Jump to content


Photo

Ice Ages


  • Please log in to reply
503 replies to this topic

#501 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 23 May 2016 - 11:36 AM

Pi>> For that reason alone, it would be worth a try. <<

I guess their method may have disproved their flow modeling assumptions. Of course they would probably say than that could not be shown because of what they would say is contamination. So all we can do is wait until someone decides to actually test for carbon 14 in a deep ice core. I have found the person who could probably get his hands on that kind of sample and I will be trying to make contact soon. Of course if he figures that it would be damaging to his ancient Earth viewpoint he probably would put the skids to that idea.

#502 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 25 May 2016 - 02:10 PM

In #498, I wrote:

 

But I do have a problem with is your suggestion that having some residual uplift today that is measurable proves somehow that the Ice Age had to last longer than five hundred years. You simply have shown nothing to indicate that other than your infidelity that there could be enough compression during that time. I have seen no scientific data from you to indicate that would be impossible. And to me that means that having residual uplift of .5 cm per yr from an Ice Age which was 3500 years in the past is more believable than one which was 11700 years in the past. This STILL temains a nothingburger for your side.

 

 

Those words should be "incredulity" and "remains." 

 

(I use voice recognition to write some of my posts and I don't always catch when it makes mistakes.)



#503 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 25 May 2016 - 04:05 PM

In #498, I wrote:

 

But I do have a problem with is your suggestion that having some residual uplift today that is measurable proves somehow that the Ice Age had to last longer than five hundred years. You simply have shown nothing to indicate that other than your infidelity that there could be enough compression during that time. I have seen no scientific data from you to indicate that would be impossible. And to me that means that having residual uplift of .5 cm per yr from an Ice Age which was 3500 years in the past is more believable than one which was 11700 years in the past. This STILL temains a nothingburger for your side.

 

 

Those words should be "incredulity" and "remains." 

 

(I use voice recognition to write some of my posts and I don't always catch when it makes mistakes.)

 

Yes I was somewhat amused by your claim of my infidelity :)



#504 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 25 May 2016 - 07:42 PM

Oh I still see you as an infidel... but in the nicest sense of the word.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users