Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 76 of 357 (369006)
12-11-2006 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by johnfolton
12-11-2006 10:01 AM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by johnfolton, posted 12-11-2006 10:01 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by johnfolton, posted 12-11-2006 8:32 PM Coragyps has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 77 of 357 (369017)
12-11-2006 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by johnfolton
12-11-2006 10:01 AM


AIG source seriously misses something
The source you reference is seriously flawed in that it states:
quote:
The main assumption is that the earth is very old ” billions of years old. They assume that the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets have existed for many millions of years.
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:
A team went back to recover them in the late 1980s and discovered that the planes were buried under 260 feet (80 m) of ice and snow that had accumulated since 1942!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by johnfolton, posted 12-11-2006 10:01 AM johnfolton has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 78 of 357 (369150)
12-11-2006 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Coragyps
12-11-2006 11:57 AM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
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.
Conclusions
The 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Coragyps, posted 12-11-2006 11:57 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 12-11-2006 8:59 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 80 by anglagard, posted 12-11-2006 11:00 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 81 by iceage, posted 12-12-2006 12:19 AM johnfolton has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 79 of 357 (369159)
12-11-2006 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by johnfolton
12-11-2006 8:32 PM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by johnfolton, posted 12-11-2006 8:32 PM johnfolton has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 80 of 357 (369183)
12-11-2006 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by johnfolton
12-11-2006 8:32 PM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by johnfolton, posted 12-11-2006 8:32 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2006 7:11 PM anglagard has not replied
 Message 83 by johnfolton, posted 12-14-2006 8:01 PM anglagard has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 81 of 357 (369204)
12-12-2006 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by johnfolton
12-11-2006 8:32 PM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by johnfolton, posted 12-11-2006 8:32 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by johnfolton, posted 12-14-2006 8:14 PM iceage has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 82 of 357 (369618)
12-13-2006 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by anglagard
12-11-2006 11:00 PM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
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:
At c. 2,464 meters down, their dating of the volcanic ash found there (57,300 1700 BP) agrees very closely with the Z2 layer of volcanic ash found in Atlantic sea cores which is dated 57,500 1300 BP.
another correlation.
quote:
A high reading of sulfuric acid was also found in the GISP2 core at 1623 BC (3573 BP) which correlates very well with the tree-ring dates of 1625 and 1628 BC for the Santorini eruption.26
Reaching back even further, in addition to sulfuric acid
peaks, tephra has been found in both the GRIP and GISP2
ice cores which matches the composition of tephra from
particular volcanic eruptions around 10,300 BP and 52,700
BP.
and another.
Thanks.
Edited by RAZD, : and another

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by anglagard, posted 12-11-2006 11:00 PM anglagard has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 83 of 357 (369810)
12-14-2006 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by anglagard
12-11-2006 11:00 PM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
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 as
Ellenberger 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by anglagard, posted 12-11-2006 11:00 PM anglagard has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 84 of 357 (369812)
12-14-2006 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by iceage
12-12-2006 12:19 AM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by iceage, posted 12-12-2006 12:19 AM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by iceage, posted 12-14-2006 10:02 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2006 10:05 PM johnfolton has replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 85 of 357 (369827)
12-14-2006 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by johnfolton
12-14-2006 8:14 PM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
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:
  • Read up on Dr. Humphreys helium diffusion rates.
  • Read some of the existing rebuttals and counter discussions
  • Formulate your position in your own words and start a topic.
    You can start here.
    http://www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm
    RATE'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.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 84 by johnfolton, posted 12-14-2006 8:14 PM johnfolton has not replied

    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 86 of 357 (369828)
    12-14-2006 10:05 PM
    Reply to: Message 84 by johnfolton
    12-14-2006 8:14 PM


    Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
    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.

    Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 84 by johnfolton, posted 12-14-2006 8:14 PM johnfolton has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 87 by johnfolton, posted 12-14-2006 10:40 PM RAZD has replied

    johnfolton 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
    Posts: 2024
    Joined: 12-04-2005


    Message 87 of 357 (369836)
    12-14-2006 10:40 PM
    Reply to: Message 86 by RAZD
    12-14-2006 10:05 PM


    Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 86 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2006 10:05 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 88 by iceage, posted 12-14-2006 10:57 PM johnfolton has not replied
     Message 89 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2006 7:54 AM johnfolton has replied

    iceage 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
    Posts: 1024
    From: Pacific Northwest
    Joined: 09-08-2003


    Message 88 of 357 (369839)
    12-14-2006 10:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 87 by johnfolton
    12-14-2006 10:40 PM


    Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 87 by johnfolton, posted 12-14-2006 10:40 PM johnfolton has not replied

    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 89 of 357 (369873)
    12-15-2006 7:54 AM
    Reply to: Message 87 by johnfolton
    12-14-2006 10:40 PM


    Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
    Charley, whatever you say about Humphries and his fakery, the helium bit is already refuted.
    Radiometric Dating
    quote:
    15. Low abundances of helium in zircon grains show that these minerals are much younger than radiometric dating suggests.
    Zircon grains are important for uranium-thorium-lead dating because they contain abundant uranium and thorium parent isotopes. Helium is also produced from the decay of uranium and thorium. However, as a gas of very small atomic size, helium tends to escape rather easily. Researchers have studied the rates of diffusion of helium from zircons, with the prediction from one study by a young-Earth creationist suggesting that it should be quantitatively retained despite its atomic size. The assumptions of the temperature conditions of the rock over time are most likely unrealistic in this case.
    16. The fact that radiogenic helium and argon are still degassing from the Earth's interior prove that the Earth must be young.
    The radioactive parent isotopes, uranium and potassium, have very long half-lives, as shown in Table 1. These parents still exist in abundance in the Earth's interior, and are still producing helium and argon. There is also a time lag between the production of the daughter products and their degassing. If the Earth were geologically very young, very little helium and argon would have been produced. One can compare the amount of argon in the atmosphere to what would be expected from decay of potassium over 4.6 billion years, and in fact it is consistent.
    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.

    Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 87 by johnfolton, posted 12-14-2006 10:40 PM johnfolton has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 90 by johnfolton, posted 12-15-2006 11:43 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

    johnfolton 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
    Posts: 2024
    Joined: 12-04-2005


    Message 90 of 357 (369892)
    12-15-2006 11:43 AM
    Reply to: Message 89 by RAZD
    12-15-2006 7:54 AM


    Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
    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...

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 89 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2006 7:54 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 92 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2006 12:05 PM johnfolton has not replied
     Message 93 by Woodsy, posted 12-15-2006 1:11 PM johnfolton has not replied
     Message 95 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-15-2006 1:22 PM johnfolton has replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024