949 wrote:
Audie wrote:
crochet1949 wrote:What is Your definition of 'mock/ing'? Derogatory comments , then.

Yes, you Do make fun of what YOU consider to be stupid ideas. And, No, that is Not "completely unfair and unreasonable."

You refer to it as intellectual honesty or dishonesty. I call 'it' rationalizing Your reaction to acb's comments and mine as being okay because You KNOW that you're information is correct - beyond a shadow of a doubt - but Our information - obviously has problems because You choose to Not take Bible seriously.

Well -- you do that same with me and my ideas.

What about the comments about Jesus Christ being the Lamb of God or the Door. It's being Symbolism. Jesus, obviously was not a real sheep or a wooden door. But He WAS the Perfect Lamb of God who Did die on the cross For payment of mankind's sins. Jesus Christ was here to show us , by His actions, that there was something 'bigger' than you and me. The miracles that He performed to show Evidence Of that 'something bigger' going on. He prayed to His Father in heaven before He went to the cross -- for Us.

Okay -- your thoughts about the birth of Jesus?

You've shared on PM's about yourself -- I Do/ Have made an effort to understand about your and what you say.

A bit of that came up a while back by another poster. Lots of us have 'stuff' we deal with.
1.
I pointed out that your "mosr everything", twice stated is false. You cannot provide examples,
and cannot simply retract it?

2. Pointing to the laws of physics to show a particular bibke interpretation is dumb is not mocking the bible.
You need to acknowledge that, and quit saying it is mocking. I dont mock thd bible and dont care to be so accused

You might even consider that a person who
actually thinks about what the bible is and what it says is showing more respect for it than one who
just concocts whatever meaning they likr, then says God backs them, "it is God's words."

Surely you dont think all resdings are correct, that none are thoughtless and stupid?


I was asking before -- what is Your definition of 'mocking' / and I changed to the word 'derogatory' comments. So -- what is your definition Of. Because you come across as being offended by such an accusation.

I was using the phrase 'most everything' as a generalization. I think it's an accurate assessment, so No I'm Not going to retract it.

Again -- what Is your definition of 'mocking'. And No you Don't show respect for the Bible -- You DO think about what the Bible is and what it says , but Not showing it much respect.

And I Don't concoct whatever meaning I like, to God's Word , and then say "It's God's Word'. I DO share God's Word --specific passages -- God's Word IS telling mankind about the flood, for instance, since that's been the topic. It's There, in plain English -- or whatever language a person is reading it in.

No part of God's Word is stupid or thoughtless. Segments of 'society' might not Like God's Word's view of morals / ethics. Segments of society don't especially like marriage being between one man and one woman. They feel that physical intimacy between two of the same sex is really okay. When God's Word tells us differently. Which is a whole different topic.

Again --what do You think about the birth of Jesus?

And I DID click into one of the articles about glaciers and ice ages. The author suggests that old earth people assume that the top layers of a glacier are just like the lower layers -- but they aren't necessarily And the comparison to the age rings of a tree to determine it's age. But Those rings and the space between them are not consistent -- depending on what all has happened to the tree - the given climate changes, etc. So - it Apparently depends on the bias of the examiner Of the evidence. Not Everything is as it appears to be.
I asked you to name anything besides "flood" that falls under "most everything".

Evidently you cannot, but you still are going to stand by that gross misrepresentztion?
Provide examples,, or take it back. This isnt negotiable

So you consider That to be a 'gross misrepresentation'. Okay -- You find where I was using the phrase 'most everything' -- we'll look at the context. You DO have a way of alluding to other areas of Scripture -- finding something wrong with most everything someone is trying to say when you don't agree with them.

It's also okay for You to be mistaken about a few things -- it really is.

Oh, ya, there's been the discussion about God's existence or Not. And, I'm thinking -- about heaven or hell in everyone's future.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Transitional / intermediate

#179

Post by Audie » Mon Jan 02, 2017 1:46 pm

hughfarey wrote:
crochet1949 wrote:And I DID click into one of the articles about glaciers and ice ages.
Terrific. Well done. That's a start anyway.
The author suggests that old earth people assume that the top layers of a glacier are just like the lower layers
Does he? If so, he's completely wrong. I'm not sure who the 'old earth' people are, but if you mean the glaciologists who spend years looking at the layers, then you couldn't be more wrong. They know very well that the lower layers are very different from the top layers. It is the 'creationists' who think that one can extrapolate from 70m of accumulation in 70 years, to 3000m in 3000 years. That's assuming 'the top layers of a glacier are just like the lower layers', and they're demonstrably wrong.
And the comparison to the age rings of a tree to determine it's age. But Those rings and the space between them are not consistent -- depending on what all has happened to the tree - the given climate changes, etc.
Quite so. There are clear annual rings, but they are not all the same. They reflect the growing conditions of the time and the place. Good conditions: wide rings; poor conditions: narrow rings. And the conditions vary from place to place of course, as well as in time. Just like glacier layers, in fact, which depend largely on annual snowfall. Lots of snow: thick layers, not so much: thin layers, and the weather varies from place to place, of course, as well as from time to time. That's why you can't simply say: since 70m of ice accumulated in 70 years in this place, that means that 3000m of ice accumulated in 3000 years in that place. Selecting the places to take ice-cores from requires careful assessment of the conditions; you can't just grab a random drift and expect it to typify global conditions over thousands of years.
However So - it Apparently depends on the bias of the examiner Of the evidence.
What utter nonsense. Nothing in what you have said suggests anything of the kind. The age of an ice core cannot be assessed by assuming that all the layers are the same thickness (unlike the creationist assumptions about the Lost Squadron ice), and where the layers are not clearly visible by eye, then numerous other ways of counting them are called into play. The examiners of ice-cores don't have biases; that's rather the prerogative of biblical literalists.
Not Everything is as it appears to be.
Too right. It all needs interpreting. Keep following the conversation and you'll learn a lot.

My bias says this tree is 8 billion yesrs old. Whst does your biss say?

A.rdeee? Get in here and date-by- bias, see what you get.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tree+ri ... MD3xu1M%3A

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21030
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 191 times
Been liked: 1043 times

Re: Transitional / intermediate

#180

Post by RickD » Mon Jan 02, 2017 1:53 pm

Audie wrote:
hughfarey wrote:
crochet1949 wrote:And I DID click into one of the articles about glaciers and ice ages.
Terrific. Well done. That's a start anyway.
The author suggests that old earth people assume that the top layers of a glacier are just like the lower layers
Does he? If so, he's completely wrong. I'm not sure who the 'old earth' people are, but if you mean the glaciologists who spend years looking at the layers, then you couldn't be more wrong. They know very well that the lower layers are very different from the top layers. It is the 'creationists' who think that one can extrapolate from 70m of accumulation in 70 years, to 3000m in 3000 years. That's assuming 'the top layers of a glacier are just like the lower layers', and they're demonstrably wrong.
And the comparison to the age rings of a tree to determine it's age. But Those rings and the space between them are not consistent -- depending on what all has happened to the tree - the given climate changes, etc.
Quite so. There are clear annual rings, but they are not all the same. They reflect the growing conditions of the time and the place. Good conditions: wide rings; poor conditions: narrow rings. And the conditions vary from place to place of course, as well as in time. Just like glacier layers, in fact, which depend largely on annual snowfall. Lots of snow: thick layers, not so much: thin layers, and the weather varies from place to place, of course, as well as from time to time. That's why you can't simply say: since 70m of ice accumulated in 70 years in this place, that means that 3000m of ice accumulated in 3000 years in that place. Selecting the places to take ice-cores from requires careful assessment of the conditions; you can't just grab a random drift and expect it to typify global conditions over thousands of years.
However So - it Apparently depends on the bias of the examiner Of the evidence.
What utter nonsense. Nothing in what you have said suggests anything of the kind. The age of an ice core cannot be assessed by assuming that all the layers are the same thickness (unlike the creationist assumptions about the Lost Squadron ice), and where the layers are not clearly visible by eye, then numerous other ways of counting them are called into play. The examiners of ice-cores don't have biases; that's rather the prerogative of biblical literalists.
Not Everything is as it appears to be.
Too right. It all needs interpreting. Keep following the conversation and you'll learn a lot.

My bias says this tree is 8 billion yesrs old. Whst does your biss say?

A.rdeee? Get in here and date-by- bias, see what you get.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tree+ri ... MD3xu1M%3A
Can't be more than 6000 years old. You know, global flood and all.

:stirthepot:
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Post Reply