From: brinkman@si194b.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Bob and Ice Cores
Date: 26 Sep 92 23:56:22 GMT


   In article <7081@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM 
(Robert W Bales) writes...

>>Hey, Bob, are you EVER going to discuss ice core dating?

>Actually, I did mention it.  Since Sue didn't read the article, I'll repeat the
>appropriate section:

>a. I don't know the cause of varves and ice cores which appear to give an age
>   of > 50,000 years for the earth.

   Yes, but you have to agree that based on varve/ice core evidence, your
oft repeated claim that the Earth is <= 50,000 years is completely bogus.

>b. These dating techniques rely on counting layers.  If a layer is produced in
>   a period of other than a year, the count of layers will not give the age in
>   years.

   Your assertion is partially correct.  Of course that also means it is
partially false.  I can send you the ice-core dating FAQ, if that would help
clear up your confusion on this subject.  At best your second claim is
totally disingenuous, as there is no evidence whatsoever of false layer
formation at any point without the known historical record.

>c. Ice cores and varves, even if accurate, only go back a tiny fraction of the
>   accepted age of the earth. (200,000+ years if I remember right.) They do
>   not establish the earth is 4.5 bllion years old.

   Of course, the ice-core/varve data only provides a lower limit on the
age of the Earth.  Furthermore, due to the huge pressures caused by the
weight of subsequent ice, there is no chance at all that the layers would
go back 4.5 billion years, even if everything else were held equal back
through that time.

   It should be noted that the last is a common Balesian ploy.  Bob takes
a physical process, ignores and counteracting processes, and provides a
totally specious result.  Examples of this are any of Bob's repeated claims
of evidence for  a <= 50,000 year old Earth.

>d. All the evidence must be considered.  While the simplest explanation for
>   varves is that the earth is 200,000 years old, there is other evidence (as
>   I have pointed out before) for which the simplest explanation is that the
>   earth is < 50,000 years old.

   And yet, each time you trot out these evidences, you get your head handed
to you.  (For the Tedsters and Louckmeisters out there, Chris Stassen has even
done this without the rancor that you feign to find so appalling.)  The truly
funny thing is that each of your "pieces of evidence" are based on exactly the
same fallacy (which you have above attempted to apply to the ice-core dating).

>	Obviously, one of the "simplest explanations"
>   must be false.  It is not correct, logically or scientifically, to chose to
>   believe some evidence and ingore other evidence.  Both possibilities
>   should  be considered.

    And of course, the one which can be most "simply" put to bed is the
bogus argument that should be rejected.  In this case, all of your < 50,000
year arguments fall before the slightest ounce of rational study.  The same
cannot be said for the varve/ice core data.  Sorry, Bob, you still are barking
up the wrong tree.

>   Bob Bales

--
Matt Brinkman
brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins