Posts by WhatshallIcallmyself

31

22,000 years of arctic ice cores melt, and wash the YHWH/JESUS concept down the sewer

by fulltimestudent in

the full story, as told in the uk guardian can be found at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/16/arctic-ice-cores-melt-university-alberta-canada.

and briefly it tells of an equipment failure at a storage facility for ice cores that had been extracted from the polar ice cap in various locations.. but note, that the layers of ice evident in the cores covered a period of 22,000 years.

and from the christian/jw perspective, that's impossible, for the bible story of the flood (verified by jesus and sundry other biblical writers) maintains that 4000+ years ago, the ice caps would have melted during the period when the earth was covered by the divinely caused deluge.

WhatshallIcallmyself

Perry –

Summary: You initially were told that counting layers is not how age is worked out. You get butt hurt and link to something that shows annual layering. I then explain what annual layering is and you get butt hurt and pretend that the two things are the same therefore I am contradicting myself!

I see you still do not understand what is going on here. Therefore:

“When asked, “Bob, when you dug that airplane out, how many layers of ice were there above the airplane?”, He said, “Oh, there were many hundreds of layers of ice above the airplane.”

The facts are that in only 48 years, these planes were already under 260 feet of ice, and under "many hundreds" of ice layers.” – Perry

This led to my initial response to your lack of understanding as to what a layer is. Your own post speaks for itself; in only 48 years there were many hundreds of layers above the planes. This should encourage you to realise that more than 1 layer can be lain down in a year. Therefore counting layers is not how you work out ages. Would you agree?

An annual layer, on the other hand, are 1 or more layers that have been lain down over the course of a year; hence the term annual layer. Do you know how those boundaries are worked out?

The rest of your latest post is a rambling of ignorance.

The question you need to ask and seek an answer for is this:

How do you work out where 1 year stops and the next year starts when using ice cores?

Pasting silly pictures does nothing to enhance your argument other than to further demonstrate you do not understand what it is you are talking about e.g.

“We date the ice layers by the carbon 14 and we calibrate the carbon 14 by the ice layers” – Perry

Silly... Do you understand what relative dating is and what absolute dating is?

Oh, and ice cores are only like tree rings insofar as an analogy... Perhaps that is where your confusion is arising.

31

22,000 years of arctic ice cores melt, and wash the YHWH/JESUS concept down the sewer

by fulltimestudent in

the full story, as told in the uk guardian can be found at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/16/arctic-ice-cores-melt-university-alberta-canada.

and briefly it tells of an equipment failure at a storage facility for ice cores that had been extracted from the polar ice cap in various locations.. but note, that the layers of ice evident in the cores covered a period of 22,000 years.

and from the christian/jw perspective, that's impossible, for the bible story of the flood (verified by jesus and sundry other biblical writers) maintains that 4000+ years ago, the ice caps would have melted during the period when the earth was covered by the divinely caused deluge.

WhatshallIcallmyself

Perry -

Your own link above makes it clear what ANNUAL layers are. Just look at the pictures and you will see many bands (layers) yet the annual count is far less. From a brief look at that poor resolution picture I can make out approximately 30 layers and yet the year count is 12. Why is that Perry? Do you understand what it is I (and the article) am telling you?

Your article also said this just after your highlight:

"Unfortunately, annual layers become harder to see deeper in the ice core."

Given that, how do you think age is calculated? Well, read the rest of your link for a clue!

31

22,000 years of arctic ice cores melt, and wash the YHWH/JESUS concept down the sewer

by fulltimestudent in

the full story, as told in the uk guardian can be found at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/16/arctic-ice-cores-melt-university-alberta-canada.

and briefly it tells of an equipment failure at a storage facility for ice cores that had been extracted from the polar ice cap in various locations.. but note, that the layers of ice evident in the cores covered a period of 22,000 years.

and from the christian/jw perspective, that's impossible, for the bible story of the flood (verified by jesus and sundry other biblical writers) maintains that 4000+ years ago, the ice caps would have melted during the period when the earth was covered by the divinely caused deluge.

WhatshallIcallmyself

Perry, as usual, has ignored previous replies and continues ahead with this nonsense.

Perry, if you were to learn about ice core dating you would know that answer to that question already. That you are asking such basic questions should give you pause to consider just how advanced your knowledge is of this subject.

There may be many layers in 1 year in areas such as where those planes are buried. However counting layers is not how age is calculated. The area that these planes are buried in are areas of high annual snow fall and is on an active glacier. For many reasons ice cores are not taken at locations such as that. Ice cores are taken from areas of stability and low snow fall such as inland areas.

One more time for emphasis...: Ice cores are NOT taken from active glaciers such as the one you present, areas of high annual snow fall will show wider layering for a given time period, measured depth is NOT an indicator of time passed, a layer is not an indicator that 1 year has passed; in short you are presenting a straw man and you do not possess enough knowledge to realise this.

My previous reply addressed your key issues.

What you need, Perry, is an understanding of this subject.

31

22,000 years of arctic ice cores melt, and wash the YHWH/JESUS concept down the sewer

by fulltimestudent in

the full story, as told in the uk guardian can be found at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/16/arctic-ice-cores-melt-university-alberta-canada.

and briefly it tells of an equipment failure at a storage facility for ice cores that had been extracted from the polar ice cap in various locations.. but note, that the layers of ice evident in the cores covered a period of 22,000 years.

and from the christian/jw perspective, that's impossible, for the bible story of the flood (verified by jesus and sundry other biblical writers) maintains that 4000+ years ago, the ice caps would have melted during the period when the earth was covered by the divinely caused deluge.

WhatshallIcallmyself

Perry, as usual, is getting his knowledge from creationist websites. If Perry were to learn about ice core dating he would understand that dating takes place in stable ice fields and not on active glaciers, such as the active glacier covering the part of Greenland that these planes are buried in. He might also come to understand that ice core dates are verified by comparison with other dating methods. He might also come to understand that compaction takes place, therefore suggesting an "average" layer and using that to come to a numerical figure is nonsense. He might also come to understand that counting "layers" is not how ice core age is worked out.

He might come to learn these things but he won't by repeating creationist propaganda.

147

Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty in

it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.

if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.

followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.

WhatshallIcallmyself

God's justice. - John_Mann

Which one? There are oh so many to choose from. Perhaps you should choose one who loves you so much that they educate you rather than punish you for being yourself.

147

Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty in

it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.

if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.

followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.

WhatshallIcallmyself

slimboyfat -

I can only assume you didn't understand Cofty. I think I did which I why I found your response amusing. Of course I could have misunderstood Cofty and he actually does not know of those disciplines you have referred to. I am eager to know if I was correct or not!

21

It's about progress, not perfection...

by scratchme1010 in

i guess at this point in time and space i'm ok if there's an indication of things going in the right direction.. my jw father, who joined the jws in 1973 when i was 8, has always had all the characteristics of the stereotypical brainwashed born again weirdo.

as a jw he always felt the need to show that he was more devoted than the rest of the crop.

to him, life became very easy from that point on: "the bible", interpreted by the millions of wt publications, along with the information in the meetings and getting involved in all jw activities, were the answer to everything and anything in his life".

WhatshallIcallmyself

Thank you for creating this thread. It made for compelling reading and is certainly food for thought.

205

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman in

mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

WhatshallIcallmyself

TWM -

I hope you take note of Coded Logic's post above...

205

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman in

mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

WhatshallIcallmyself

I think this thread has run its course. TWM's points have all been refuted with evidence given so that all lurkers can see the truth of the matter for themselves.

It's got the point now where TWM is denying having had replies which is utterly exasperating for those who have given time to reply to his questions/assertions.

205

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman in

mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

WhatshallIcallmyself

TWN -

Are you so out of date that you honestly believe that talking about Darwin's beliefs is relevant today?

Anyway, "Principles of Geology"; the clue is in the name. I've also highlighted it for you in case you may overlook it again.

Thanks