Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)

Of course.Because if they didn't conclude that they (1) would be out of a job, and (2) couldn't make a living off gullible people that don't care about reality if someone pretends to be an authority and feeds them the pap they want to suck down. You realize that Weins refuted this position don't you? Completely. Both polonium and uranium have abundant sources.Numbers 1. through 20. are from the section at the end called:
APPENDIX: Common Misconceptions Regarding Radiometric Dating MethodsRadiation haloes is #13 on the hit parade and previous references to 15 an 16 are also on the list.These are PRATTS. They are also creationist lies, intended to delude the gullible. The perps are frauds.Quoting the refuted "Misconceptions Regarding Radiometric Dating Methods" as part of my post is also dishonest, and a gross misrepresentation of what I did post.Now,Can we get back to correlations?Why do we get the same dates for climate and marker events from different dating mechanism? Some with annual layers and some without, based on on the science of radiology?Why do we get the correlations? Time after time after time after time? In system after system after system after system?One answer is because those dates are correct and the earth is old.The only other answer I've seen so far is composed of denial of the evidence, attempts to change the subject, and dancing around the issue without addressing it -- but it's not an explanation of the evidence, just of the total inability of anyone wanting to believe in a YEC to put together a coherant answer.Denial of evidence is NOT faith, it is delusion.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.

Why pray tell if the earth is billions of years ago does tree rings only correlate back 10,000 years(in agreement with a young earth).The frozen peat too correlates that vegetation dating approximately 12,000 years with scientist that have no evidence any exists in the northern latitudes older than 16,500 years.Without this food source the animals that uniformitarian evolutionists say have been around for millions of years simply could not of survived. No actually its the paleontologists in the universities that are trapped if they speak out they risk losing tenure. Its sad you can not see this simple truth. However (the love of money is a root of evil). Because the truth has been stretched time after time after time so the stretching fits system after system.Trees only correlate to approximately 12,000 years in the northern hemisphere no vegetation is believed to be older than 16,500 years in the northern hemispheer.Tree rings data supports life is no older than 10,000 years and the truth contained within varve dating & ice varves has been stretched by the powers that threaten tenure to the paleontologist.The earths age based off the tree rings is simply evidence of a young earth. Without trees plants how pray tell did the animals forage. You need millions of years for them to evolve and well their is simply no evidence that tree rings support evolutionists uniformitarian beliefs.Do you agree that tree rings support an earth of at least 10,000 years?Minimum age of the earth = 10,000 years based on this data.http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)I noticed no one addressed the ice varve chart adequately(temperature swings Figure 1 ) nothing of substance anyway. Wild Ice-Core Interpretations by Uniformitarian Scientists | Answers in Genesis Edited by Charley, : No reason given.Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

From: Do Greenland Ice Cores Show One Hundred Thousand Years? | Answers in Genesis We see that the author makes a number of unsubstantiated and wrong statments.He also ignores that actual facts; mostly this one:

quote:

---

Glaciologists claim that they can count 110,000 annual layers downward from the top to near the bottom of the Greenland ice sheet (Meese et al., 1997).

---

Since they actual can count changes in the oxygen isotope ratio for over 100,000 cycles AND the ratio varies with the seasons for all the time that it can be correlated with other events it is a very reasonable conclusion that they 100,000 cycles continue to represent seasonal variations all the way back.This statment is made:

quote:

---

So, one annual layer deep in the ice sheet may represent 100 or even 1000 uniformitarian ”annual cycles.’

---

They ignore the Oxygen ratio within these thick layers and don't show how it could arise.They do state:

quote:

---

However, oxygen isotope measurements that were the basis of the annual layers in other Greenland cores were only resolved down to about 300 meters or 1000 feet in the GISP2 core (Meese et al., 1997, p. 26,412).

---

However, this Meese paper shows (Ratios to 100,000 years)
them being measured to 100,000 years.Will you please explain the contents of your references in more detail? They appear to be making a number of unsupported statements in order to make the answers come out the way they like. This is not uncommon.

How come your AIG chart of the GRIP ice core does not look at all like the one published in Nature and correlated to oxygen isotope ratios and abundances among foraminifera in the North Atlantic? Figure 6-4b for Sean Mewhinney's Minds in Ablation Now AIG wouldn't be guilty of massaging the data to fit some preconcieved notion would they? Edited by anglagard, : Correct confusion between AIG and ICR

The GRIP core Oxygen ratios go back in the msg 109 referenced chart to over 90,000 years. Charley's reference seems to have made some mistakes.Edited by NosyNed, : Correct lack of clarity

Michael J. Oard based his reference to Keigwins ice-core chronology chart that was discussed by Dansgaard. It was not in Nature 365 sept 9 1993,---------------------------------------The second point is stage 5d in deep sea cores. Keigwin et al. state:”The ice-core chronology was discussed by Dansgaard et al. and is pinned to the deep-sea chronology at the 110-kyr level [stage 5d], denoted by the solid vertical line [in their Figure 2].’2Keigwin, L.D., Curry, W.B., Lehman, S.J. and Johnsen, S., The role of the deep ocean in North Atlantic climate change between 70 and 130 kyr ago, Nature 371:323-326, p. 324, 1994.----------------------------------------What is more interesting is the chart (figure 3). After 1500 meters the meters of water drops dramatically till it reads near 0 thru 3000 meters. Yet were to believe that each fluctuation in Oxygen is an annual layer no matter the thinness of the layers, etc... Do Greenland Ice Cores Show One Hundred Thousand Years? | Answers in Genesis Edited by Charley, : No reason given.Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

I repeat, about that peat: past 16,500 years ago was into the Last Glacial Maximum. The parts of the far north where peat is now found were either buried under ice caps or too dry and cold to support vegetation.

The scientific evidence supports the artic was more tropic than cold pre-glaciers. The peat not dating older than 12,000 years and nothing believed older than 16,500 years only testifies to a young earth.----------------------------------------the surface waters of the Arctic Ocean were ice-free and as warm as 18C (64F) . However, the sudden increase in greenhouse gasses boosted them to a balmy 24C (74F) and the waters suddenly filled with a tropical algae Apectodinium.’Page not found - Green Diary - A comprehensive guide to sustainable hacks, green tips, and eco suggestions

Maybe you should read your own source:

quote:

---

”before 55 million years ago, the surface waters of the Arctic Ocean were ice-free and as warm as 18C (64F) . However, the sudden increase in greenhouse gasses boosted them to a balmy 24C (74F) and the waters suddenly filled with a tropical algae Apectodinium.’

---

Edited by Ringo, : Fixed quote.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I agree they indirectly dated the time from the sediments in artic but that is in agreement that nothing is believed to be directly dated older than 16,500 years in the northern hemisphere.It also refutes that the artic has been covered in ice to explain why there is no direct evidence older than 16,500 years. The reason C14 is so suggestive of a young earth is that the peat was frozen not contaminated.The direct evidence only suggests the earth is a young earth. Edited by Charley, : No reason given.Edited by Charley, : No reason given.Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

To repeat my message 80 in this thread:

quote:

---

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

---

Obviously you have not read or refuse to address the five reasons why Oard's work is false. However, I understand that it is quite common for YECs to refuse to actually read anything posted as a link since they are often about winning at all costs regardless of the behavior it may involve, including bearing false witness.Therefore, for the benefit of our audience, I will summarize why Oard is full of crap.1. The thickness of the layers is not related to the dating of the layers using counts of winter hoar frost, laser light scattering (LLS) due to dust content, and electrical conductivity measurements (ECM).2. The assumption Oard makes, that there was only one ice age would require a model that would produce melt layers, not hoar frost layers. The difference between the two is easily distinguishable. Also, outside of what is discussed in the cited paper, there have been many times the Earth has been subject to ice at the poles as evidenced by past glacial deposits, particularly at the end of the Permian and just before the beginning of the Cambrian.3. Warm and cold oscillations due to short-term storms are not physically capable of creating hoar frost or differences in electrical conductivity due to Ph content.4. Purported snow dunes have different characteristics than annual precipitation layers and would have no effect on LLS and ECM measurements.5. Any assertion that cold and warm weather patterns create more layers is not relevant to hoar frost, LLS, and ECM as winter, dust content, and conductivity are independent of individual short-term storms.Please answer these objections before simply reasserting the same old arguments from the seriously flawed Oard papers.Edited by anglagard, : clarity

Yes the chart in figure 3 is very interesting, it clearly shows the difference between actually plotting data and pronouncing the YEC "facts" completely bereft of evidence.

How does one refute that the Arctic has been covered in ice when it is covered in ice now?

I tried opening your pd file but apparently Word Pad does not open this kind of file. I did a google search but couldn't find Seeley's article and why he believes what he believes.This was why I pushed forward Oards chart on the meters of water given water is nearly incompressible. The uniformitarians apparently believe water is compressible to explain why the ice varves 3000 meters has little to no meters of water and yet to them still qualifies as an annual layer.Given the earth was once a tropical paradise in agreement with the creationists water canopy senerio 6,000 years ago and the meters of water missing in the thinness of the lower varves this scientific fact only correlates to Creationists young earth beliefs not Paul Seeleys.With the artic once being a tropical climate there should only be peat dating older than 10,000- 12,000 years and the scientists belief that nothing dating older than 16,500 years old because too them nothing does, scientifically only supports a young earth.

You need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to read PDF files. Go to http://www.adobe.com and download it.