Greenland Ice Cores

Abby,Please could you drop your crazy coloured posts? They're rather hard on the old eyes.Cheers,Jack.

---

"You're Green, You're Ugly and the Gods Hate You."

Although your claim was already refuted in the first message in this thread, see also Creationist Comedy.

Yes, many times, over and over and over again. They've been tested six ways from Sunday and cross-correlated to a fare-thee-well and passed every test. Care to start a thread on radiosotope dating in the proper forum and see who's really ignorant? Better be prepared to discuss isochron dating, concordia-discordia dating, quantum physics as it applies to radioactive decay, the Oklo reactor, the decay of radioactive cobalt in SN1987A, and a few other topics ... but don't bother to bring up potassium-argon dating. (And if you don't know why you shouldn't bother to bring up K-Ar dating then you are not qualified to have a serious discussion).

Ok, to be honest, that is a lot of information, I currently understand that, the dating methods you have all given me seem to be consistent within eachother, astronomical occurences and etc... Is it true that most or all of the prominent dating methods rely on Radioactive decay?http://www.slider.com/enc/15000/dating_Absolute_Dating.htm

---

The earth is flat.

And I apologize for the "ignorance is bliss" remark, very hypocritical, and untrue.OFF TO SCHOOL

---

The earth is flat.

K(sniff)which ones are crazy?

The colours are crazy, not the messages.

You ask: "Is it true that most or all of the prominent dating methods rely on Radioactive decay?"That is the point of the Greenland ice core data -- it is based on counting layers of annual snowfallAnd the Devils Hole calcite data that counts annual layers of mineral deposits
USGS URL Resolution Error PageAnd the Lake Suigetsu (Japan) algae data that counts annual layers of organic growth
http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htmAnd the White Mountain bristlecone pine data that counts annual growth rings in very long-lived trees (one is still living and is 4,600 years old)
Requested Page Not Found (404)Each of these actual count methods corroborates the others on seasonal variations and climate change worldwide (showing evidence of the "Little Ice Age" and the "Younger Dryas" period among others). There are also ice core data from the Vostok Antarctic ice and two equatorial glaciers as well as tree ring data from numerous species of trees around the world (the longest databank on tree rings is on European Oak -- 10,000 years of continuous tree rings from thousands of overlapping specimens) and there is even annual growth data of coral heads and others ... (there is work being done on foraminifera which have a continuous fossil record going back 100 million years -- past the K-T boundary btw -- they form sedimentary layers on the ocean floor and they show climatological change as well -- including the K-T boundary)And these actual annual layer counting methods have been correlated to at least one radioactive decay method with errors on the order of 1 to 2% over the whole course of their, well within the margins of error.They pretty much show that the radiometric methods are 'bang on' for the periods where they can be verified. If any C'ist is going to propose that they break down beyond that then (1) they better not be YEC (you're at 567,700 years and counting) and (2) they better have a mechanism that affects each method equally and be able to demonstrate it experimentally.I suggest some good reading for concerned christians can be found at:
Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective
Radiometric DatingEnjoy.

ahaahahaaanot that sensitive.I was joking about the colors -- which ones are crazy so I could use the rest ...

quote:

---

Ok, to be honest, that is a lot of information, I currently understand that, the dating methods you have all given me seem to be consistent within eachother, astronomical occurences and etc... Is it true that most or all of the prominent dating methods rely on Radioactive decay?

---

I like the hawaiian islands as a perfect example of three different measures that agree: erosion, tectonic movement, and radioisotope dating. The hawaiian islands are the product of a stationary hotspot. As the pacific plate moves over the hotspot a new island is formed. Kind of like Hansel and Gretel leaving a bread trail behind them. If we assume that this process has been going for a while, we should be able to date all of the islands in the chain, and these ages should correlate with the movement of the pacific plate.This is the graph of the data: As you can see, especially with the newest islands in the chain, there is a strong correlation between age and the distance from Kilauea, the newest volcanoe that is located over the hotspot. secondly, the distance and ages also match the movement of the pacific plate (8.3 cm/year). Along with this, as you travel farther from Kilauaea the islands are more eroded. This also fits. For more info, go here. Again, all data meets at one point, the accuracy of radioisotope dating and an old earth.

Nice chart -- do you have an url for it so I can use it on other forums?Wasn't it the overwhelming evidence of sedimentary layers that convinced Charles Lyell of the extreme age of the earth?see thread
EvC Forum: Charles Lyell (in America) Bookand book
Amazon - Lyell in America: Transatlantic Geology, 1841-1853 (click)

---

From Book News, Inc.
Charles Lyell was a pioneering 19th-century geologist, and Charles Darwin's mentor. During his travels throughout America, he looked for evidence to confirm his theory of the uniformity of geological history, and made insightful observations about American society and the continent's regional differences. This study blends detailed scientific observations with colorful travelogue to chronicle his travels, and draws on previously unpublished letters and journals as well as Lyell's published writings. Includes b&w illustrations. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR

---

They would not have indicated absolute age, but implied it....

Abby,I got the chart from Hawaii Center for Volcanology | Formation of the Hawaiian IslandsIt also includes a chart on the erosion pattern. The site also lists about 30 data points (distance and K/Ar age). I have been meaning to make a chart that includes the data points and also has a line depicting the 8.3 cm/yr movement of the pacific plate. 8.3 cm/yr ----> 83 M/1000 years ----> 83 km/Myr would be the conversion for the chart. This would mean that after 65 million years an island should have moved 5,400 km. The oldest data point on the site above was Suiko central, dating 64.7 Myr and 4,860 km from Kilauea. The slight discrepancy can be attributed to slight variations in plate movement or slight movement of the hotspot over the years, but the numbers are quite close.PS: This island chain is mostly underwater and extends towards Siberia. The Hawaiian Islands comprise the most recently created islands in the chain. Enjoy.Added in edit: You will also notice from the site that the ages and distances were collected from many different sources, not just one survey. I think this lends credibility to the chart, in that the numbers were collected independently and by several different investigators. Such is the power of science.
[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-18-2004][This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-18-2004]

Thanks -- bookmarked.

Abby,Couldn't help it, I had to make that graph. Instead of plotting 8.3 cm/yr I did a line of best fit (simple regression). I got an R²=0.9826, and y=0.013x-2.7085. I obviously didn't force it through the origin, but the slope is 0.013 or 76.9 km/million years. This is pretty close to the 83 km/million years if current movement is extrapolated out. I would attach the excel file, but forum rules prohibit this. It only took me about 5 minutes to do it, so it shouldn't take long to reconstruct.Also, I was hunting around for the actual measurements of the plate movement. I found this pic:{Edited scaling, to restore page width to normal. Right click on graphic to see full scale version. - Adminnemooseus}The measurements do differ between islands, anywhere from 6.4 to 8.5 cm/yr. So this could factor into the slop of the regression above.If you right click on the pics you can get the source material, at least with most internet viewers.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-18-2004][This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-19-2004]

Wow that is very cool Abby, I was just reading that very same article. (A Christian Perspective.)How old is the Earth by the Annual observations? (tree rings, ice cores etc...)[This message has been edited by prophex, 03-18-2004]

---

The earth is flat.