by tornapart 427 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The ice layers are counted two ways; by manual counting and also by running an electrical charge through a sample. The methods match up, so are not an example of circular reasoning. The ice core samples go back more than 100,000 years, so longer than a young earth that you are not going to try and defend, and not as long as the measurement of the half-life of elements, which you have a problem with.
Why do say that? You keeping stating it, but give no explanation as to why......
Cant leave you must not be reading this thread I have said repeatedly.
When scientist know the date of a rock they can not date it they fail miserably.
I don't believe they can date a rock when they don't know the date.
But they think they can and since no one else knows the date, no one can prove them wrong.
They date 5 year old lava rocks from mt St. Helens at 200 thousand years which is like
195,000 percent error.
Totally unacceptable.
How can you believe them when they date something when we don't know how old it is.
The ice layers are counted two ways; by manual counting and also by running an electrical charge through a sample. The methods match up, so are not an example of circular reasoning. The ice core samples go back more than 100,000 years, so longer than a young earth that you are not going to try and defend, and not as long as the measurement of the half-life of elements, which you have a problem with.
jgnat, I don't know anything about ice core samples. So far all I see you doing is telling me to read something you don't
understand.
Why do I want to read something you don't understand?
If you can explain to me in a paragraph or two what you are talking about. I might look further into
your suggested readings. If there was a scientific method that could show the earth was more than 100,000 years old
and could stand up to scrutiny,
I would have to change my understanding of the bible.
Explain in in your own words in a words that your local newspaper would print in an article
on the 5th grade level please.
Sadly they are not Jokes, parents use them to "educate" their children. This is abuse!
James you keep making statements without any evidence. You have asked us to view hours of unadultrated bullshit and have not taken the time to read a paper that will take 15 miutes max.
.
Cant leave the jokes on you.
It's an airplane joke, the whole topic is over your head.
If you could read and comprehend my post cant leave, you would have understood from the
get go that I was not asking you to do anything.
I don't know if I am or was a scientist or not, compared to a lot of people here I am.
Tool makers deal with grinding steel to ten thousandths of a inch.
And very small tolerance for error.
The people here are dealing with incomprehensible out of the ball park tolerance for error.
And think the are dealing with something great.
There is a scientific method that shows the earth is more than 100,000 years old. You can manually count the rings in the ice cores, and it counts as one per year. That stands up to scrutiny.
No need to try to reconcile it with the Bible. The Bible is a book of faith, not a book of science.
There is a scientific method that shows the earth is more than 100,000 years old. You can manually count the rings in the ice cores, and it counts as one per year. That stands up to scrutiny.
No need to try to reconcile it with the Bible. The Bible is a book of faith, not a book of science
I will have to look into that since no one can give me a better explanation.
It might take me a while I am installing a swiming pool.
If someone could explain it in a few short easy to understand paragraphs that would put an end to my
young earth theory.
There is a scientific method that shows the earth is more than 100,000 years old. You can manually count the rings in the ice cores, and it counts as one per year. That stands up to scrutiny.
No need to try to reconcile it with the Bible. The Bible is a book of faith, not a book of science.
Actually Goper that is a pretty good simple explanation. Thank you.
I understand the concept.
I need to think about it and see some more information.
But the explanation is to the point. Either some one will give me a further clarification or I will research it on the web.
Thank you.
I will suspend my arguing about a young vs old earth until I research and digest ice
core samples dating the earth in excess of 100,000 years.
If the earth is in excess of 100,000 years old, I could more easily accept the
various macro evolution theories.
I would still have a problem with the errors in isotope dating but if the earth is over
100,000 years old, I don't have a whole lot of incentive to argue my concerns.
As I say right now I am in the process of installing a swimming pool so it will be a while before
I can research and digest this matter.
I do know that WE ARE HERE and the best current explanation uses the Big Bang. We are in our infancy of understanding how it all got here, held back all these years by oppresive religion.
That's not quite fair. The Big Bang theory more or less coincided with Hubble discovering that the universe was bigger than our own galaxy and that was only discovered in the early 20th century - a spit in time ago.
