Search This Blog

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Evolution and Global Warming — Illegitimate Sons of Scientific Consensus


Some of us do not go along with the consensus. We dare to question evolution and anthropogenic global warming. Some of us question one or the other, and some of us are radical enough to question both. When we speak up and express our doubts, we're often told that "it's the consensus" as if that was a reason to accept what "scientists say" and to stop asking questions.

First of all, saying that global warming is a consensus is the opposite of the truth, there are scientists who deny it, and not just a fringe element. There are also scientists who deny evolution and the Big Bang, including credentialed creation scientists. Don't get me started on the lie that Bill Nye perpetuates on how you must believe in evolution or science cannot happen...

Second, majority opinion does not determine truth. If you want consensus, go into politics. There are things that were considered to be scientific facts that were abandoned later on. True scientific inquiry does not seek to silence people with differing views. Instead, the evidence is examined and considered.



So, when should we doubt the "scientific consensus" of global warming?
A December 18 Washington Post poll, released on the final day of the ill-fated Copenhagen climate summit, reported “four in ten Americans now saying that they place little or no trust in what scientists have to say about the environment.” Nor is the poll an outlier. Several recent polls have found “climate change” skepticism rising faster than sea levels on Planet Algore (not to be confused with Planet Earth, where sea levels remain relatively stable). 
Many of the doubt-inducing climate scientists and their media acolytes attribute this rising skepticism to the stupidity of Americans, philistines unable to appreciate that there is “a scientific consensus on climate change.” One of the benefits of the recent Climategate scandal, which revealed leading climate scientists manipulating data, methods, and peer review to exaggerate the evidence of significant global warming, may be to permanently deflate the rhetorical value of the phrase “scientific consensus.” 
Even without the scandal, the very idea of scientific consensus should give us pause. “Consensus,” according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” That pretty much sums up the dilemma. We want to know whether a scientific consensus is based on solid evidence and sound reasoning, or social pressure and groupthink.
 You can finish reading "When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’", here.

85 comments:

Dan Pangburn said...

All of the average global temperature anomalies reported since before 1900 were caused by NATURAL phenomena. The correlation is 95% and uses only two drivers. CO2 change is not one of them. Search AGW unveiled to see the simple analysis.

Anonymous said...

Logically speaking, that doesn't mean that CO2 change can't be a driver of climate change now.

Dan Pangburn said...

In the late Ordovician, the planet plunged into the Andean Saharan ice age and later emerged from it while the CO2 level was about 10 times the present.

During the last glacial period, warming trends changed to cooling trends while the CO2 level was higher than it had been during the warming trend.

During the 20th century, average global temperature trends went down, up, down, up while the CO2 level went steadily, progressively up. Lack of correlation demonstrates lack of causation.

To see further discussion of these three issues, search keywords Pangburn Middlebury.

These things corroborate that CO2 change, by any rational amount, has no significant effect on climate.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Pangburn, perhaps you're not aware that this is a young Earth creationist blog. There's no such thing as the "late Ordovician", which is nothing but Darwinist propaganda. Nice try though.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
radar said...

Not sure why my first comment did not save.

Darwinism is simply paganism with a patina of science. The idea that nothing exploded into everything and that 10 to the 80th power electrons bonking into each other designed organisms and information and life and put all the forces and systems into motion so mankind could learn how things work and develop both socially and economically.

Science is a child of Philosophy and most of the first real scientists were Theists if not Christians. It was not until liars like Lyell and deluded plagiarists like Darwin publicized the preposterous claims of Darwinism that the pagan religion became the national religion of many Western nations...sadly it seems that England and the USA and Australia are among such nations,

From Radar part one...

radar said...

Dan Pangburn would probably agree with me on this - the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is too tiny to make any real differences in the global temperatures. The data we can compile that relates to temperatures of the Earth in the past shows CO2 levels tend to grow in a relationship with temperatures in which higher temps then bring on more CO2.

Testing of the hypothesis shows that CO2 is actually plant food and where it rises, plants grow better and people eat better and thus society benefits. The Medieval Warming Period was a time of higher temperatures and therefore an expansion of land usable for agriculture and a growth of animal populations.

Our records of lowered temperatures, for instance the "Year Of No Summer" which was caused by volcanic activity by the way, show that people suffer and starve because crops fail and game is less available.

We also know that the activity of the Sun is the primary driver of temperatures on Earth and the two ways the Earth cools are periods of Solar inactivity and/or big volcanic eruptions that fill the air with dust that blocks out sunlight. Periods of warmer temperatures come when the Sun is active and there are no big volcanic eruptions.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Radar,

Even if Mr. Pangburn was spreading Darwinist propaganda, at least (he thought) he had a sufficient dataset to back up his thesis, namely that CO2 is not a driver of climate change.

But where does that leave us creationists of the young Earth variety? Since we have to rule out tree rings and ice layers and so on, we don't really have enough data to call this one way or the other. How are we supposed to know what CO2 levels were during, say, the time of Jesus?

radar said...

I did not address Dan Pangburn when I made my comment about Darwinist propaganda. He is focused on the climate and does not seem to address the issue directly but instead used the language of Darwinism to deflate the hot air balloon of Climate Alarmism.

I have made many specific points concerning ice cores and tree rings. The surface of the Earth, the oceans, the evidence for the Noahic Flood and the evidence for an age of the Earth in the vicinity of 6-7,000 years and certainly less than 20,000 years is actually quite clear. Every time we discover more about biology or geology or astronomy or physics or any other scientific discipline, we see evidence for design and creation rather than the absurdity of Darwinism.

We have created a couple of generations of low-information brainwashed people here in the USA by sending kids to schools that teach nonsense and then on to colleges that do the same. Popular cable channels purporting to present history or science are loaded with propagandist garbage.

Meanwhile we have lots of television shows that feature psychics or telekinesis or ghosts or vampires or witchcraft. We have all sorts of shows that make claims about ancient aliens. Painfully stupid garbage - often I have to just mute the noise and watch the wonderful visuals on NatGeo or Animal Planet so I get the benefit of the footage taken by dedicated videographers without being insulted by the Darwinist droning.

You Darwinists can trot out all sorts of guys with deep and dramatic voices extolling the wonders of creation yet not identify or acknowledge the Creator wise enough to design a natural world that would give us a habitat to inhabit for a few thousand years.

When Darwin wrote his speculative tomes, many people believed that the Universe was eternal and that organisms were made of cells filled with protoplasm with no real idea of the nature of cellular activities or DNA nor the mechanisms of reproduction on the micro-level. Now we know that the Universe is running downhill and that organisms are full of specified information and irreducibly complex systems and molecular machines and symbiotic relationships. Yet Darwinists just roll along and spin every new discovery as yet another wonder of evolution. Honestly, what ever happened to logic? Someone will remark about how gloriously the crocodile jaw is "bio-engineered" and then later claim that crocodiles evolved from a long line of undiscovered missing links that lead back to lightning striking mud and bringing about life.

Sigh. Look up the Golem. Christ-denying Jewish mystical mythology that predates Charles Darwin. Pagans and mystics and psychics and perverts are turning society back towards the ways of Sodom and Gomorrah. God has wreaked havoc upon the Earth to punish great sins many times, once completely resurfacing the planet and remaking the ecosystems with a flood and once separating mankind by confusing languages at Babel. Study of languages support the Biblical narrative and study of DNA has established one woman to whom all humans are related and our population is appropriate to a new starting date of about 4300 years ago. If we began life 200,000 years ago we would be standing on each other's heads!

Science is broken because of the religions of paganism and humanism. So ignorance abounds and we pretend that God is not real but ET? Yeah, you believe in him!

Dan Pangburn said...

OK, ignore the first two paragraphs in my second post and go with my first post and the following:

Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe it or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), some politicians and many others mislead the gullible public by stubbornly continuing to proclaim that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is a primary cause of global warming.

Measurements demonstrate that they are wrong.

CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now (through December, 2013) increased since 2001 by 27.18 ppmv (an amount equal to 30.37% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; December, 2013, 398.31 ppmv).

The average global temperature trend since 2001 is flat (5 reporting agencies http://endofgw.blogspot.com/). Graphs through 2013 have been added.

That is the observation. No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 27.18 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.


Anonymous said...

Mr. Pangburn,

Your entire dataset and the data of this IPCC panel is based on "evidence" that cannot be trusted. Tree rings and ice cores show no correlation to being deposited once a year, they can be deposited multiple times a year as we all know, that's the only way they would make any sense.

Mr. Radar,

You've repeated a whole bunch of arguments that I'm more than familiar with but they have nothing to do with what's at issue here as far as I can see. Sadly it appears you did not read my previous comment.

Seriously: What data do we have to come to any conclusions about CO2 one way or the other?

Is it true that we actually can't? I don't see any argument here to dispute that.

THis AGW thing seems to be a debate between Darwinists or theistic evolutionists of one stripe or another, far as I can see.

radar said...

Dear Mr. Anonymous,

How can I address someone when there could be multiple people posting as anonymous?

Let's make this easy. CO2 is a tiny component of the atmosphere and is much too small to wield global temperature changes. When this tiny amount increases, plants gobble it up so that it never seems to change all that much. The current percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is about .04 percent. I have seen all sorts of ludicrous arguments made by alarmists about this tiny fraction of the composition of the air we breathe and some of it is simply staggeringly deceptive.

The famous carbon footprint malarkey is so foolish! The entity with the largest carbon footprint belong to the ocean. Shall we tax the ocean for daring to emit plant food into the atmosphere?

We really cannot determine what the CO2 content of the atmosphere may have been based on ice cores because ice under pressure tends to "share" various elements with other layers and it is true that ice layers and tree rings do not correlate with years or seasons. We can observe what happens today and what happens today is that CO2 percentage changes in the atmosphere follow temperature changes and not the other way around.

The IPCC and other organizations determined to stop mankind from harvesting coal and gas and oil and manufacturing things and providing electricity to third world countries lie about the data and have been caught doing so many times. Al Gore is a liar, the CRU and the UN are filled with liars and the Hockey Stick Graph was also deliberately deceptive. They want you to think the planet needs you to avoid using gasoline or incandescent lighting when in fact it would actually be a good thing if mankind could warm the globe. We'd have less starvation and poverty. This would be most helpful in third world countries...and that, my friends and foes, is what they do not want! Why do you think DDT was banned and they hand out mosquito nets to Africans? They want you to THINK they care about third world populations while in fact they want them to die off...Eugenics is not dead, it is simply wearing a mask.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Radar,

In the days of Obama's NSA snooping around everywhere and looking under everyone's skirts, I prefer to remain anonymous thank you. I'm not the first anonymous poster in the second comment from the top, just the ones after that, from when I couldn't resist taking Mr. Pangburn to task for spreading BS. I was happy to see he retracted his points.

All the graphs I've seen of changes in CO2 and temperature show them kinda in sync, not really one ahead of the other. So what did you use to conclude that temperature is ahead of the CO2 changes?

So I went and followed your advice and got a bit skeptical about this and I found this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_atmosphere

And there it says this: "Concentrations follow temperature changes in the oceans with a time lag of around 800 years"

Now that is just balderdash if you'll pardon my language. There were no thermometers around 800 years ago and certainly nobody was sticking them in the oceans and CO2 wasn't even discovered until the 18th/19th century, so surely they weren't measuring THAT in the middle ages either.

But I'd be most obliged Mr. Radar, if you could tell me how you concluded that CO2 changes follow temperature changes.

WomanHonorThyself said...

the masses will choose to believe anything if repeated enough with or without clear evidence my dear friend...never give up my friend!

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately I don't know who you are, WomanHonorThyself, but I appreciate your warm support.

Mr. Radar, is it true then that we don't have the data in the context of a young Earth and given what we know about science for us to actually draw these conclusions? I think we just don't have enough data to be included in this debate, but if you have an answer to this issue, please let me know. How do we know that CO2 follows temperature?

radar said...

Mr Anonymous,

We need to set the stage for scientific discussion. The data is the same for everyone. There is not YEC data and Darwinist data, there is data. Individuals and organizations come to the data with presuppositions and they tend to let those suppositions guide their conclusions. Too many of them never question their presuppositions.

I can and have made assertions that CO2 levels in the atmosphere generally follow temperatures based on various methods used by Darwinists. They prefer to assert long ages when they trot out the information while I have steadfastly maintained that there are some hard caps to the age of the Earth (the strength of the magnetic field and the presence of helium in granitic zircons just to name two measurable reasons to give up on the millions of years baloney).

At this time we have measured an increase in atmospheric CO2 while the temperature has been stable or going down at the same time. As much as Climate Alarmists have cried wolf, I have been amused when their annual meetings have been snowed out or their icebreaker (this winter) in the Antarctic got trapped in the ice they expected to find was going away. I would assert that we have found that CO2 follows temperatures generally but certainly does not cause temperatures to rise. However, we do see increased solar activity lead to increased temperatures and Maunder periods of inactivity

Might I add that if the alarmists did not know that icebergs melting does not raise the level of the oceans, perhaps they should fill a glass with water and ice, measure the level and then come back eight hours later?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Radar,

thank you so much for your response.

"There is not YEC data and Darwinist data, there is data."

No Mr. Radar, we can't accept tree rings and ice cores as reliable data, they are in contradiction to the Bible. Therefore they are not data, they are propaganda and misinformation and we can't glean any so-called conclusions from them, whether they are about the age of the earth or (and I have no idea how they claim to do this) about what temperatures or CO2 levels were at the time of Jesus. We have to cast the so-called data aside because it doesn't add up. Or will you now cast aside the Bible itself?!

My question goes unanswered, which is fine by me, because as far as I'm concerned, once you take Darwinist propaganda out of the picture, we really don't know one thing or another about whether CO2 leads temperature or vice versa.

I'm glad you've changed your mind too, from "temperature leads CO2" to "At this time we have measured an increase in atmospheric CO2 while the temperature has been stable or going down at the same time", which is a very different thing altogether of course.

Anonymous said...

"Might I add that if the alarmists did not know that icebergs melting does not raise the level of the oceans, perhaps they should fill a glass with water and ice, measure the level and then come back eight hours later?"

If the ice isn't floating in the water, but is held above it by, say, a mass of land or even ice, you have a different story.

Fill a bucket with water. Hold a chunk of ice above it and wait for it to melt. Does the water level rise? Course it does.

radar said...

There is not YEC data and Darwinist data, there is data."

The above is what I said about the data or evidence available to peruse concerning climate history, but applicable to any scientific or historical or philosophical endeavor. The response from this particular anonymous commenter illustrates a very foolish argument indeed. Go ahead and read it:

No Mr. Radar, we can't accept tree rings and ice cores as reliable data, they are in contradiction to the Bible. Therefore they are not data, they are propaganda and misinformation and we can't glean any so-called conclusions from them, whether they are about the age of the earth or (and I have no idea how they claim to do this) about what temperatures or CO2 levels were at the time of Jesus. We have to cast the so-called data aside because it doesn't add up. Or will you now cast aside the Bible itself?!

Sigh. The ignorant can be taught, the stupid excused and the wise warned, but the fool will hold onto his folly like the dog will go back to eat his own vomit.

We all have the same evidence available to us, we all have brains and we all have a worldview from which we view that evidence and build our personal belief system. The problem is that so many people do not question their presuppositions and therefore their lives are built on a foundation uninspected and are prone to waste the one life they have been given.

I am not the wisest man in the world nor the most informed, but I am one who has thoroughly vetted his presuppositions and have made informed choices about them. Thus they have been and remain subject to scrutiny. Mr Anonymous does not sound like someone who has even considered that his presuppositions could be lies and thus he easily attacks the views of others in a way that is laughable to those who have taken the meaning of life seriously.

radar said...

As to the argument about the water, the ice on the Antarctic continent is hardly in danger of massive melts. The ice in the Arctic is mostly floating in the water rather than on land. The landmasses that hold onto water tend to have melts in the warm season and then accumulate ice and snow in the cold season. The reason that ice melts and ice floes are not significant to those who live along the coasts is that the two hemispheres have opposite warm and cold seasons.

Glaciation actually calves as it grows, so the dramatic portrayals of icebergs casting off big chunks of ice to alarm people is ridiculous, since that is what happens when glaciers are growing!

However, we do have evidence of the drowning of land and coastal cities in the times long before Christ. There were land bridges in place all over the world and civilizations around 2,000 years BC or so built large cities on drowned coasts or islands. From this we likely get the tales of Atlantis. Why does this not happen now?

Easy answer. After the Flood there was one ice age. The end of the Flood exposed land masses separated by runaway tectonic plate subduction and the warmed oceans filled the atmosphere with water vapor that turned into blizzards on land masses near both poles. Glaciation covered much of the Northernmost continents of Europe, Asia and the Americas as well as Antarctica. As temperatures normalized, most of that glaciation melted and much of the landscape not sculpted by the floodwaters withdrawal was formed by dike breaks as the melted glaciers returned to the oceans. Ocean levels normalized and the land bridges were mostly drowned along with low-lying coastal areas.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Radar, I am not attacking your presuppositions for that would be foolish as they are the same presuppositions as mine, that the world is young and created by God and therefore tree rings and ice cores can not be as Darwinists claim, who say they represent tens or hundreds of thousands of years and so on.

And so I don't understand why you would suggest that my presuppositions are lies when they are your own presuppositions too or why you think I'm attacking your views when all I did was ask a question about how it all ties together.

But if we say that those rings and ice cores, the so-called data, were all laid down in the time since the Flood or the Creation, then how can we draw any interpretations regarding CO2 or temperature and correlate it to any particular time? Cos we can't correlate them, can we? We can't say that ice core layer soandso is from year X and tree ring soandso is from year X and then draw conclusions that would satisfy a YE creationist.

Perhaps rather than attacking a fellow believer you might answer my question or if you don't have the answer (which I dont think you do) then simply admit that this global warming debate is one for the Darwinists and the theistic evolutionists.

radar said...

Oh, and ice cores are not evidence for or against the Bible and neither are tree rings. They just are what they are. The difference is in how they are viewed and understood. Glaciation has been shown to be the product of snow storms and snow storms can produce many different layers in one day, therefore trying to equate one layer in an ice core to one year or even one month or one week is ignorant.

Tree rings also can be misleading. We have observed that very cold seasons can inhibit the formation of rings and very warm conditions may apparently produce more than one ring. Very few trees have enough rings to cause one to question the idea of a world-wide flood about 4300 years ago, but we can be sure that conditions after the Flood can only be estimated now AND that some trees and plants may well have survived the Flood and been successfully replanted afterwards. Very few may have done so and perhaps none did so. However, the Flood was intended to destroy the existing civilization and remake the Earth but God only saved land-dwelling vertebrates and birds on the Ark, knowing that plenty of kinds of invertebrates and acquatic vertebrates would survive to repopulate the new ecosystems.

The Flood yielded a vast amount of sedimentary rock layers and a lot of fossils. Now that we find actual flesh and blood remains in fossils and people know that we do, the unsupported hypothesis of evolution needs to hit the dustbin and fast! Truth is superior to falsehood. The original kinds of organisms are piling up mutational damages over time, not becoming more complex and efficient.

Darwinism is science turned upside down and inside out, a ridiculous compilation of inanities kept alive to support Naturalism. It would be very useful to mankind to accept that everything was designed by a Creator and let that starting point guide our scientific journeys to make life better for mankind and find cures to ever-growing diseases and syndromes and allergies amongst humanity. Quit looking for ET or missing links and begin curing cancer and peanut allergies and etc.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Radar, I don't understand why you type up (or maybe you just paste them, I dont know) these lengthy paragraphs on subjects we are already completely in agreement on and I don't know what any of this has to do with ET. Did you not understand my question?

Yes, hundreds of ice core layers can be deposited in a year, or the Bible wouldn't make any sense. THat's what you might call a presupposution, but we know it to be true because of the Bible.

But my question is how we can draw any conclusions about CO2 or temperatures from that?

Darwinists claim that the ice layers represent a year each and the same for tree rings and that's why they can come up with that gobbledygook about an old Earth and about global warming. But all we have is the CO2 and the temperatures that were actually recorded by people and that only goes back a couple of centuries or so.

Do you see the problem?

Sagheer said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
zareen fatima said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
radar said...

So I had to remove a couple of spammers...

No, Anonymous, I did not cut and paste any answers. While you state that you are a YEC, your questions are not what I would expect from a believer. I've been doing this blog for years (a friend is keeping it warm while I rehabilitate) and such questions are typically from Darwinists, so forgive my mistake if I have been mistaken.

The data gleaned from ice cores, tree rings, historical documentation of weather conditions (lots of historical references to the changes in climate over the last 4,000 years and especially AD) have demonstrated that CO2 levels produced by industry obviously have nothing to do with warming and cooling of the Earth over time.

Records of observed solar activity indicate that the Sun is the primary driver of temperatures, barring the influence of large volcanic emissions. Furthermore, I have published a paper on this blog that investigated CO2-causes-warming claims and found that the evidence from ice cores and earth cores actually showed a rough correlation of temperatures and CO2, but CO2 rose following temperature rises and fell following temperature decreases. Considering that the ocean is the primary emitter of "greenhouse gas" and also that CO2 is plant food, that makes sense.

Since I have published detailed articles on this subject, I point you to Google, where you can search for such articles by putting radaractive along with the search words desired. Start with ice cores?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Radar,

I hope you are not insinuating that in any way did I express any skepticiem of YE creationism. That of course is beyond reproach. But it seems to me that you are not thinking it through and that it is you who is placing an obstacle in our shared path. Because we are meant to be skeptics and now you come drumming with something like "I'm supposed to think such and such because I'm a Christian", which I'm sorry but you must be joking.

You say "Start with ice cores?". Well dear Sir, I already told you I don't need a primer on the things we already agree on.

I'm well aware of our side of this all-important debate, so please spare me the runaround of looking up a million articles as you do with the Darwinists. If you think any of your published detailed articles state anything more illuminating beyond dismissing Darwinist lies, I'd be most obliged if you could point out what that is. Because it seems clear to me that true scientists by which I mean the ones that accept the Bible into their belief systems and not the Naturalist propagandists have not been able to properly correlate the data to specific years.

Now its entirely possible that I might find on page whatsoever of the Google results that you've published an article or shown me that link to where true scientists have achieved this, but both age and what is left of my social life (I'm proud to say there is still some) prevent me from wasting days on end going on your mere hints of treasures to come.

Mr. Radar, what has been found is a whopping tens of thousands of tree rings and hundreds of thousands of ice core layers. That's a lot. At least I think so. Darwinists claim that each one of those rings represent years, but that is obviously impossible or we may as well dischard the Bible as a reliable source and this of course is what they are trying to get us to do.

So for the sake of argument (I dont feel like wading through pages of Darwinist BS) we have something like ten thousand tree rings. And something like half a thousand ice layers. There are a lot more ice layers than there are tree rings, for sure. And they were all laid down in about 4,000 to 6,000 years, that we know.

So lets say that scientists can tell from these rings and layers that tree ring X shows carbon level whatever and ice layer Y shows carbon level whatever, but what good is that to us when we can't tell what year that lines up with?

Sweet Jesus Radar, if only one of your articles answers this question for me, I would be more than obliged, I would be most gratified.

Anonymous said...


But if that ain't there, well we can't be a part of pushing a Darwinist lie, we have to be truthful, we can't go with a lie.

SO I maintain, in all respect, that if you're being truthful to YE creationism (and of course you are, I would never impugne that), you can't actually state that we have reliable evidence to draw conclusions from tree rings and ice cores that can make us go along with C02 levels here and temperature levels there.

So that was in resposne to you saying that tree rings and ice cores demonstrate anything whatsoever about CO2 and temperatures in our historical past. Pray tell, what be the CO2 levels and temperatures of the 10th Century?

See, you can't do it without wading into Naturalist waters.

I appreciate though your third option, which I was unaware of in its entirety. "lots of historical references to the changes in climate over the last 4,000 years and especially AD" As you know, I was under the impression we'd only measured temperature since the invention of the thermometer and CO2, well that was only discovered a century or so ago, as my texts have informed me.

I'm hoping you've got a bit of a game changer here, because it would be awesome if we had climate records that didn't rely on Naturalist presuppositions. Does the Lord have a way to convey CO2 levels before we discovered them? I think that would be truly amazing.

Please please please.

Mr. Radar, I appreciate you ain't getting any younger, so perhaps your memory fails you, but is it in one of your published articles perhaps? Perhaps you recall?

In kindness, A.

radar said...

Anonymous, I had a feeling you would display your true colors given enough time. I suspect you are too embarrassed to give your previous name used previously here. You likely know darned well that I have fully addressed ice cores to the point of such redundancy that I absolutely refuse to go there in the comments here.

Heaven forbid you should waste your time commenting here!

Anonymous said...

Mr. Radar, I am more than puzzled by your "true colors" accusations, but by your evasions not so much, they just confirm my suspicion that this is a question unanswerable by YE creationists. I'm not disputing that you've published extensive scientific papers about ice cores and I've looked through a bunch of em, but it was nothing I didn't already know and of course they don't answer the question at hand, which is how we as YE creationists can glean climate date from them.

if you had somehow cracked the problem we face of YE creationist interpretation of the data to counter that of the Naturalists (or even knew of someone who did), you surely would have provided that answer in response to my humble request.

Yours in kindness, A.

radar said...

I doubt your suppposed YEC stance, but no matter. We YEC calibrate the data using the Biblical timeline and comparing it to historical records and then estimating the timeline of the physical evidence available to us. If you did indeed read my posts on the subject you would already know that.

You get credit for posting things that drag me temporarily from work for a brief comment. However I must put work first.

All ice cores and tree rings (with a nod to perhaps a few remarkable tree specimens that managed to ride out the Flood and be randomly replanted) that we can investigate have to have been produced within the last 4300 years or so.

The historical records available line up well with the Genesis table of nations and virtually every culture in the world has a creation and flood narrative. Most of them are badly warped by time and the combination of imagination and failing memories. Thankfully God charged a lineage of people with safeguarding and keeping the actual events describing creation and antediluvian history as well as the lineage of Adam from the beginning and up to the time of Jesus Christ.

So YEC scientists take the same evidence that Darwinist have but we have a reason to apply a short timeline to said evidence. We have a history of the Universe to use as a reference. Is it not strange that Darwin's ideas have all been either destroyed or shown to support design throughout all organisms? Is it not strange that even Darwinists have to admit the Universe had a beginning? Every time they find evidence that the Universe and the Solar System and the Earth must be quite young they hide it. How much evidence has been taken out to sea and dumped lest the world realized that Naturalism is religion, not science?

Therefore I am grateful to the Intelligent Design movement, as they simply test and make inferences by using the actual scientific method and Occam's Razor. Science and logic without even bringing a belief system into play. Funny how ID has found that the creationists are right, is it not? I know that many of them are not Christians at all, some are Muslims or Theists or Deists or Agnostics or Jews or whatever but their findings support creation anyway. The length of time needed to design and create all things is not something they care to pinpoint.

I do, though, because there are too many systems that cannot possibly have been in place longer than 25,000 years and some seem to be about 6-7,000 years tops.

Years of presenting such evidence is on this blog. YEC and non-YEC alike will find these things presented logically and thoroughly if they care to do it.

Be of good cheer, A, if you are a Christian, be it YEC or OEC or even unsure of such things at all. As long as you are a Christian you are fine. God does not separate YEC from non-YEC in the afterlife. He only cares about whether you are a child of the Living God by faith in Jesus Christ and thereby being reborn as part of His family or a denier of God and Jesus Christ His Son. Belief in Jesus, not belief in YEC, that is what counts.

Anonymous said...

I am of good cheer, thank you my friend.

"I doubt your suppposed YEC stance, but no matter."

Why on Earth? When everything I have said was for it and nowt against it? I don't understand how you preach thinking for yourself on one side and when one comes looking for answers you treat us like heretics. Of course the data have to add up is that so much to ask.

"All ice cores and tree rings (with a nod to perhaps a few remarkable tree specimens that managed to ride out the Flood and be randomly replanted) that we can investigate have to have been produced within the last 4300 years or so. "

Correct and that is the source of my puzzlement, Mr. Radar. Supposably there are tree ring records with like 7000 or 8000 rings, so to squeeze them into 4300 years or so, hm, well we have to assume there's like close to 2 rings laid down every year. Okay fine.

ANd on the ice core layer side they say they have like hundreds of thousands of layers, maybe even as much as half a million, which is a heck of a lot. So we'll conclude that over a hundred of those are laid down every year, which adds up fine.

So now if we want to find out what C02 and temperature levels were in 1014 AD? We go, okay, that's 1000 years ago, fine, so we go back about 100,000 ice core layers or so and we go back about 2000 tree rings or so and then we see what those spots tell us about CO2 and temperature at that time.

Have any of the creationist scientific organizations done this yet? I'd love to see the results. Because the Naturalist data is simply not acceptable of course.

You see, that's why I must respectfully disagree with you in this conversation Mr. Radar. And not to put too fine a point on it, where I found your YE creationist cred lacking, because you so readily accept the Naturalist interpretation of the data where they just say it's one year per ring or layer. It will not stand!

Oh and I love Ian Juby's experiments. I'd love to see him do one where he takes a big tree and uproots it and dunks it in saltwater for a year and then replants it for a few years after that and then saws it in half so we can see what kind of tree rings that gets us. That ought to shut up the Darwinists for sure. If I had the strength and a suitable tree and a sufficient body of saltwater to hand I might try it myself.

Yours in grace, A.

radar said...

Har! Gotcha, Mr. A!

Being a phony, you are found out...as I did indeed predict. There is no need to spend years soaking trees in saltwater, your old buddy Darwin himself successfully tested the ability of plants to sprout and grow after being soaked in saltwater. If you want a real-time laboratory for the formation of "petrified forests" just go visit Spirit Lake near Mt. St. Helens, where the trees stripped of most of their roots and branches float, collect water and minerals and then fall into the muck, making fossils like we find resulting from the Flood.

The Flood would have added primarily fresh water and minerals from within the Earth to an ocean that was likely far less saline than ocean waters now. But saltwater and freshwater fish can both live in brackish water anyway and there are actual freshwater rivers within the ocean today.

In fact, there are some fish that have varieties that live in fresh water and some in salt water.

During the Flood there would be currents of all kinds of composition and the warmer, mineral rich waters were very atttractive to the coccoliths that formed the chalk beds we harvest to give us...well, chalk!

You are of course much more knowledgeable about population genetics when it comes to trees and tree rings than Maciej Giertych, whose work I did use as part of my set of posts on tree rings. He got his BA and MA from Oxford and his doctorate at the University of Toronto. He is a dendrologist who was a Darwinist who later became a creationist because of his study of...wait for it...trees!

This accomplished scientist who is also a respected Polish statesman with years serving both in Polish and EU Parliament and presiding for at least one term? He is now a YEC and his views on the subject were among the many resources I accessed for the series of articles on the age of the Earth. I will end with two links with some of his views on the subject of Darwinism.

If you refuse to use the search features available to you to read what I have written, oh well. I wrote them for the benefit of those who want to read them. You have every right to ignore them.

http://creation.com/professor-of-genetics-says-no-to-evolution

http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/gjkeane/foreword.html

Anonymous said...

What pray tell is your continued obsession with making me out to be a phony, Mr. Radar and why do you keep twisting my words? Are we not supposed to get our science right now? YOu can encourage others to think for themselves but apparently you don't like it when we do.

And I find it troublesome that you keep accepting the Naturalist ways perhaps without realizing it, who simply says oh a tree ring represents a year when you accept the climate data that you read on some sites. Please consider the consequences. We can't let this stand.

Darwin soaked trees in saltwater, I did not know that. Okay I googled it and found he soaked some seeds and they survived. But surely you realize that was not the point of my comment. It is not about if a tree is capable of surviving in salt water or even brackish water, it is what happens to a tree when it is submerged in water for a year and is then replanted, what kind of a mark that would leave on the tree rings for that time. Because if it does leave a significant mark, then we would know that all the trees that do not have such a mark were indeed grown in their entirety after the Flood, which then helps with our calibration of tree rings so that we may interpret them for example for climate data. That was the point I was making.

I certainly am not more knowledgable about population genetics than a professor in the field, to the point where I don't even see the connection between that and the subject of my questions here...

And just so you know, I do use the search features to read what you have written, but what you have written doesn't seem to answer the question. Scouring the Internet for an interpretation of climate data that a YE creationist may accept is not an easy task, and so far my search is fruitless. Even the writings of Giertich are difficult to find when it comes to the subject of tree rings. Again, I'm not interested in rehashes of all the stuff we already agree on. I've found reference to a paper called "Shutayev and Giertich, 1998" but I can't find the paper itself. Perhaps you have it somewhere?

But I shall soldier on my friend.

Yours in patience, A.

radar said...

I am done wasting time on Mr. A. Readers that want to read what I have written will. I hope those who read this comments thread understand what is happening here. My belief that a civil tongue is the mark of a good citizen keeps me from replying in a way Clark Gable did to Vivien Leigh at the end of Gone With The Wind. My opinion is that Vivien's character was far more direct and transparent than is this particular Mr. A. I weary of dealing with false flag people.

Anonymous said...

So, instead of answering A's questions as if they are in earnest (which would be a benefit to your creationist readers and maybe even to some who don't share your views even if A. is a troll - which I also suspect), you use your suspicion of trolling as an excuse to bow out. Mighty brave, that.

radar said...

Proverbs 26:4-5 applies for you Bible readers.

I respect those who are sincere and eventually those who are not reveal themselves.

Methinks he doth protest too much!

For Shakespeare fans a 21st Century paraphrase of the Hamlet quote which is actually rather ironic here if you know Willy.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Radar, I ask straightforward and respectful questions and am rewarded with evasions and anger. Not a single straightforward answer to be found, and instead you type up long diatribes on matters we already long agreed on.

So the question itself remains unanswered: How do we calibrate the data of tree rings and ice core layers so we can actually glean REAL climate information WITHOUT falling into the Naturalist trap? It is crystal clear to me now that you have no answer, which saddens me. But why cover that up with scorn and rage? Don't you wish to know the answer? I sure do.

Yours in puzzlement, A.

Anonymous said...

Shorter Radar: It's good to be a skeptic and question what people tell you, but don't you dare question me. Especially when I don't have the answer.

Anonymous said...

Woah, looks like there's trouble in paradise. I love it when you YEC nuts disagree.

So while the two of you quibble over who's dumber, it seems that we have discovered that one of Radar's pet conspiracy theories, that global anthropomorphic climate change is a big hoax, appears to rely on data that endorses an old earth.

Also very humourous that Poes law seems to be tripping up Radar as he keeps randomly attacking his fellow YEC. Although his treatment of Mr. Anonymous is very familiar, to us "neodarwinists".

-Canucklehead.

Mr. Gordons said...

Canucklehead is known for being a troublemaker and a troll. Others have given up on or even banned him.

radar said...

Yes, Canucklehead is a troll and Mr. A is a poser. If there was a valid question that had not been addressed here that would be one thing. But I let the trolls speak if they stay civil.

Anonymous said...

When all you have left is name-calling and evasions, Radar, that does not speak well for your position.

"If there was a valid question that had not been addressed here that would be one thing."

The valid question that has not been addressed is obviously this one, posed multiple times in different ways in this thread, as we all can see:

"How do we calibrate the data of tree rings and ice core layers so we can actually glean REAL climate information WITHOUT falling into the Naturalist trap?"

All Radar would have to do at this point is to provide no less and no more than this:

A single, actual link to a post or article or scientific paper in which

(1) tree rings and ice core layers have been calibrated according to YEC beliefs, i.e. where they go back no further than 4300 years and

(2) both sets of data (tree rings and ice core layers) still line up with markers for known historical events and

(3) both sets of data (tree rings and ice core layers) plausibly tie in with some kind of consistent explanation for C-14 levels.


Testable, falsifiable prediction, about to be observed on this blog: Radar will provide no such link. This would confirm the OEC and "Darwinist" position, since this position predicts that such a calibration is not possible and that tree rings and ice core layers indicate a world older than 6000 years.

If Radar does provide such a link, as specified above, that would confirm the YEC position.

Instead (though this is not germane to the testable prediction), it is likely that Radar will either run away and/or continue to try to insult some commenters and/or claim that he has already done so and that we should search his site. To that I'll note that I just did search his site and read through a number of previous posts, and while the subject of tree rings has come up numerous times, nowhere is there any reference to any YEC "scientist" anywhere calibrating the tree ring and ice core data in a way that lines up with known historical events and with the claim of a global flood 4300 years ago. It is not to be found on Radar;s blog, no matter how often he claims that it is. Again, this confirms the OEC and "Darwinist" position that a global flood did not take place.

So let's see how this testable prediction plays out.

Anonymous said...

I am troubled by these attacks by non-believers who are no doubt Naturalists and Darwinists one and all. Begone, this has nothing to do with you.

As for you Mr. Radar, what in the Lord's name possesses you to try to insult me with such disdain and persistencey? What have I ever done to you may I ask? I will practice patience and forgiveness.

With all respect that is due it is me who has been refusing to fly the false flag by giving in to deceitful Naturalism and it is you who has sadly left behind young Earth creationism by accepting the lie that a year is a tree ring and so is an ice core layer. That's right it is a lie ALL of the time and not just some of the time.

I hope you find your way back. But as you said yourself it is still acceptable to be an old Earth creationist of course if that is your preference.

Yours in faith, A.

Anonymous said...

LOL @ "known troublemaker" and I'd love to know the places from which I've been banned. And LOL @ "Begone". You guys are priceless.

That a said, I've got more bad news for you Yecs. Sorry,

Breaking News - http://www.mcgill.ca/research/channels/news/global-warming-just-giant-natural-fluctuation-235236

And from such a great Canadian institution of learning no less (the quality if witch even highboy can attest). I know Radar's answer to this (grand multi- national, multicultural and multi-lingual conspiracy). But how do you hand wave away the kind of solid evidence of both an old earth and anthropomorphic climate change that this study puts forward, Mr. A?

-Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Canucklehead I think I've made myself clear that I strongly believe that us YE creationists have to sit this issue out until we have an interpretation of the data that actually lines up correctly. That's what I've been asking and looking for and it doesn't seem to exist so far, much to my regret. Also much to my regret it seems that Radar has given up on this quest also, which makes me view his dedication to YE creationism with some suspicion, alas. As long as he remains a Christian however that is his prorogative.

Hence my conclusion that us YE creationists need to sit this one out as we can't come to a conclusion one way or the other. I do suspect that the study you've linked to Mr. Cnucklehead rests on Naturalists assumption that one tree ring and one ice layer correspond to one year each and therefore indicate results that violate scripture, so the deceitful interpretation of data it is based on is not acceptable.

I will therefore put it aside until this matter is settled but I am confident that one day a true scientist (not a mindslave beholden to Naturalism) will manage this feat and at that point let the data show what they will show.

I am curious, was the inclusion of the word 'witch' in your post some kind of code to taunt me? I am above such things believe me.

Yours in patience, A.

radar said...

The tree rings and ice cores and sedimentary rock layers that have been investigated correlate well with a young Earth that experienced a global flood. We cannot prove that the Earth is about 7,000 years old. Certainly the Darwinist cannot prove the Earth is older than that. We have to interpret the evidence.

Ice cores are difficult as we do not have good ways to calibrate the years represented by the layers. This is actually true of tree rings as well. So to be able to give someone an exact correlation between tree rings and ice cores and a flood that happened around 4300 years ago is not even possible. However, we do have evidence that tells us that many layers of ice can be laid down in one storm. I posted a great deal on this subject, counter to the faux Mr. A's claims.

Mr. fake YEC is posting to mislead the ignorant. He seems to forget that science is about laying aside what cannot be and finding what is most likely true and adhering to it until and unless a better explanation comes along. There are too many measurements of various systems that give an outer age of the Earth as about 25,000 years. This by itself would put an end to Naturalistic Materialism if the ruling class of academia, news media and established scientific organizations were not actually temples to pagan Darwinism. Darwinism is about religion rather than science.

Atheistic Naturalists loved Darwinism because it removed the idea of God as the Lawgiver, thus freeing them to behave as they would like with no responsibility to that God. But simply believing something does not make it so.

If people can (and they have) found a way to make it appear that there might be 10 or even 15,000 tree rings that could be equivalent to 15,000 years, is that closer to the 7,000 years YECs would expect to find or the millions Darwinists would expect to find?

The magnetic field of the Earth. The human population. The sedimentary catastophic rock layers. Helium atoms still trapped in granitic zircons. Polonium radiohalos. These are among the evidences found on Earth that support the young Earth.

The magnetic fields and other characteristics of the planets and moons were predicted by Dr. Russell Humphreys in the 1990's and recent space missions have detected these magnetic fields and they fit into his predictions. His predictions were based on a Universe created by God and formed first from water around 7,000 years ago. There are incredibly active volcanoes and other features in our Solar System that negate millions of years.

It is not that I cannot give A an answer, it is that he has his answer and had it long ago. He is a poser IMO. Take it or leave it.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sagheer said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Mr. Radar, you are an odd bird who concedes my point while in the same breath tries to insult me and also tries to mis-represent what it is I said and asked for. If the Lord had not blessed me with abundant patience, I dare say I would have lost mine with you at this point. But I soldier on as I always do.

Surely youve noticed from every word Ive spoken on this thread that I am not in disagreement with you on the subject of YE creationism and I am puzzled by you constant accusations that I am faking my beliefs when it is you who is the only one of the two of us who is being alarmingly inconsistent on this subject. But perhaps you have now found your way back.

"So to be able to give someone an exact correlation between tree rings and ice cores and a flood that happened around 4300 years ago is not even possible."

So youve now admitted very clearly that the answer I have asked for is not even possible and therefor presumably does not exist. Unless you want to insist that it can not exist and you have already given it to me at the same time? I am afraid that if youre not careful, Mr. Radar, you may come off looking a little foolish here.

I do wish you would cease to bear false witness against your neighbour as well. "I posted a great deal on this subject, counter to the faux Mr. A's claims." When did I ever claim you did not post a great deal on the subject of ice cores? Have delusions taken hold of you? A casual perusle of my writings above will easily reveal the opposite.

In case you forgot, I asked if we can find a interpretation of the tree ring and ice layer data that is scripture-compatible and that we can use to gather data on CO2 levels and temperature because if we dont have that, when we look at climate change we can truly only go back as far as the records written by human beings will allow and that doesnt really go back further than the discovery of CO2 and thermometers. Okay we know for example that England used to be a little greener because they grew wine there. We know that Greenland used to be a little greener, but putting a date on that already means using Naturalist "scientific" methods and once we head in that direction we are soon in violation of scripture as we need to take on board that one ring/layer in one year and that just cannot stand.

So it is as I said at the outset, us YE creationists cant avail of Naturalist climate data when we discuss climate change. Im sorry that you need to embed your simple admission of this obvious truth with endless repetition of arguments for something we never disagreed on as well as personal accusations and insults in my direction, but I pray that you will find patience and calm within yourself to be a kinder person to those around you.

Yours in grace, A.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the previous poster a few comments above - it truly is amazing to witness what levels of evasion and verbal sleight-of-hand you will stoop to avoid answering a straightforward question. The amusing poker player analogy is very apt.

"Mr. fake YEC is posting to mislead the ignorant. He seems to forget that science is about laying aside what cannot be and finding what is most likely true and adhering to it until and unless a better explanation comes along."

No, Radar, "Mr. fake YEC" is actually taking the role of "Mr. real YEC" and you're being the inconsistent one. He (if A. is a he) has "laid aside what cannot be" in his worldview, and unlike you he's being upfront about it.

Now you've finally answered his question and admitted that YEC can not deliver what A. already suspected it can not deliver.

daniyal raza said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
radar said...

Spam and bad language will get your comment removed if the spam filter did not see it.

You phonies are liars if you say I have not thoroughly covered ice cores. We can prove easily that layers of ice cores can be and are formed by storms, and multiple layers are laid down in one day many times. I presented the information and you are either too lazy to go read it or lying about it. I am guessing lazy and lying myself.

As for tree rings, the evidence is strongly in favor of a flood that ripped up every tree in the world, stripped them of most or all branches and most or all of the roots and very often the bark. These trees were waterlogged and many are fossils now, and very often they are thrust through many layers of sedimentary rock, putting the lie to Darwinist aging methods. We call such fossils "polystrates."

The evidence we have available to us is not "Naturalist" information, it is simply information. Being a Creationist or Darwinist has nothing to do with reading up on the history of mankind to correlate stories of the Medieval Warming Period or the seasons of extreme cold such as the Year With No Summer. So no, I do not use "Naturalistic" evidence, but rather evidence.

Evidence is what it is. Tree rings seem to back up YEC claims that there would not be any trees found older than 4300 years or so with two provisos:

One, that a very few random trees managed to wind up in a floating mat of vegetation with enough roots and branches left to survive the flood and get replanted. I can think of two or three possible examples out of all the trees and bushes found world-wide.

Two, that tree rings do not correlate strictly with years (we in fact know this) so attempting to establish an age beyond 4300 years using tree rings is basically an educated guess.

Mr A is an imposter. Canucklehead is a troll. They are not new to me. But please someone explain to them that evidence does NOT belong to either side, it belongs to everyone.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Radar, what is the veil that hangs between you and the words on the screen in front of you may I ask? Why cast aspersions on those who agree with you? You are an odd bird indeed.

"You phonies are liars if you say I have not thoroughly covered ice cores."

Well needless to say I did NOT say IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM that you did not thoroughly cover ice cores and where in the sweet name of the Lord would you get such a ridiculous idea?

I myslf did not say so and neither to my recollection did any of the ridiculous nonbelievers and so forth in the comments above. Not even the ghastly Mr. Dangburn at the top far as memory serves.

So what gives? Why rail against something that was not said? Why not respond to what was said? Are you purposely trying to change the subject from the fact that we as YE creationists can not make a clear statement on climate change based on what we in fact dont know? Why would you care? You said yourself that science is about putting aside what cannot be, so why do you keep dragging in what cannot be?

Why make me out to be an imposter and a fake and what ahve you when I ask how you intend to line up your claims with straightforward YE creationist beliefs, which is after all what you still claim to be? Simple logic tells everyone here that it is you who are the fake and imposter since youve abandoned your principles.

"The evidence we have available to us is not "Naturalist" information, it is simply information."

Well of course Mr. Radar, the "information" belongs to all of us and it is the interpretation indeed that matters. We're agreed on that as you can see in my preceding statements. However my friend, the interpretation you keep wandering into bizarrely enough is that you accept the Naturalist interpreation and that is what I take issue with. As Ive said multiple times, I don't understand why this keeps getting dropped under the table.

Blogger tells me this is too long a post so I have to split it. Part 2 coming up.

Anonymous said...


We have tree rings, say 15,000 of them as you say and we have ice core layers, say a few hundred thousand of those, and that's the data or information. How do we interpret this? Well the Naturalists and Darwinists and OE creationists all say one ring is one year and one layer is one year.

To which I say (and to which I think you ought to say) no way, that would not line up with scripture. They must ve been laid down 6000 or 7000 years ago or after the Flood. They MUST have been. Why would they line up with a year in the first place? And that is where I suspect you as a YE creationist ought to be as well.

And most of the time that is where you are as a YE creationist, I do know that from your scientific papers. I do appreciate your service which is why it pains me all the more to see you stray like this.

Because you DO stray. This climate change stuff comes along and you say no, the IPCC has all this data that you want to talk about and use it to say things like temperature comes ahead of C)2 change and not the other way around, but surely you know that thats based on Naturalist assumptions. You MUST know that thats not scripture compatible.

You MUST know that that is the Naturalists saying a ring is a year and an ice layer is a year. When they talk about Greenland being warm sometime in the past, they say it was this year or that year BECAUSE they say an ice layer is a year. And that must be discarded.

You MUST know that saying a ring is a year and an ice layer is a year is on a collision course with scripture.

And yet you embrace it.

I dont believe for a second that that has escaped your intellect. So it pains me to see you stray.

Is this stupid global warming thing more important to you than scripture.? This is what puzzles me.

I'll sum it up for you once more Mr. Radar. I am in full disagreement with you on YE creationism. While your unfounded lies and accusations to the contrary are not something I or any Christian I know would appreciate, I value patience and forgiveness to the more and of course would never condemn you for such actions. That is between you and the Lord. I merely draw your attention to the inconsistencey.

I struggle to see what we as YE creationists have to offer to this climate warming debate. I do appreciate you answering my question at long last of course. It is true as I thought, YE creationists don't ahve the necessary data to weigh in on this global warming thing. I find that answered, but it appears you wont' accept your own answer.

So please make peace with yourself as is the right thing to do.

Yours in puzzlement - and hope, A.

Anonymous said...

Quite an amusing exchange. Do either of you have any idea what tree rings and ice core layers actually represent? How they are measured? Since you both seem to think that a single snow storm can lay down a number of such layers, it's clear that you have no idea whatsoever why scientists find these methods interesting to begin with.

Go on, Radar, show us a snow storm that deposits layers that are in any way equivalent to the ones measured in, say, the Vostok ice core. Again, a single link will do the trick.

For now, it's interesting to note that the outcome of the testable prediction a few posts above was as predicted. Radar was not able to provide a single link to a source that would confirm YEC on this subject.

He even went above and beyond this and admitted that it is not even possible to calibrate tree rings and ice core layers and C-14 levels and known historical markers and get them to line up with a global flood 4300 years ago.

That's quite an admission.

So how exactly are they supposed to be compatible with a young Earth again?

radar said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

You trolls keep putting words in my mouth...I said NO ONE can put ice cores and tree rings together to prove an age of the Earth BUT these measurements support a young Earth and not an old one. For those of you who are not insincere sock puppets or Darwinists, please search "radaractive ice cores" on Google. The first four results will be posts made by me that go into detail and prove these commenters to be liars.

radar said...

"radaractive tree rings" will give you ten articles on page one of a Google search. I am telling the truth and the commenters are lying. No surprise...

radar said...

Notice how the trolls quit replying when I pointed all commenters to the links easily found with Google? I posted articles that showed the tree ring and ice core evidence fits a YEC expectation pretty closely while making old Earthers scratch their heads.

Again, search radaractive ice cores and radaractive tree rings and you will have documented evidence that supports a young Earth rather than long ages.

Anonymous said...

Radar doesn't respond to comment for multiple days = business as usual.

Other commenters don't respond within two and a half hours after being given a reading assignment of 14 very long posts = victory for YEC!

All right then. You take your fake little victories where you find them, I guess.

The first post I looked at (this one) and only a couple screenfuls down, I already see it confirmed that you don't understand how dating using ice core layers actually works. Both you and the author of the piece you pasted here think that it has something to do with plain thickness, which explains why you and your ignorant YEC brethren can make ridiculous claims like multiple "layers" being laid down in a single storm.

Witness also this amusing YEC musing: "the 3000-metre-long ice core [brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992] would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation."

Because it's about thickness, right? Riiight.

I'll go through the rest of these posts as time permits, but in the meantime, Radar, would you care to explain your understanding (in your own words, if possible) of what you think constitutes an ice core layer as it is used in conventional dating methods?

If you don't understand it yourself, It's not really possible for you to argue against it, is it?

And once you can demonstrate your understanding of such an ice core layer, could you point us to any evidence that more than one such layer (or even one such layer, for that matter) is laid down in a single storm?

I'll consider this case rested unless you actually provide a substantive response to it.

But, as with the testable prediction above, I can safely predict that you will be unable to answer it, missing yet another opportunity to confirm YEC.

Why is it that we can so safely predict the absence of confirmations for YEC? Works every time.

Anonymous said...

And of course I am also puzzled by your inclusion of data that clearly contradicts your own beliefs, such as this:

""According to the ice-core samples, CO2 levels vary little over time," Dr. Jaworowski sates. "The ice core data from the Taylor Dome in Antarctica shows almost no change in the level of atmospheric CO2 over the last 7,000 to 8,000 years -- it varied between 260 parts per million and 264 parts per million. Yet other indicators of past CO2 levels, such as fossil leaf stomata, show that CO2 levels over the past 7,000 to 8,000 years varied by more than 50 parts per million, between 270 and 326 parts per million."

What's this about "no change in the level of atmospheric CO2 over the last 7,000 to 8,000 years ago"?

What about, say, 4,300 years ago?

What about 6,000 years ago?

Care to explain?

Anonymous said...

Notice how Radar quit replying when he was asked some pretty obvious questions about blatant flaws in what he posted previously? :-)

Anonymous said...

The first post I looked at (this one) and only a couple screenfuls down, I already see it confirmed that you don't understand how dating using ice core layers actually works. Both you and the author of the piece you pasted here think that it has something to do with plain thickness, which explains why you and your ignorant YEC brethren can make ridiculous claims like multiple "layers" being laid down in a single storm.

He has the same problem with polystrate trees. No matter how many times you explain that it's not about the number or thickness of layers, but the ages associated with those layers, he waxes indignant about how he's made "lots of posts showing polystrates going through lots of layers" and, when reminded that he's still not addressing the problem, insists that he's answered it, calls the commenter a liar (or even evil), and then takes his ball home.

Anonymous said...

That appears to be Radar's standard modus operandi all right. Which is not what one would expect if the evidence and arguments were in his favor.

So how about it, Radar? Why do you think there was no change in CO2 levels 4300 years ago? What do you think scientists measure when they use ice core layers for dating?

radar said...

Well, I am not responsible for your level of intellect or moral character. Therefore I let trolls post (as long as the language is civil and no cursing is included) and I expect that you will read the articles I have posted that answer the questions you ask. Apparently that is not part of your modus operandi. You do not take responsibility to read the articles and make false or ill-informed claims.

Some of the articles I post or quote are authored by people who believe in an old Earth. Therefore I disagree with the ages they assign arbitrarily to findings they have published. It is the information they have published and not their interpretation that concerns me or my overall posts.

Clearly the idea that one layer or even a thousand layers of ice in cores represent a year. The story of the lost squadron proves this.

As to the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warming Period, we cannot assign blame to industrialization or CO2 levels. Those who have studied ice and earth cores have noticed a correlation between warming and CO2 but it appeared to them that the CO2 followed warming rather than caused it. We can see that from the evidence no matter the years you assign to the evidence.

There is one historical account of the history of mankind and the Earth. It fits the evidence. A creation, a fall, a flood that resurfaced and changed the entire ecosystem of the Earth and created vast millions of tons of sedimentary (water-formed) rock layers that are proof of the Noahic Flood and cannot be local flood events. The new evidence of flesh remains in many fossils has revealed that the rock layers are quite young.

Dishonest Darwinists keep changing their stories as the nature of the cell, DNA, proof of the Law of Biogenesis and the evidence for a young Sun and Solar System come their way. So why should I expect trolls to be honest, right?

I guess Dan S. spoiled me. He was honest and agreeable. I believe he would have actually read the articles I pointed out.

Anonymous said...

"Well, I am not responsible for your level of intellect or moral character."

Correct, you should be concerned about your own.

"Therefore I let trolls post (as long as the language is civil and no cursing is included) and I expect that you will read the articles I have posted that answer the questions you ask."

I have read the articles now. I'm sure you understand that the articles you point to are quite long and we all do have other things to do. Unfortunately, the articles (not surprisingly) did not answer the questions that were asked of you above. Either you are being deceitful or you are very mistaken or you failed to understand the questions. Thanks for the wild-goose chase though.

"Apparently that is not part of your modus operandi. You do not take responsibility to read the articles and make false or ill-informed claims."

I have read the articles. If you think I or any other poster here has made false or ill-informed claims, please tell us what they are and provide evidence to the contrary. Right now, your claims are mere hollow boastfulness.

"Some of the articles I post or quote are authored by people who believe in an old Earth. Therefore I disagree with the ages they assign arbitrarily to findings they have published."

They do not assign these ages "arbitrarily", they assign them following a specific scientific process involving deductive reasoning. Since you clearly don't even know what method they even use, your dismissal of their findings can be safely dismissed in its entirety. You can of course try again once you've understood the process and can tell those dumb scientists why they're doing it wrong.

"It is the information they have published and not their interpretation that concerns me or my overall posts."

The information they have published is already based on a very specific interpretation that you completely disagree with. Therefore their "information" is worthless to you. When they tell you something about CO2 levels during a Medieval Warming Period or any other period, that already involves the notion that one tree ring = one year, one ice core layer = one year.

Anonymous said...

"There is one historical account of the history of mankind and the Earth. It fits the evidence."

If you're talking about the Bible, hate to disappoint you, but there's a whole bunch of creation myths out there, all just as "historical" and just as disproven. They're valuable in a cultural/mythological context, but not an actual historical one.

As the texts of the Bible move into historical times, they start to include historical events, but that in itself is not evidence that the parts featuring records of oral tradition going back into prehistoric times represent historical truth as well.

"A creation, a fall, a flood that resurfaced and changed the entire ecosystem of the Earth and created vast millions of tons of sedimentary (water-formed) rock layers that are proof of the Noahic Flood and cannot be local flood events."

There is no plausible explanation for how a single global flood could have sorted the fossils in the way in which we consistently find them sorted. You've taken stabs at this many times, but never succeeded. This sorting confirms a sequential laying down of fossils over a long time, not a big cataclysm in which all these layers were jumbled up and laid down in a short time.

"The new evidence of flesh remains in many fossils has revealed that the rock layers are quite young."

I'm not aware of "flesh" remains. You mean the mineralized collagen in T-Rex bones?

"Dishonest Darwinists keep changing their stories as the nature of the cell, DNA, proof of the Law of Biogenesis and the evidence for a young Sun and Solar System come their way. So why should I expect trolls to be honest, right?"

Your moral character shows, and not in a flattering light. Before you slander us, you ought to point out an actual dishonest statement any of the posters (at least on the "Darwinist" side) made. If you can't, you're being the dishonest one.

"I guess Dan S. spoiled me. He was honest and agreeable. I believe he would have actually read the articles I pointed out."

I have now read all of the articles that you pointed out and (as I suspected up front) I can categorically state that they do not answer the questions above.

Just to make sure there are no misunderstandings, these are the unanswered (and for YECs, unanswerable) questions:

1. How are ice core layers measured for dating purposes? Can you explain it in your own words?

2. Show us a snow storm that deposits layers that are in any way equivalent to the ones measured in, say, the Vostok ice core.


Testable prediction: you can't answer them and will come up with further evasions and obfuscation, if not complete silence. Fellow YECs, take note.

Anonymous said...

Looks like a previous post (in between the two posts here) went missing.

2.

"Clearly the idea that one layer or even a thousand layers of ice in cores represent a year. The story of the lost squadron proves this."

Your first sentence here is not complete, so it isn't clear to me what you think the story of the lost squadron proves.

All the story of the lost squadron shows is that a lot of snow or ice can accumulate in a short time. Note that the snow/ice under which the plane was buried did NOT consist of hundreds or thousands of the actual layers used by mainstream scientists for dating purposes. If they did, the entire field of dating using ice core layers would have been blown out of the water, no questions asked. But that is actually NOT what happened.

You've been handed a big clue, and you're ignoring it, perhaps because you're afraid of where that would lead you. What is it that constitutes a "layer" in an ice core, and why is it significant in ice core layer dating?

You were unable to answer this question. This is significant. Until you understand this, it means that you are incapable of understanding how ice core layer dating actually works, and all the supposed arguments you've posed against it so far don't address the scientific evidence and are irrelevant. If you did know the answer to this question, you would understand that the lost squadron story is completely irrelevant.

Certainly your claims that multiple ice core layers are laid down in a single storm are false, and ridiculous. You can not present any evidence that such layers (the actual layers used for dating, not the "I'm looking outside and there's a layer of snow in my backyard" kind of layer, which seems to be what you are stuck on – yay YEC "science"!) are laid down in a single storm – or even that one of them is laid down in a single storm.

"As to the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warming Period, we cannot assign blame to industrialization or CO2 levels. Those who have studied ice and earth cores have noticed a correlation between warming and CO2 but it appeared to them that the CO2 followed warming rather than caused it. We can see that from the evidence no matter the years you assign to the evidence."

Impossible for you to conclude, since all the "evidence" you point to is based on tree rings representing one year and ice core layers (though unfortunately you don't even know what those are) representing one year. In the absence of any "scripture-compatible" calibration, you can't say which CO2 and temperature indicators go with which year, so you're flying completely blind.

You're assigning CO2 levels to a "Medieval Warming Period" using the same set of data that tells you that there was no change in CO2 levels at the time of the alleged global flood. How is that logical disconnect not clear to you?

Either you have to conclude that the notion of the global flood 4300 years ago stands, in which case the CO2 levels that mainstream scientists line up with the Medieval Warming Period don't line up with that period at all, or you have to conclude that the data disprove the idea of a global flood 4300 years ago.

It's not hard to predict which one you'll choose, but then you'll have to think through the consequences. As you've said yourself, you have to "lay aside what cannot be".

Dinesh gir said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sagheer said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Syed Kazim Ali said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Uhu work said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dinesh gir said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
najma love said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dinesh gir said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
hasnain raza said...

Online Jobs on Blogs, Just Post a Comment on any blog site and earn $0.06 per Link, Just Like this, Visit and Click on Link Relation
JobzCorner.com

irfan a.r said...

Online Easy Jobs from home with data entry, copy pasting, facebook jobs
www.jobzcorner.com

muhammad yasir bawani said...

Find home based jobs of link building, facebook marketing, add marketing, add clicking and much more jobs.
www.jobzcorner.com

Dinesh gir said...

Get Likes on your Facebook Profile Picture, Facebook Shares, Facebook Comments, Youtube Views Comments and Likes and All Social Media Likes and Follows
Contact Now Skype : Jobz.Corner
JobzCorner.com

Saqib Khan said...

Find best online jobs ever where you can earn monthly earning without any risk, part time data entry copy pasting and facebook jobs, Join now
RapidIncomeCorner.com

Ahmed Hassan said...

Hot Forex Investments where you can earn profit without any work, just invest on forex and get profit daily upto 12%, Join Now
HotFxInvest.com

Bilal Shah said...

Online Jobs is easy now for you, just spend few hours on internet and get unlimited income with Data entry copy pasting facebook and clicking jobs
JobzCorner.com

Ahmed Hassan said...

Hot Forex Investments where you can earn profit without any work, just invest on forex and get profit daily upto 12%, Join Now
HotFxInvest.com

Saqib Khan said...

Find best online jobs ever where you can earn monthly earning without any risk, part time data entry copy pasting and facebook jobs, Join now
RapidIncomeCorner.com

Bilal Shah said...

Online Jobs is easy now for you, just spend few hours on internet and get unlimited income with Data entry copy pasting facebook and clicking jobs
JobzCorner.com