Facebook Sheeple

[Darkprophet232]

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11871&start=20

...the last time you addressed me was much more recently... It had a derisory feel to it as many of your other posts have had ...and your most recent two here...

Wow, I had forgotten about that. Sorry about my last post, allow me to rephrase to be more accurate:

I take it you don't know what regular means, as I haven't addressed you in over 4 months, the last time being here.

Either way, that you assume that by disagreeing with you that I am deriding you or sleighting you, is irrelevant. I will admit that I am being derisive of your opinion and comments now, in this thread, but I was not in the last two. You are welcome to find where I was derisive and I will address them there, but simply disagreeing with you in a tone you assume I have does not make a comment a sleight.

It appears that ice cores were the last thing he mentioned before the comment was made... he then made a general point, which was the one referred to by HWIN. I stated that his point was general in my last reply as well as being about ice-cores, which would expand to more things than ice cores. He made further comments to HWIN which seemed to indicate that he was talking in general terms or that his point was meant in a wider sense.

So, in other words, you admit that your astronomy and court analogies are irrelevant to the claim HWIN and I are discussing with Justice, right? I mean, that is an extremely wordy way for you to say, "I misread what he said and didn't understand the context," but I understand you trying to hold onto your pride more than being honest. It is your modus operandi, after all.

 

[Isotelus]

To place the question to you and HWIN again a different way.

If a person has an opinion that doesn't have the majority of current research supporting it would that mean that it is definitely wrong?

You can't base truth on majority of research or opinion. That's foolish and isn't science. Not saying that basing it off good science is the same thing. I am not saying that. I'm saying that some of the science IS done really well, but based off some assumptions based off other assumptions that the present is the key to the past.

Anyway, I hope that clarifies.

You have to be in the position to decide that a given consensus based on an assumption must mean that a second opinion has any validity, or an assumption has no evidential basis itself, or that it can cause significant errors in the results. You weren't in this case:

The cervical air sacs lie alongside the vertebral column in living birds and sometimes invade the vertebrae and ribs via pneumatopores of variable size. Invaginated pneumatic spaces that enter the lateral aspect of the centra, called pleurocoels, have been traced back in the fossil record to the Late Jurassic bird Archaeopteryx [23]–[25], to various saurischian dinosaurs [23], [26], [27], pterosaurs [23], [28], [29], and possibly to even more primitive, crocodilian relatives in the Triassic [30]. Although doubt was cast recently on the use of fossae as evidence of pneumaticity in basal archosaurs [31], a new basal suchian (distant crocodilian relative) has just been described with cervical pleurocoels [32].

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003303

We all know that throwing a link up on the forum doesn't mean that the information on that link is CONCLUSIVE or correct. Yes, it's good to site our sources, but lets not confuse them with PROOF. At best this would be evidence that the possibility exists, rather than proof of any kind. What we are really finding is holes or pouches in the bones. EVERYTHING else is assumption and interpretation of that data.

Two things:

1) The quote you highlighted does not help your point. It appears as if you saw "doubt was cast" and assumed this means all examples of pneumaticity are totally open to interpretation. As I stated in my last post, the papers I included are presenting evidence of the function of pneumaticity in Saurischian dinosaurs. The highlighted sentence is referring to basal archosaurs and making a brief statement on the potential appearance of pneumaticity in Archosauria as a whole. Basal archosaurs include groups like Proterosuchids, Erythrosuchids, Euparkeria, which are the most primitive members and aren't dinosaurs, let alone Saurischians. But the rest of the sentence says pleurocoels were recently found in a basal archosaur, meaning the doubt that fossae indicate pneumaticity is a moot point.

2) The links I'm throwing up are peer-reviewed scientific articles. The research is done and presented by paleontologists who are experts in geology, anatomy, phylogeny, etc. This is the absolute best that one can provide in terms of evidence on an internet forum. It is disingenuous to use news articles (which incidentally are reporting on peer-reviewed scientific articles) as citations as evidence for your own points and at the same time dismiss the original sources I provided outright as only assumption and interpretation.

Both groups of modern representatives of Archosauria (crocodilians and birds) have air sacs in association with holes and pouches in the bones. Non-avian dinosaurs fall between crocodilians and modern birds in terms of phylogenetic relationships, therefore it is not a mere assumption that dinosaurs also had air sacs associated with holes and pouches in the bones; it is the most parsimonious explanation. I included only 5 papers that all support the presence of air sacs in various groups of Saurischian dinosaurs; this is more than simply a possibility.

You read the source incorrectly and dismissed it as an assumption with no knowledge of why or how the conclusions of those sources were reached. I reposted this from the other thread, not because I want you to address it here, but to demonstrate that doubting concurrent conclusions drawn from different tests by different people--as only based on assumptions--is not necessarily fair criticism. You may also find that you yourself are making the assumption that uniformitarianism is always assumed in the sorts of experiments being discussed in this thread.

A similar muscle complex exists in the human foot, which once controlled the big toe, back when the human foot looked like an ape foot. Those muscles, while still existing, cannot control the big toe at all. However, I could not find a good website link for that one, thus used the ears instead.

I can move my big and pinkie toes independently of the others. It's a trifling amusement. And helps me catch fish.

 

[Engelbert]

Darkprophet.

I believe this is now a derailment.

I could search for times when you have been derisive before too. I recall you telling me at one point something like, "my entire world view had been refuted utterly in every sense" - not verbatim... but similar. At that stage you had not asked what my world view was, what my beliefs were or whether I believed in God. Since I am irreligious and secular, I still wonder what you meant by that.


I do not admit that those analogies are irrelevant, no. They are analogies relevant to an explanation of a general principle of humility or something similar - An approach of academic modesty that is generally taken across subjects. It is this general approach or concept, to which I believe Justice was appealing and with which I would agree. Was his comment only in reference to dating methods? Perhaps at first or perhaps not, but it became general too. Even if it solely referred to dating methods, a principle of humility can still be technically applied and technically.... I agree with him on that point. It's a simple point of epistemological uncertainty with which I would agree, although in some cases the level of certainty might be greater than others. On the Earth's dating methods and the credibility of ice-cores specifically, I am convinced that they give us a fantastic insight to the Earth's history, to the history of the climate and embrace the benefits that such data brings us as someone who is concerned about the changes in the state of the latter.


Three perhaps relevant links.

http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/Mill's%20Principle%20Of%20Intellectual%20Humility.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology#Knowledge_that.2C_knowledge_how.2C_and_knowledge_by_acquaintance

 

[Prolescum]

Okay, chaps... Let us avoid retreading past animosities. Reading your current positions and criticisms is much more interesting than that other bollocks.
Cheers!

Sent from my Commodore 64

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The problem with Justice Frangipane's approach is summed up in this question:

Do you agree that the majority of opinion, even the majority of conclusions doesn't mean the answer MUST be true?

To emphasise this, let me restate the question:

"Do you agree that the majority of opinion, even the majority of conclusions, means the answer MUST be true?"

As Coyne* notes:

And I often hear—Anthony Grayling and Hitchens both said this, I believe—that a theory that can explain everything explains nothing (i.e., God constructed the process of evolution). In other words, a theory that can’t be shown wrong is useless. Th[is] presupposes falsifiability as a criterion for scientific truth.

The problem is that Justice Frangipane's question - and approach - treats all "opinion" as equally valid - that there is no distinction between informed and uninformed (ill-informed. misinformed. disinformed) opinion.

This is a common flaw in those who cleave to the misinterpretation of the post-modernist idea - that there's no such thing as truth. In fact, this is not correct: post-modernism holds that no truth is sacrosanct.

This does not mean that all opinions are equal.

As is noted elsewhere:

Falsification/problem of induction

Among his contributions to philosophy is his claim to have solved the philosophical problem of induction. He states that while there is no way to prove that the sun will rise, it is possible to formulate the theory that every day the sun will rise; if it does not rise on some particular day, the theory will be falsified and will have to be replaced by a different one. Until that day, there is no need to reject the assumption that the theory is true. Nor is it rational according to Popper to make instead the more complex assumption that the sun will rise until a given day, but will stop doing so the day after, or similar statements with additional conditions.

Such a theory would be true with higher probability, because it cannot be attacked so easily: to falsify the first one, it is sufficient to find that the sun has stopped rising; to falsify the second one, one additionally needs the assumption that the given day has not yet been reached. Popper held that it is the least likely, or most easily falsifiable, or simplest theory (attributes which he identified as all the same thing) that explains known facts that one should rationally prefer. His opposition to positivism, which held that it is the theory most likely to be true that one should prefer, here becomes very apparent. It is impossible, Popper argues, to ensure a theory to be true; it is more important that its falsity can be detected as easily as possible.

Popper and David Hume agreed that there is often a psychological belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, but both denied that there is logical justification for the supposition that it will, simply because it always has in the past. Popper writes, "I approached the problem of induction through Hume. Hume, I felt, was perfectly right in pointing out that induction cannot be logically justified." (Conjectures and Refutations, p. 55)

Note the flaw in Justice Frangipane's comment in contrast to the above:

You can't base truth on majority of research or opinion. That's foolish and isn't science. Not saying that basing it off good science is the same thing. I am not saying that. I'm saying that some of the science IS done really well, but based off some assumptions based off other assumptions that the present is the key to the past.

Justice Frangipane is attempting to set up the scenario that, if any opinion can't be taken as true, then no opinion can be true: therefore scientific theories are no more valid (despite a vast preponderence of data) than a individual who has his/her own idea of "life, the universe and everything".

As I said in a earlier post, this is similar - if not identical - to the approach of the "Presups".

* Immediately prior to the cited quote, Coyne also notes:

At any rate, putting this musing aside, my question is this: is there any scientific fact or theory that is widely accepted despite the fact that it is not in principle capable of being falsified? I am referring to real theories here, not possible theories.

It is my impression, for instance, that string theory in physics isn’t widely accepted as true simply because we haven’t found a way to test it—to test that its predictions are verified or not.

Emphasis in original

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Engelbert]

I would largely accept this and agree that there are problems with some of the arguments being proposed. Just because I would concede a measure of uncertainty about most things, even things that seem extremely well attested, it does not follow that I would equate all things as being equally uncertain. Justice’s arguments from this basic premise may well contest that since we are uncertain, then our opposing positions are on a similar level of probability or perhaps that we should reject good or well attested assumptions. This progression is something that I would not grant and as you suggest it is the quality of the data and the alternative arguments that then become persuasive or not, given that we are all trying to use reason.

I agree that there are similarities to presuppositionalism in some of the broad approach of Justice F. I do not concede that presuppositionalism is a good or convincing argument, I find it a little confusing and don't fully understand it at this point. I believe that it almost makes a case of last resorts and seems to simply assert its conclusions rather than justify them (at least in the case of individuals like Sye, who I believe puts forward a slightly questionable version of the apologetic). However, I would grant some of the basic ideas in the argument. Sye, a proponent of presup, often asks, “How do you know what you know?” To this question, I would have to concede that ultimately there is a problem with theories of knowledge and that I can’t be sure about everything, or perhaps anything with absolute certainty. I would have to use my reason to justify my reason and I do have presuppositions upon which I base my life and world view. Some of the basic components involved, I would grant.

However, from there it does not follow that I believe I lack any knowledge that’s justified to any degree of rationality in the reality we seem to inhabit. Arguments that Christianity has the only true claim to knowledge seem simply to be asserted, rather than justified by Sye and so are no better than any other. For those who would not assert this, but simply operate or argue from a point of Christian presupposition, I see no good reason to assume that we should. A double standard also comes from the fact that reason is used by proponents of presup in almost every other aspect of the lives they lead within the reality that they have just raised to the ground. Therefore, in Sye’s version it seems that they have to go to such lengths, to avoid what may well be to them distressing realities, or insurmountable conflicts in the scientific data and opposing arguments. I have heard Stephen Law call such techniques, or similar techniques to be, “Going nuclear”. In order to surpass the clear quality of the concordant data on issues such as the age of the Earth, Descartes’ radical doubt must be employed and ‘Going Nuclear’ seems comparable to an argument for solipsism on such well attested issues. I would grant it as possible, even in such circumstances, which was part of the point I was making earlier (not all - a measure of reasonable humility regarding data is also a valid stance). However, as you suggest, arguments from this point identifying the probability between opposing positions as being equal seem unjustified, as well as perhaps having the side-effect that we dismiss all vestments of reason being used elsewhere. Whatever arguments Justice continued to make from this particular point, would still leave me conceding the point in question, though I agree with most of your above comment.

 

[Justice Frangipane]

@dragan glas

To have a scientifically intelligent stance there MUST be a level of relative humility. If I were talking to you, and you were COMPLETELY convinced that EVERYTHING you believe is 100% fact. How would you learn? How would you grow as a scientist? How would you even be able to SEE when you were wrong? It wouldn't happen. It is among the worst of positions to take and one that Aron Ra flaunted as his mantra. I AM COMPLETELY RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING. That stance that doesn't allow for the power of unaddressed assumptions inside of "facts" to allow for error however slight it may be is a GREAT hindrance to science and NEVER an aid. (and yes I do mean NEVER)

I do think that the quality of scientific research OBVIOUSLY matters. But great and perfect research done off wrong assumptions STILL EQUALS the wrong conclusion. I do believe that there is a lot of EXCELLENT research being done by people of all positions ("all" used loosely here). I think there is a good chance that the majority of what they are doing is good. But the possibility is there of some being off, or wrong. This is the only way that I am aware of to allow for growth in the scientific community. Has biology "arrived"? Has geology ARRIVED? Have any of the sciences "arrived" at a place where "humility is no longer needed". If so, I would be MOST suspect of why they feel the need to tout the inerrant conclusions of their research.

Don't get me wrong. I love science. LOVE IT. But there is no reason to swallow hook, line and sinker, the whole shebang.

I don't watch the news and believe EVERYTHING I SEE ON TV.
I don't read articles on the internet and BELIEVE EVERYTHING I READ.
I do try to use "critical thinking skills" =) when I take in information.

Sometimes I am misinformed (as we have seen demonstrated on this forum)
Sometimes I am uninformed (ditto above)
Sometimes my conclusions are wrong (ditto above)

Often I fight to defend what I believe is true (my biases)

Rarely if ever do I state that I know that something could never be wrong. That is dumb.
Rarely if ever do I lie on purpose for selfish gain. I am not a fan of lying. I may be wrong, but not on purpose or with malicious intent. Which I believe is probably how almost everyone on this forum tries to operate.

@Engelbert, I'm glad that you understand what I'm trying to convey. There is NO point in having a discussion about some of this stuff with people who have no concept of a need for professional humility or I would just say honesty. We don't know certain things 100% of the way. Some things I would say for all practical purposes we do. "I did this test, this was the result I measured" is a good example. What does that result mean? Sometimes, that's up for debate.

One thing that bothers me is when a theory is favored as the likely cause of a certain event, that every apparently less favorable option goes from "slightly probable" to "impossible".

I think "less likely" is a fine term and should be used far more often than "impossible".

All this has been a fun ride, but.
3331 m of ice from the deepest core sample
72 m of ice in 50 years
compression of ice considerations
This still doesn't factor out to me as 800,000 to 1.5 million years of ice.

based off the scientific data
1.44 m per year (in that region of course)
1.44 x 4400 years (flood limitation) = 6336 m
compression to fit inside the deepest core sample (yes, I understand deeper exists, but we are talking core concepts of core concepts here)
190% compression.

I would say very easily believable and likely a bit over kill. Years of less snow, or warmer summers could easily get the deepest ice core samples to make sense within that timeline. Especially when you think about regular snow, hot days melt regular snow into regular ice on a regular daily (or weekly) basis. Dust would still get blown or deposited during cold nights or cold spells.

Now lets look at the data again.

1.44 m per year x 800,000 = 1152000 m of ice (that would destroy the planet! sorry, couldn't help it) This is accumulation not snow fall.
34,584% compression
I have a problem with that answer. Not saying its impossible, but WoW, that would be something else wouldn't it?

Obviously, this is extremely general and full of assumptions.

Scientific data IS 1.44 m per year for 50 years. That's not my opinion.

https://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/dai00-1.pdf
gives some good information on many aspects to ice core dating that can lead to a better understanding of the assumptions used in ice core dating and some of the discrepancies associated.
Very interesting information on volcanic eruptions here as well. It also appears that volcanic ash can not currently be ID'd to a specific past volcano. However, I would love to hear if anyone can find information to the contrary as that could be significantly meaningful information.

They also say that the 120 mm of snow a year in their location (Plateau Remote) is among the lowest in Antarctica.
120 mm x 800,000 = 97,600 m of ice.
greatest known core depth reached 3331 m
compression of 2930%

average depth in Antarctica is 2200 m. If 120 mm a year is one of the lowest in Antarctica and the average depth is 2200 m this estimate is very conservative.

Now if someone would like to point out again why I'm a complete moron for not buying into the 1,000,000 m plus of ice accumulation compressed to a maximum of 4776 m (deepest on earth)

They say they expect 1.5 million years of ice core data is available. So lets take the deepest point, multiply it times one of the lowest accumulation rates.
1,500,000 * 120 mm = 1800000 Meters of Ice at conservative estimates.
1800000 / 4776 m deepest ice
37688 % compression of the ice.
That means that each year would be .00318403735 mm thick
meaning the dark and light variations between seasons would have to be less than that.
And where are we finding the layers of dirt? (would they would be polystate dirt particles at that point?) jk... but seriously...

Maybe I am COMPLETELY off on this. But please help me. My math my not be perfect but I see some obvious problems here.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Facme ebook Sheeple

Greetings,

In your reply, Justice Frangipane, you commented that you don't believe everything you see, hear, read, etc - but you're referring to news media and the internet.

But Isotelus, to name but one, cited peer-reviewed scientific papers, which you then treated as if they were no more valid than news articles or "noise" one finds on the internet.

This is where there is a difference between you and most - if not all - those on this forum.

Aron is not wrong to stand firm on "justified knowledge", which is what science can be justly called. To stand firm on what one knows to be true is not "dumb". Not to stand firm on such is "dumb".

Engelbert and I both agree regarding the qualitative distinction of knowledge versus belief (opinion), which it appears you do not truly appreciate.

In a earlier post you dismissed ice core ages, amongst others.

In your later comments you talk about depths, etc, without citing primary sources, and question how these can add up to anything more than a few thousand years, in comparison with the claimed 800,000 years cited by others here.

You later mention one source which only deals with a 4100 year time period - which, with all due respect, is rather indicative of the cherry-picking, and equally instructive of the surface-reading/skimming that is prevalent of YECs, since - as others have noted earlier - you don't appear to have read this article fully either. Had you done so, you would not be citing it to support your "Young Earth" hypothesis.

On page 2 it clearly states that the 4100 year period coincides with a 200 metre depth of an ice core (two cores, in fact).

On page 5, the paper features a table which includes ages in years (column 3) and corresponding depth in metres (column 5). The earliest date is 2100 BC with a corresponding depth of 200.94m.

If we equate 4000 years with 200 metres - to make the calculation simple - and take into account your uncited 3300 metres "maximum" depth (rounded for ease), we get an minimum "age of the Earth" of ... 4000 x 16.5 = 66,000 years.

And that doesn't take into account the compression of ice layers as we go deeper into your 3300 metre core - not to mention the as yet unexplored ice sheets at further depths. [In fact, the actual deepest core is over 3300 metres.]

And this information I gleaned from just the first few pages of the paper. [Will you dismiss this paper - since it doesn't support your claims - as you did that of Isotelus?]

You might find the following video lecture of interest and, I trust, instructive:

Ice Cores

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Engelbert]

Hi there Justice. I try to be balanced if I think valid points have been made. However, despite my agreement with your idea of uncertainty or humility, my support would still lie firmly with the data presented by others in this thread so far. I think that you have tried to engage for the most part openly and with sincerity here, under difficult circumstances and even proved that you can amend your views which I see as admirable. However, use of rhetoric such as ‘dumb’ doesn’t sit quite as well, although I’m sure I can be guilty myself sometimes. I believe that the principle of humility would also apply to your own ideas and thoughts on the data and so, I would ask you to really listen to some of the responses given on this thread with regards to the questions you have asked, or perhaps to reread some, as many of the responses have seemed to me to be extremely good - rather than try to immediately rebuff or simply to dismiss them - perhaps just to think whether they have some modicum of validity.

Even if there is some error in the data available, ice cores can be found that stretch back enormous distances in Antarctica. EPICA, an international collaboration of research scientists from multiple different countries and backgrounds, is the group involved in the research regarding the cores of 800,0000 years... (As you may have been referencing in your comment, which I clearly didn't read fully. Thus this edit... )

This outstrips a Young Earth timeline by a factor of around 100. How much error must there be in counting these lines in the ice to drop down to an age of 6-10,000 years? It seems terribly unlikely that a mixture of international scientists working on an award winning project could fail by such a wide margin. Would you agree? Dragan Glas appears to have made rather a better reply to your post, but perhaps my question is valid in a simplistic sense.

Cheers.

 

[Inferno]

I think there are a fair few problems here. I don't agree that we should be jumping into science just yet, because there is quite obviously a problem of epistemology to deal with first.

Justice, you continue to claim (and I, as well as the others here, would agree with you on that) that you can't go around claiming you know things you don't, that you can't trust everything and so on. I absolutely agree with you on that.
However, you then make a mistake that has already been pointed out: You equate all pieces of information with one another. To you, or at least that's how it seems, a newspaper article holds the same weight as a scientific article.

If that is your position, then you're dead wrong about it. Remember that science has a set of criteria (the scientific method), an in-built system for weeding out nonsense (peer review, though of course that in itself is problematic) and a few fail-safes for that. (falsifiability, additional information, correction, etc.)

That is why, in general, science articles are more trustworthy than newspaper articles. Would you agree with me on that? (You should, because you yourself are using them as resources, but you're somehow dismissing others?!?)

This brings us to "100% knowledge" and humility and that sort of area. You state that we should be humble and we shouldn't claim to know everything and I agree. Up to a point.
However, there are things we definitely know are true. We know for absolute certain that the earth is roughly round. (It's not perfectly spherical, it's not like an egg, it's not like a pear... it's a geoid.) We know for absolute certain that diseases are not caused by demons but are rather the reaction of the body to various stimuli. (Germs!)
We also know for absolute certain that the earth is definitely older than 6,000 years. We know it's older than 1,000,000 years. We know it's older than 1,000,000,000 years. We're fairly certain that our current estimate of 4.55GYa is probably no more than 1-2% off.
These are things we are absolutely certain about. Overturning any of these would require you to overturn most of known science.




Now back to your ice core dating. Dragan Glas has already established that you didn't read the paper you yourself cited.
I would build on that and show you that you're in even greater trouble than you think you are. For example, you can follow this link to the data for the Vostock ice core timescale. For convenience sake, I used the third link, Petit et al. 1999 "GT4", Nature, 399, 429-436. You'll notice that they're just huge rows of numbers. We'll just concern ourselves with the first two columns. The first is the depth at which we're at, the second is the calculated age. Note how for the first 10m, every 1m of ice corresponds to roughly 19 years. After 100m, we're already 3422 years in the past. Here, every 1m of ice corresponds to roughly 45 years. Let's go down to 1000m. We're suddenly at 80 y/m. At 3000m, it's roughly 300y/m. Near the bottom (3300m), that climbs to 600y/m.

As such, your simplistic calculation of 1.44 x 4400 = 6336m is quite silly. It's even more silly if we include more extreme cases of compression, with 5000y/m! Figure that: A single meter of ice contains our complete history, if we're to believe your Bible.



That brings me back to epistemology: Why do you believe what's in the Bible? (I assume it's the Bible you rely on and not the Koran? Also, this is possibly the most important question to answer: Why believe the Bible?) Why don't you start off as a blank slate and state: "I don't know anything, now I'll try to fill that void with knowledge. I will find things out for myself and be skeptical of every bit of information given to me. I will follow the evidence where it leads, not where I want it to lead." This will, I guarantee it, bring you much closer to any truth that might be luring out there.

 

[Justice Frangipane]

In your reply, Justice Frangipane, you commented that you don't believe everything you see, hear, read, etc - but you're referring to news media and the internet.

Selecting some is not endorsing all, nor is it brainless endorsement.

But Isotelus, to name but one, cited peer-reviewed scientific papers, which you then treated as if they were no more valid than news articles or "noise" one finds on the internet.

I believe there CAN be a HUGE difference in quality of research but that doesn't mean there always is. I would put a higher quality mark on scientific peer reviewed work. Let that be duly noted that I think scientific peer reviewed research has earned and rightly so a higher place in the likelihood of attaining accurate and truthful data and conclusions.

This is where there is a difference between you and most - if not all - those on this forum.

Aron is not wrong to stand firm on "justified knowledge", which is what science can be justly called. To stand firm on what one knows to be true is not "dumb". Not to stand firm on such is "dumb".

I will rescind my comment as I believe it led to confusion on what I meant. I agree it isn't dumb to take a stance on justified knowledge. That was not my point, and I agree with you. What I was trying to comment on is people who stand up and shout from the highest places "I can't be wrong!" as being a dumb thing to do.

In your later comments you talk about depths, etc, without citing primary sources, and question how these can add up to anything more than a few thousand years, in comparison with the claimed 800,000 years cited by others here.

You later mention one source which only deals with a 4100 year time period - which, with all due respect, is rather indicative of the cherry-picking, and equally instructive of the surface-reading/skimming that is prevalent of YECs, since - as others have noted earlier - you don't appear to have read this article fully either. Had you done so, you would not be citing it to support your "Young Earth" hypothesis.

Hold your horses here, there is a whole lot of inference going on there. I didn't state that the ice cores couldn't add up to more than a few thousand years. Nor did I cherry pick the 4100 article for a supposed support for my young earth theory.

I was WELL AWARE that the article did NOT support my young earth theory. THAT IS WHY I CHERRY PICKED IT. oh.... I concede I cherry picked it. =)
The reason I chose that article is it gave actual measurements from an actual location and appeared to have a lot of good data on how they do various things. I cherry picked it because it DID NOT support young earth and therefore I believed it to be an article that I could use data from that you would not immediately disregard. The assumptions that I didn't read the article because I sited something that wasn't from a creationist source is really an annoying assumption. It again feels like regardless of what I do SOMEBODY here (looking at you dragan glas) is gonna find a problem with how I do it and ignore the majority of what is ACTUALLY being talked about.

On page 2 it clearly states that the 4100 year period coincides with a 200 metre depth of an ice core (two cores, in fact).

On page 5, the paper features a table which includes ages in years (column 3) and corresponding depth in metres (column 5). The earliest date is 2100 BC with a corresponding depth of 200.94m.

If we equate 4000 years with 200 metres - to make the calculation simple - and take into account your uncited 3300 metres "maximum" depth (rounded for ease), we get an minimum "age of the Earth" of ... 4000 x 16.5 = 66,000 years.

And that doesn't take into account the compression of ice layers as we go deeper into your 3300 metre core - not to mention the as yet unexplored ice sheets at further depths. [In fact, the actual deepest core is over 3300 metres.]

And this information I gleaned from just the first few pages of the paper. [Will you dismiss this paper - since it doesn't support your claims - as you did that of Isotelus?]

Completely missing the point, the point in contention is what length of time do the lines represent
NOT are there lines in the ice
NOT how deep are the lines

If the lines are representative of years (summer, winter) then yes we have a problem. But I don't believe that to be the case. That doesn't factor out correctly to me. If you have the deepest ice on the planet measured to 4776 m and one report saying 120 mm per year and another saying 1.44 m per year (both scientific data) I would say that somewhere in between would be a reasonable place to make an assumption on how MUCH should have accumulated in 1.5 million years. (or even 800,000)

I will repeat the math and repeat my belief that the warmer and colder days created the ice layers.
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211_fall2013.web.dir/Sean_Counihan/Accumulation.html

This site is EXCELLENT for understanding where I'm coming from. Please keep an open mind when you read this. This data is in places that LOSE layers do to warmer climate. Not gain them.

This picture is from snow fall from less than a few weeks. April 8th to the 17th being noted as the top 3 darker dirt lines.


My math from before follows. Keep in mind what I'm saying is that the amount of snow and ice layers presents no problem for the young earth theory. NOR does it actually pose a problem for old earth. It just doesn't support it. When they say that these old ice layers are years and not warmer and colder days they could be wrong (I believe this information supports that they "could" be. They could be doing great scientific research founded on the wrong premise. That is my point. It doesn't add up to me.

4760 m of ice (deepest known ice) could accumulate in the 4400 years it has available with my theory. It could EASILY accumulate in 1.5 million. But it doesn't need that much time.

It is not a proof of old age. It can be interpreted to represent old age, but I believe that to be VERY in question.

I have a very hard time looking at snow reports done by what I believe to be an unbiased party, and to personally know (I grew up in cold weather) that snow forms into layers quickly especially if there is sun light present.

My conclusion is that ice core dating MAY be based off the wrong timescale.

I think that the data being gathered is extremely interesting and relevant and useful, but may need to be date adjusted. =)

Here is the math again.


--------------------------------

3331 m of ice from the deepest core sample (http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/feb/deepest-ice-core-ever-drilled-us-researchers-completed-antarctica)
72 m of ice in 50 years
compression of ice considerations
This still doesn't factor out to me as 800,000 to 1.5 million years of ice.

based off the scientific data
1.44 m per year (in that region of course)
1.44 x 4400 years (flood limitation) = 6336 m
compression to fit inside the deepest core sample (yes, I understand deeper exists, but we are talking core concepts of core concepts here)
190% compression.

I would say very easily believable and likely a bit over kill. Years of less snow, or warmer summers could easily get the deepest ice core samples to make sense within that timeline. Especially when you think about regular snow, hot days melt regular snow into regular ice on a regular daily (or weekly) basis. Dust would still get blown or deposited during cold nights or cold spells.

Now lets look at the data again.

1.44 m per year x 800,000 = 1152000 m of ice (that would destroy the planet! sorry, couldn't help it) This is accumulation not snow fall.
34,584% compression
I have a problem with that answer. Not saying its impossible, but WoW, that would be something else wouldn't it?

Obviously, this is extremely general and full of assumptions.

Scientific data IS 1.44 m per year for 50 years. That's not my opinion.

https://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/dai00-1.pdf
gives some good information on many aspects to ice core dating that can lead to a better understanding of the assumptions used in ice core dating and some of the discrepancies associated.
Very interesting information on volcanic eruptions here as well. It also appears that volcanic ash can not currently be ID'd to a specific past volcano. However, I would love to hear if anyone can find information to the contrary as that could be significantly meaningful information.

They also say that the 120 mm of snow a year in their location (Plateau Remote) is among the lowest in Antarctica.
120 mm x 800,000 = 97,600 m of ice.
greatest known core depth reached 3331 m
compression of 2930%

average depth in Antarctica is 2200 m. If 120 mm a year is one of the lowest in Antarctica and the average depth is 2200 m this estimate is very conservative.

Now if someone would like to point out again why I'm a complete moron for not buying into the 1,000,000 m plus of ice accumulation compressed to a maximum of 4776 m (deepest on earth)

They say they expect 1.5 million years of ice core data is available. So lets take the deepest point, multiply it times one of the lowest accumulation rates.
1,500,000 * 120 mm = 1800000 Meters of Ice at conservative estimates.
1800000 / 4776 m deepest ice
37688 % compression of the ice.
That means that each year would be .00318403735 mm thick
meaning the dark and light variations between seasons would have to be less than that.
And where are we finding the layers of dirt? (would they would be polystate dirt particles at that point?) jk... but seriously...

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

It's a valid general point... Are there any examples in science? Perhaps there are. Incorrect conclusions based on the best, or only available evidence at the time are prevalent in the history of science. Canals on the face of Mars? The best optical evidence (however weak at the time) lead top scientists to believe that there were artificially made or at least natural canals on Mars. It's when new evidence comes to light that things can change.

I just want to point this out about the channels on Mars. One scientist (Charles E. Burton) thought the appearance of canals on Mars were due to artificial construction. The rest of the astronomical community, at least the ones that also thought they were seeing channels, did not think they were artificial, but natural. Furthermore, the appearance of channels on Mars was far from decided and still not truly, what I am talking about, but a lot closer.

What I am speaking of is something (radiometric dating) which is used by a majority of scientists in a given field (geology) that is also confirmed with other methods (other absolute dating methods) to give concordant results. Furthermore, those conclusions drawn by said scientists (geologists) also agree with other fields of science (astronomy and archaeology) that have other independent methods for coming to the same conclusions. This is what I have in mind when I am talking about science being concordant.

We should always be open to the possibility of new evidence. The alternative outlook, I believe might begin to resemble dogmatism.

It's a principle of humility Justice seemed to be alluding to, that I believe operates in science as in any other academic subject that deals with argument and evidence, even if it's only a technicality. This appears valid to me and not obtuse. I would say that evolution is one of the surest theories, if not the surest theory we have, yet technically, I would accept the possibility that it could be wrong, though I see any such possibility as extremely remote.

This is understood, that is how the scientific method works. Any field of science is open to new evidence. Long-standing ideas in science are always being challenged and sometimes overturned. No one should be arguing that anything they accept in science is 100% and could never be proven wrong. Science is in the business of disproving things, not proving them. Thus, everything in science is only tentatively accepted.

However, I believe this to be the deeper point Justice Frangipane is trying to make (i.e. he is arguing a false dichotomy). Justice Frangipane, a young earth has been disproved for generations. Whether the earth is 4.5 billion years old or half that age is irrelevant, because the idea of the earth being 6,000 – 10,000 years old is completely wrong. Even if you were in some way able to disprove evolutionary theory and our understanding of geology tomorrow, that would not make creationism correct. Creationism (especially young earth creationism) has already been disproved. Essentially, you are arguing that the earth is flat, the earth is the center of the solar system, storks bring babies, or demons cause sickness. Those ideas are wrong no matter what the reality is that actually replaced them.

Furthermore, Dragan Glas and Inferno already debunked your math in their last comments. Restating a debunked argument does not give it new legs.

Dragan Glas[/url]"]And that doesn't take into account the compression of ice layers as we go deeper into your 3300 metre core - not to mention the as yet unexplored ice sheets at further depths. [In fact, the actual deepest core is over 3300 metres.]

Inferno[/url]"]I would build on that and show you that you're in even greater trouble than you think you are. For example, you can follow this link to the data for the Vostock ice core timescale. For convenience sake, I used the third link, Petit et al. 1999 "GT4", Nature, 399, 429-436. You'll notice that they're just huge rows of numbers. We'll just concern ourselves with the first two columns. The first is the depth at which we're at, the second is the calculated age. Note how for the first 10m, every 1m of ice corresponds to roughly 19 years. After 100m, we're already 3422 years in the past. Here, every 1m of ice corresponds to roughly 45 years. Let's go down to 1000m. We're suddenly at 80 y/m. At 3000m, it's roughly 300y/m. Near the bottom (3300m), that climbs to 600y/m.

As such, your simplistic calculation of 1.44 x 4400 = 6336m is quite silly. It's even more silly if we include more extreme cases of compression, with 5000y/m! Figure that: A single meter of ice contains our complete history, if we're to believe your Bible.

Moreover, Engelbert made a good point that I hope you will address.

Engelbert[/url]"]This outstrips a Young Earth timeline by a factor of around 100. How much error must there be in counting these lines in the ice to drop down to an age of 6-10,000 years? It seems terribly unlikely that a mixture of international scientists working on an award winning project could fail by such a wide margin. Would you agree? Dragan Glas appears to have made rather a better reply to your post, but perhaps my question is valid in a simplistic sense.

Stop gleaning and start reading for comprehension.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Justice Frangipane, I'm only going to comment on - or rather, question - one part of your above response.

On the one hand you acknowledge - rather magnanimously - that scientific peer-reviewed papers are of a higher standard, yet - at the same time - you question whether the scientific community are mistakenly counting days-worth of ice layers assuming them to be years-worth of ice layers.

Really!!??

You don't think that they can tell the difference?

And, perhaps most astonishing of all... and with all due respect, on what scientific basis do you question the scientific community and its peer-reviewed consensus on the EPICA project?

Also, your pick-and-mixing the 1.44mm and 120mm figures is simply bad mathematics.

The thickness of Ice layers depends on where and how they form - they are yearly, not daily, layers. And no, it's not me saying it - it's the scientific community, through peer-reviewed papers.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Justice Frangipane]

They article I presented showed 3 very distinct layers forming over the course of april 8th to the 15th (15th-17th) but for the sake of the argument lets keep it a week.

Scientists think that 800,000 years of ice core data can be documented. They further believe 1,500,000 years of data is present, but not yet documented. (this is what I believe is the current data) I'm going to go with that meaning that they have roughly 800,000 layers of ice drilled or have extrapolated that amount from current levels. That's fine, lets go with that for now.

This is just to make a general point. If you were to say that based off the report http://snowstudies.org/dust/20130424.html that three layers were created in 1 week
Lets say that 1 week equals 3 layers. (I know this is a huge assumption but it is based off of actual data)
52 weeks x 3 = 156
800,000 / 156 = 5128
That's pretty darn close. 5000 years of 3 layers of snow a week gets us roughly 800,000 layers of ice.

Ice has been shown to accumulate at a rate of 1.44 m per year in greenland.

I'm sorry but even if the smartest scientists in the world say we definitely have got this figured out our we really going to turn off our brains and go. Yeah, they are smarter than us so we should just trust them?

I understand the offensive nature associated with what I'm proposing as possibly true. But science isn't concerned about offensive nature. My question is a logical one and I am not finding documentation that actually addresses what I'm saying. Feel free to point out to me good information that describes why the layers MUST be years and not warmer and colder day/s.

When you look at the information on snowfall that I presented by a person who does this for a living, what goes through your minds? CLEARLY more than one layer is shown to have formed in a few days. Do you think that its made up? Do you completely disregard that information?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Snow and ice layers are not the same. Equally, weather conditions in the Antarctic and other latitudes are not the same.

You're assuming that the ice layers form every day - this is simply not the case:

Ice sheets form in areas where snow that falls in winter does not melt entirely over the summer. Over thousands of years, the layers of snow pile up into thick masses of ice, growing thicker and denser as the weight of new snow and ice layers compresses the older layers.

Snow fall in the Antarctic ranges from 3cm at the pole to between 50 and 127cm at the coast.

You're assuming that you know more than scientists who actually spend their academic lives studying this subject, presenting scientific papers for peer-review.

Basically, what you're doing is similar to Don McLeroy's questioning of evolution:

I disagree with these experts. Somebody's gotta stand up to experts...

He's a dentist - what does he know about the subject that scientists, who specialise in evolutionary biology, and spend their lives studying it, don't know?

What if a reporter had gone to him and said that, "Some guy says cavities are caused by worms"?

His first thought would be, "This guy can't be a dentist". His second thought would be, "If he's a dentist, I hope he's not a member of my practice".

He'd then explain, from a qualified dentist's point-of-view, how cavities are really caused.

If the reporter then went to the other person, gave him the dentist's explanation and then returned with the other person's reply - "Well, somebody's got to stand up to these experts!" - what do you think McLeroy's answer would be!?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

It's a valid general point... Are there any examples in science? Perhaps there are. Incorrect conclusions based on the best, or only available evidence at the time are prevalent in the history of science. Canals on the face of Mars? The best optical evidence (however weak at the time) lead top scientists to believe that there were artificially made or at least natural canals on Mars. It's when new evidence comes to light that things can change.

I just want to point this out about the channels on Mars. One scientist (Charles E. Burton) thought the appearance of canals on Mars were due to artificial construction. The rest of the astronomical community, at least the ones that also thought they were seeing channels, did not think they were artificial, but natural. Furthermore, the appearance of channels on Mars was far from decided and still not truly, what I am talking about, but a lot closer.

The mistake actually was due to Lowell's misunderstanding regarding the Italian word "canali", which simply meant "channels". He thought it meant "canals", which implied a artificial ("man-made") - rather than a natural - cause.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Just to add to the point about how do scientists know that the layers are annular rather than daily...

The TalkOrigines FAQ on Ice Cores, which I posted earlier, explains this.

Further, as a article on non-radiometric dating methods for an old Earth points out:

2) ICE CORES There is definitely a FAQ on this one. Matt Brinkman has compiled a beautiful summary of the data. Briefly, though, people have counted annual layers of ice in places like Greenland and Antarctica. Naturally, the layers become harder to distinguish as you go deeper in the ice, but the principles are comparatively simple. It is comparatively easy to show (e.g., using inclusions of ash from known volcanic eruptions) that the layers do correspond to years rather than snowfalls (as Ted Holden has often asserted). As the ice gets compacted, the layers do become hard to distinguish and there are various theoretical methods used to test them, so someone who is inclined to disbelieve in them may feel uncomfortable accepting figures from beyond the point where people can actually *see* them reliably. However, even within this more restricted range, the news is bad for a "young earth." For example, in the Greenland ice divide (summit) core, it is possible to distinguish 40,000 annual layers before they grow too thin. Note that in those 40,000 years, there is no sign of a flood. Deeper in the core we get to ice laid down in the last interglacial (circa 120,000 years ago). According to both observations and theory (Milankovitch) this was a time in which the northern hemisphere was much warmer than today. Sure enough, at this point the annual layers reappear. Precipitation was much higher at this time (a consequence of the greater capacity of air to hold water vapour as temperature increases) and the annual layers are still 6mm thick despite the thinning induced by the flow of ice. Roughly another ten thousand layers can be counted. It is possible, though not yet confirmed, that more sophisticated isotopic analysis may allow annual layers to be counted between these two zones, perhaps back to around 70,000 years before present. This will be quite difficult because these layers have been considerably thinned by ice flow, and unlike the last interglacial layers, they were never that thick to begin with. Very preliminary results on this core were published in Nature, volume 359, page 311.

This is particularly ironic given your posting a article regarding volcanic ash in ice cores being used to date the years of the layers within the cores.

The above clearly debunks both your belief/claim that ice layers are daily rather than annular and your belief/claim in a Noachian Flood.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

They article I presented showed 3 very distinct layers forming over the course of april 8th to the 15th (15th-17th) but for the sake of the argument lets keep it a week.

Scientists think that 800,000 years of ice core data can be documented. They further believe 1,500,000 years of data is present, but not yet documented. (this is what I believe is the current data) I'm going to go with that meaning that they have roughly 800,000 layers of ice drilled or have extrapolated that amount from current levels. That's fine, lets go with that for now.

This is just to make a general point. If you were to say that based off the report http://snowstudies.org/dust/20130424.html that three layers were created in 1 week
Lets say that 1 week equals 3 layers. (I know this is a huge assumption but it is based off of actual data)
52 weeks x 3 = 156
800,000 / 156 = 5128
That's pretty darn close. 5000 years of 3 layers of snow a week gets us roughly 800,000 layers of ice.

Ice has been shown to accumulate at a rate of 1.44 m per year in greenland.

I'm sorry but even if the smartest scientists in the world say we definitely have got this figured out our we really going to turn off our brains and go. Yeah, they are smarter than us so we should just trust them?

I understand the offensive nature associated with what I'm proposing as possibly true. But science isn't concerned about offensive nature. My question is a logical one and I am not finding documentation that actually addresses what I'm saying. Feel free to point out to me good information that describes why the layers MUST be years and not warmer and colder day/s.

When you look at the information on snowfall that I presented by a person who does this for a living, what goes through your minds? CLEARLY more than one layer is shown to have formed in a few days. Do you think that its made up? Do you completely disregard that information?

:facepalm:

As Dragan Glas said, snow and ice layers are not the same thing. You ask what we think of your citation. It is a great citation for snowfall in Colorado, not the snowfall in the artic or the rate of ice build up in a glacier. What you are doing with this citation is what you have accused the scientific community of doing (i.e. starting with a faulty assumption). What you are doing is taking snowfall rates in Colorado and claiming those are rates for ice build up on a glacier. Remember what I said about creationists doubling down on their ignorance, this is a great example of that. In addition, this doubling down is not a sign of someone who is interested in learning, but only hoping to cling onto his preconceived notions.

Dragan Glas also pointed out earlier that you are cherry picking your data to suit your needs and this is another great example of that. Can you not see that snowfall rates in Colorado have nothing to do with ice build up in a glacier in the artic? Furthermore, your math based on this flawed assumption amounts to nothing more than garbage in, garbage out.

 

[Inferno]

I believe there CAN be a HUGE difference in quality of research but that doesn't mean there always is. I would put a higher quality mark on scientific peer reviewed work. Let that be duly noted that I think scientific peer reviewed research has earned and rightly so a higher place in the likelihood of attaining accurate and truthful data and conclusions.

Then we have another problem: What are your qualifications to claim that one paper is better than the other? This is one of the few cases where qualifications really do matter. A fair few people have degrees in at least one area of science, sometimes even in the very field we're talking about. I'm just about to finish my Bachelors in Geography and while that certainly doesn't make me an expert, I certainly know how to read papers (not something everyone knows) and I can extract important information from them. Can you? Can you rate how good a paper is?

I was WELL AWARE that the article did NOT support my young earth theory. THAT IS WHY I CHERRY PICKED IT. oh.... I concede I cherry picked it. =)
The reason I chose that article is it gave actual measurements from an actual location and appeared to have a lot of good data on how they do various things. I cherry picked it because it DID NOT support young earth and therefore I believed it to be an article that I could use data from that you would not immediately disregard. The assumptions that I didn't read the article because I sited something that wasn't from a creationist source is really an annoying assumption. It again feels like regardless of what I do SOMEBODY here (looking at you dragan glas) is gonna find a problem with how I do it and ignore the majority of what is ACTUALLY being talked about.

Don't misunderstand us: We're not disputing the data here, not at all. The data (aka facts) support our point of view. (Or rather, our PoV is based on the data.)
What I (and I suppose we) are criticizing is that you're using numbers that don't even have any relation to one another. You claim that at a deposition rate of 1.44m/y (dubious) and going back 4400 years (Noah) we'll get to a depth of 6336m. This is YOUR calculation, remember?

based off the scientific data
1.44 m per year (in that region of course)
1.44 x 4400 years (flood limitation) = 6336 m
compression to fit inside the deepest core sample (yes, I understand deeper exists, but we are talking core concepts of core concepts here)
190% compression.

We showed that calculation to be in error. At a depth of 200m from the source YOU quoted, they had already calculated an age of 4100 years. That's a depth where compression isn't yet that great, so the ice "ages" much faster at greater depths. Surely you must understand this.

If the lines are representative of years (summer, winter) then yes we have a problem. But I don't believe that to be the case.

And you base this on...?

That doesn't factor out correctly to me. If you have the deepest ice on the planet measured to 4776 m and one report saying 120 mm per year and another saying 1.44 m per year (both scientific data) I would say that somewhere in between would be a reasonable place to make an assumption on how MUCH should have accumulated in 1.5 million years. (or even 800,000)

The others have already answered this but personally, I don't think it's been answered to the degree I'd like to answer it. I'll ask a Prof of mine to help me out with this and I'll come back with all the technical details of morphology and so on, but suffice it to say that DraganGlas was correct with his "ice is not snow" comment. Also, remember that snow is 60-70% air, even compressed.

Anyway, I'll be sure to leave a more complete comment when I get back. (Reckon Monday/Tuesday)

 

[DutchLiam84]

And I wonder how you can get a compression percentage higher than 100%. I think your calculations are off Justice or I'm misunderstanding it.