|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 760 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Then why, pray tell, was Alley able to date the 79AD eruption of Vesuvius to within seven years by counting Greenland varves down to a volcanic ash layer? That's the sort of correlation the bozos at AiG ignore completely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
The source you reference is seriously flawed in that it states:
quote: This is NOT the assumption at all. The age ice sheets is calculated based on the measured fact that O18 / O16 ratios based on temperature differences between winter and summer water source for the snow. Your source (suspiciously) neglects to mention this and neglects to answer this. It thinks that storms days apart can produce the layers -- NOT and produce changing oxygen isotope ratios they can't. Your source also attempts to support it's case with this obviously unthought out comment:
quote: This has been discussed and torn to pieces before. If they simply say it they aren't paying attention to what is wrong with the statement. Based on those weaknesses I have good reason not to trust your source and their lifting of any quote from a published paper without the total context.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Then why, pray tell, was Alley able to date the 79AD eruption of Vesuvius to within seven years by counting Greenland varves down to a volcanic ash layer? That's the sort of correlation the bozos at AiG ignore completely. I could not find where the creationists at AIG have a problem with Mt. Vesuvius climatic correlations. Perhaps thats why they are not addressing it directly but addressing the problem uniformitists have explaining ice varves stretching into the glacier era, having such great fluctuations in the oxygen isotope ratio in the glacial era. Perhaps the earth is really a young earth, etc... I agree this threads topic is not about the truth but only that the uniformitists correlations agree. The truth (ice varves ages) appears more explained by the AIG people and the stretched truth correlations more explained by the uniformitists. Percy explained this thread is not about the accuracy of the varves, but that they correlate. I'm not sure the AIG people would have a beef other than the truth has been stretched, etc...------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 1. The oxygen isotope ratio down the GRIP ice core, central Greenland (from Wolff et al.).5 Within the uniformitarian interpretation, Holocene represents the last 10,000 years or so, YD is the Younger Dryas cold period, A/B is the Allerod/Bolling warm period, 5a-d is the early part of the last ice age, and ”Eem’ represents the previous interglacial. In the creationist interpretation, the Holocene would represent the post-Ice-Age climate during the past 4,000 years (approximately 1,500 m of ice), while the rapid post-Flood Ice Age would include the whole core below 1,500 m depth. Notice the high amplitude sharp oscillations in the oxygen isotope ratio in the glacial part of the core. ConclusionsThe wild oscillations in the oxygen isotope ratio during the Ice Age is interpreted by uniformitarian scientists as catastrophic changes in temperature in the North Atlantic region. These are used to justify speculation on rapid climate change in the present climate due to increased greenhouse gasses. It is the uniformitarian stretched-out time scale that is the main cause of the problem. Within a creationist model,1 the large fluctuations can be explained by events during the Ice Age. With much thicker annual layers in the Ice Age portion of the core, the oscillations could simply be annual layers caused by seasonal changes in temperature or more prolonged changes in temperature caused by variable volcanic dust loading in the stratosphere. Interpretation of ice cores is another example where different assumptions, using the very same data, result in quite different conclusions.
Wild Ice-Core Interpretations by Uniformitarian Scientists
| Answers in Genesis
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Charley writes: Perhaps thats why they are not addressing it directly but addressing the problem uniformitists... I think you mean uniformitarians, and there aren't any here. There aren't any anywhere anymore. It's a term from the 19th century, and it doesn't mean what you think it does, anyway. Hopefully everyone from both sides of the debate is a "follow the evidence where it leads"-ist. Whatever the evidence says about a process, whether it indicates it was fast or slow, hopefully everyone will give the evidence the weight it deserves. The AIG article you referenced raises questions concerning dating of glacier layers and it addresses the correlation issue. Perhaps someone here will take a close look at it. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 862 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Charley writes: Percy explained this thread is not about the accuracy of the varves, but that they correlate. I'm not sure the AIG people would have a beef other than the truth has been stretched, etc... The dating of the Greenland GISP-2 ice core is explained in the following article by Paul H. Seeley titled "The GISP2 Ice Core: Ultimate Proof that Noah's Flood Was Not Global" from Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith at http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf The ice cores are dated by three independent methods. 1. Visual counting of layers - Because the snowfall in summer consists of larger coarse-grained particles and in winter smaller fine-grained particles, the layers are visually distinct for the most recent 12,000 years. 2. Annual layers of dust are counted as they correlate with visual counts at a rate of 98% where they overlap. The dust is a result of late winter/early spring winds which are global in nature. Counting the dust layers results in a maxomum age of 250,000 BP. 3. Electrical conductivity between annual layers varies due to the late spring and summer precipitation containing more nitric acid than winter precipitation. 4. The O18/O16 ratio count shows layers as the lighter isotope is preferentially evaporated from the ocean in lower temperatures. This method has not been used to date the GISP-2 core beyond 1100 years because it was only done to validate the other correlations. The first 3 methods corrlate within 1% for the first 11,500 layers, 5% for layers from 11,500 BP to 50,000 BP and 10-20% for 50,000-110,000 BP. The article concludes by pointing out Oard's falsehoods and misinterpretations along with the refutation of the buried plane story, the usual expected fare for those who follow the debate. Edited by anglagard, : Fully cite source and clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5940 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Charley writes: Interpretation of ice cores is another example where different assumptions, using the very same data, result in quite different conclusions. You can develop a system of celestial mechanics based on a geocentric solar system. You can develop a set of equations based on cold transfer instead of heat transfer, or explain the propagation of light via luminiferous aether. You can even have some modest success if you constrain your observations and ignore certain areas of inconvenient nonconformance and tack on some nonsensical terms here and there. Different conclusions sure, however science is concerned with the right conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
2. Annual layers of dust are counted as they correlate with visual counts at a rate of 98% where they overlap. The dust is a result of late winter/early spring winds which are global in nature. Counting the dust layers results in a maxomum age of 250,000 BP. Looks like I need to update the OP again ... Seasonal variations in dust concentrations too ... and
quote: another correlation.
quote: and another. Thanks. Edited by RAZD, : and another we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
I doubt the AIG people have much of a beef with fundemental evidence as related to dust that happened after the ice era layers.
The scientific evidence is that nothing of the plant variety (peat) is dating older than 16,500 years in the northern most lattitudes yet where plants were not frozen in warmer parts of the earth peat dates on the edges of the C14 dating method. ------------------------------------------------------ The most fundamental evidence is related to dust, just asEllenberger and Mewhinney suggest, but not in terms of their uniformitarian outlook and interpretation. Nothing in the top layers of the icecaps has anything to do with Velikovsky's hypothesis. Whatever was presented from these layers is only related to the uniformitarian, gradualistic interpretation of ice formation. Pointing to anything found after Velikovsky's catastrophic events, as Ellenberger and Mewhinney do, has and never had anything whatsoever to do with his scenario. http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/floods/ice.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Different conclusions sure, however science is concerned with the right conclusions. I agree like Dr. Humphreys finding that the helium diffusion in granite were formed approximately 6,000 years ago. The radioactive ages has nothing to do with the age of the earth, no evidence for fusion of new elements within the earth, everything is decaying thus elements that make up the earth was fused pre-earth. The granites were created at the time the helium became trapped within the granites. Scientifically the helium diffusing in the granites that lie beneath the ice is in essence a clock that correlates to a young earth. ----------------------------------------- The granites He presented his findings that granites which are dated at more than a billion years old with Uranium-Lead dating methods still have large quantities of helium in them. This Helium along with Lead are daughter products of the radioactive decay of Uranium. The Helium should have all diffused out of the granite by now if it were a billion or more years old. However, if the granite is only thousands of years old, the quantity of Helium still remaining agrees very closely with the rates Dr. Humphreys obtained from laboratory measurements of helium diffusivity in zircon. RATE Posters Well Received at AGU Conference | The Institute for Creation Research
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5940 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
This topic is about age correlations from multiple sources.
You just regurgitate a link that talks about a poster board and I am suppose to be impressed. What now if I bury you with 100 links to peer reviewed papers that demonstrate deep time old earth, based on multi-source correlating rate evaluations? Do I win? To address this I would recommend you:
You can start here. http://www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htmRATE's Ratty Results: Helium Diffusion Doesn't Support Young-Earth Creationism Dr. Humphreys Feels the Pressure Nevertheless from your reference:
ICR writes: The visiting scientists did not necessarily agree with the conclusions but the authors received no major negative comments Oh that is positive. The other scientist are polite and somehow that is proof positive that this guy is on to something.
ICR writes: We hope these researchers will spread the word that Creationist scientists are conducting quality work and have solid evidence for a completely different paradigm about the age of the earth. Try getting a job in the oil patch with a YEC badge. This must say something like maybe the "solid evidence" is not where they want to put their money. Really I wonder if the creationist are so cocksure that they are right why don't they start an oil exploration company using YEC methods and Christian investors and clean up. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The granites were created at the time the helium became trapped within the granites. False. This also has nothing to do with correlations so no further response is necessary. Please stick to the topic. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Furthermore, this list is by no means comprehensive or complete, the items were selected to show the diversity of information available and the number of different disciplines involved. The bottom line is that the evidence of an old earth is as overwhelming as the data that the earth is an oblate spheroid that orbits the sun, and thus "Young Earth Creationists" (YEC) are no less foolish than "flatearthers" and "geocentrists" in their mistaken beliefs (in fact you could say that the evidence for an old earth is more accessible and easier to comprehend than the evidence that invalidates the geocentric model of the universe). Just responding to your threads opening statment of belief that the evidence for an old earth is easier to comprehend. The evidence is easier to comprehend for a young earth, your correlations are not all that easy to comprehend, etc... Your interpretation of the correlations does support an old earth (your simply banning any evidence to the contrary, etc...) the evidence from a YEC point of view scientifically supports a young earth. The evidence supports a young earth your title your inflaminatory paragraph suggest that age correlation support an old earth. I request you drop this paragraph as its an inflaminatory statement to suggest any creationists believes the earth is flat or the sun the center of the universe, as it has nothing to do with your topic,etc... Thank-you, etc... Edited by Charley, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5940 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
charley writes: Your interpretation of the correlations does support an old earth (your simply banning any evidence to the contrary, etc...) And this is where you can present this banned evidence that is being overlooked.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Charley, whatever you say about Humphries and his fakery, the helium bit is already refuted.
Radiometric Dating
quote: Quartz is commom with uranium.
I request you drop this paragraph as its an inflaminatory statement to suggest any creationists believes the earth is flat or the sun the center of the universe, as it has nothing to do with your topic,etc... Denial of the evidence won't make it go away Charley, whatever you think.
... your correlations are not all that easy to comprehend, etc... inh(ysa)o, what you are laboring under is not difficulty in understanding the words, but in reconciling them with your beliefs that are at odds with the evidence. Your belief system will cause you to reject statements shortly after they are read as being untrue, and with that going on you cannot form coherant thoughts that involve that evidence. This is where delusions about a young earth are evil. It is not inflamatory, it is truth. You can count tree rings older than most YEC models (6,000 years), and it is NOT rocket science. You can count lake varves older than ALL YEC models (12,000? years), and it is not rocket science. You can count ice layers way older that all YEC models and it is not rocket science. Bedded in each counting system are markers for past events or climates that show up in the other systems at the same level for counting rings, varves and ice layers. This is evidence that each one has the time the same for that event or climate - in spite of the evidence being a totally different system. That is the correlations between the systems, and it is not rocket science. Sorry it is hard on you, but that's reality. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Dr. Roger C. Wiens never mentioned that the elements in the natural within the earth never undergo fusion. If the elements only undergo radioactive decay then they were all created pre-earth and has nothing to do with Humphreys helium diffusion out of granite.
The helium diffusion out of granite is like sand flowing through an hour glass and has nothing to do with radioactive decay. This clock is diffusing helium right under all your correlations as a testimony that the granites were formed 6,000- 12,000 thousands years ago not billions of years ago. The radioactive elements decaying alongside in the lead is only evidence that that the elements that make up the earth were formed pre-earth. Radioactive decay has nothing to do with the age the earth was created, never has. Its basis is only the false assumptions of uniformitarians to imply that the earth is old. Uniformitarians twist sciences to support their beliefs, however uniformitarians have no evidence that fusion has ever occurred within the earth only that the elements decay. This only supports the elements were formed (fuzed) pre-earth, nothing more, etc...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024