Young Earth Creationist dynamics.

[RickG]

Continuous ice core chronologies go up to 100,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in the Vostok ice cores in Antarctica. This is done by counting annual layers through a number of different and very precise means.

Again what speculation is right? The current icy period of Antarctica's history began about 25 million yearsago in the Miocene epoch. The oldest and deepest parts of the ice arebelieved to be 15 million years old.
Antarctic Ice


Drilling to a 14 million year old lake…

Russian Drill Nears 14-Million-Year-Old Antarctic Lake | Wired Science | Wired.com


Why isn’t your Antarctic ice dated to at least 6 million years?

Will the deep ice date to 15 million years? If it does will drilling about half way down yield a date of at least 7.5 million years? Wait a moment that was dated to 800k years. You see your assumptions can be wrong; those yearly layers could be changes in temperature between snow storms (nothing more).

Speculations worst enemy is science… Do it right and God is there.

Annual layers of ice cores currently only yield themselves to just under one million years. No one has claimed that they go any further back in time. I explained this to you previously in post #246 of the "Ice Core Chronology" thread in the Physical Science Forum.

Counting annual layers is one thing. But deeper cores can be dated back millions of years by way of radiometrically dating particulates trapped in the ice below the annual layer limitation.

 

[Zaius137]

May I point out your direct quote, "periodic fluctuations in decay rates". A fluctuation is not a decay rate change. As I have already pointed out, radionuclides that exhibit alpha or beta decay can fluctuate slightly. In most cases less than one percent and some alpha or beta decay nuclides have never exhibitied any fluctuation. However, that is not the article I was talking about that you cited that did not discuss decay rates. Actually it was two of your other citations. Sorry I wasn't more clear about which articles.

[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Nomoto, K. et al., 1997a. Nucleosynthesis in type 1A supernovae. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706025[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Nomoto, K. et al., 1997b. Nucleosynthesis in type II supernovae. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706024[/FONT]

A third describes what I have already described and have been trying to get across, Perturbations.

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Emery, G. T., 1972. Perturbation of nuclear decay rates. Annual Review Nuclear Science 22: 165-202. [/FONT]

The who young earth concept about decay rate change is that you and others claim decay rates were faster in the past, therefore, giving the impression that rocks were older than actually are. The fact remains that they have not changed and that fact is verifiable. Conversely, no one has any supporting evidence that they have. A perturbation or variation is not a rate change, it is a well know characteristic of alpha and beta decay types of which the actual variation is extremely small.

Rick my friend,

Let’s not hazard into the thin air of semantics.


By Rick….The who young earth concept about decay rate change is that you and others claim decay rates were faster in the past, therefore, giving the impression that rocks were older than actually are. The fact remains that they have not changed and that fact is verifiable. Conversely, no one has any supporting evidence that they have. A perturbation or variation is not a rate change, it is a well know characteristic of alpha and beta decay types of which the actual variation is extremely small.

​

The object of a YEC is to provide a mechanism (scientific) by which decay rates can change, as far as the originator is concerned, it is God. There is no smoking gun (or rare) in science and one can always draw fresh conclusions by thinking outside the box.

The RATE group from icr have provided evidence in the form of excess helium in zircons, radio halos, carbon 14 in diamonds and ancient coal seems. The evidence stands apart from any possible deviation in measurement. As I provided citation for radio nuclides being affected by earth sun distance inverse square relation, plasma decay rates that exceed the decay constants in some cases by several million fold and possible rate changes by varying the fine structure constant.

 

[Zaius137]

Annual layers of ice cores currently only yield themselves to just under one million years. No one has claimed that they go any further back in time. I explained this to you previously in post #246 of the "Ice Core Chronology" thread in the Physical Science Forum.

Counting annual layers is one thing. But deeper cores can be dated back millions of years by way of radiometrically dating particulates trapped in the ice below the annual layer limitation.

Frankly I am not going back to a thread you closed in the middle of a discussion without any courteous considerations.

As I have asked many times and only received ad-hoc explanations Is…

If the snow fall started to accumulate 15 million years ago why are you troubling me with obtained dates that have no promise of exceeding one million years?


There is a conflict in the age of ice core dates from the two materialistic accepted dates of snow fall…



Quit beating around the bush… because



I would like to get back to the supernova element source.

The only foolproof method for determining the age of something is based on eyewitness reports and a written record. We have both in the Bible. And that is why creationists use the historical evidence in the Bible to constrain their interpretations of the geological evidence.

- Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old? - Answers in Genesis

 

[Split Rock]

The only foolproof method for determining the age of something is based on eyewitness reports and a written record. We have both in the Bible. And that is why creationists use the historical evidence in the Bible to constrain their interpretations of the geological evidence.

- Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old? - Answers in Genesis

Sorry, no. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable and written records can be false. To claim these sources are Foolproof is absurd. Just more Special Pleading from the creationist YEC camp.

 

[Zaius137]

Sorry, no. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable and written records can be false. To claim these sources are Foolproof is absurd. Just more Special Pleading from the creationist YEC camp.

Unlike documents of the world the Bible is reliable.

 

[Split Rock]

Unlike documents of the world the Bible is reliable.

The bible was written by fallible men, transcribed and translated by fallible men, and interpreted by fallible men. There is nothing foolproof about it.

 

[Keachian]

The bible was written by fallible men, transcribed and translated by fallible men, and interpreted by fallible men. There is nothing foolproof about it.

But, but, they were all Jesus puppets...

 

[RickG]

Rick my friend,

Let’s not hazard into the thin air of semantics.

Those semantics are what is pointing out your misunderstanding of specific published science you have cited.

By Rick….The who young earth concept about decay rate change is that you and others claim decay rates were faster in the past, therefore, giving the impression that rocks were older than actually are. The fact remains that they have not changed and that fact is verifiable. Conversely, no one has any supporting evidence that they have. A perturbation or variation is not a rate change, it is a well know characteristic of alpha and beta decay types of which the actual variation is extremely small.

The object of a YEC is to provide a mechanism (scientific) by which decay rates can change, as far as the originator is concerned, it is God. There is no smoking gun (or rare) in science and one can always draw fresh conclusions by thinking outside the box.

In other words you are making it up to fit what you want to believe.

The RATE group from icr have provided evidence in the form of excess helium in zircons, radio halos, carbon 14 in diamonds and ancient coal seems. The evidence stands apart from any possible deviation in measurement. As I provided citation for radio nuclides being affected by earth sun distance inverse square relation, plasma decay rates that exceed the decay constants in some cases by several million fold and possible rate changes by varying the fine structure constant.

All of which have been shown countless times to contain many errors in their reasoning, and that is exactly what it is, their reasoning or more specifically their interpretation of credible scientific literature that conveniently ignores "all" the evidence. I specifically state reasoning and interpretation because the RATE group has never performed any original research on anything having to do with the age of the earth.

 

[RickG]

Frankly I am not going back to a thread you closed in the middle of a discussion without any courteous considerations.

You made a reference to that thread earlier. I am just citing a specific post in that thread where I answered that very question which was posed by YOU.

As I have asked many times and only received ad-hoc explanations Is…

So, straight forward answers to your questions and comments that are supported in the scientific literature, which I do reference, is ad-hoc. Thanks for clarifying that.

If the snow fall started to accumulate 15 million years ago why are you troubling me with obtained dates that have no promise of exceeding one million years?

That question was answered, as I pointed out already in post 246 of the Ice Core Chronology thread and also in this thread in post #101. My post there reads:

"Annual layers of ice cores currently only yield themselves to just under one million years. No one has claimed that they go any further back in time.......Counting annual layers is one thing. But deeper cores can be dated back millions of years by way of radiometrically dating particulates trapped in the ice below the annual layer limitation."

There is a conflict in the age of ice core dates from the two materialistic accepted dates of snow fall…

Please give citation. I smell a quote mine.

Quit beating around the bush…

Really? Other readers of this thread. Please comment on who you perceive as beating around the bush.

because I would like to get back to the supernova element source.

Which one?

 

[Split Rock]

But, but, they were all Jesus puppets...

According to my buddy AVET, they were all like secretaries taking dictation. Except, the KJV1611 (version 5) is the ultimate, specially protected and correct version, which, just so happens, was written in English.

 

[Split Rock]

Really? Other readers of this thread. Please comment on who you perceive as beating around the bush.

OHHHHHH OHHHHH!!! I vote for Dr. Zaius!!

 

[Keachian]

According to my buddy AVET, they were all like secretaries taking dictation. Except, the KJV1611 (version 5) is the ultimate, specially protected and correct version, which, just so happens, was written in English.

 

[Keachian]

OHHHHHH OHHHHH!!! I vote for Dr. Zaius!!

seconded

 

[Zaius137]

Those semantics are what is pointing out your misunderstanding of specific published science you have cited.


In other words you are making it up to fit what you want to believe.

All of which have been shown countless times to contain many errors in their reasoning, and that is exactly what it is, their reasoning or more specifically their interpretation of credible scientific literature that conveniently ignores "all" the evidence. I specifically state reasoning and interpretation because the RATE group has never performed any original research on anything having to do with the age of the earth.

No comment on simply uniformed opinion.

 

[Zaius137]

From RickG....

"Annual layers of ice cores currently only yield themselves to just under one million years. No one has claimed that they go any further back in time.......Counting annual layers is one thing. But deeper cores can be dated back millions of years by way of radiometrically dating particulates trapped in the ice below the annual layer limitation."


There is a conflict in the age of ice core dates from the two materialistic accepted dates of snow fall…

Please give citation. I smell a quote mine.



Maybe you have a cold…

“The ice began to spread, replacing the forests that then covered the continent. Since about 15 Ma, the continent has been mostly covered with ice,[37] with the Antarctic ice cap reaching its present extension around 6 Ma.”

Antarctica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


“A significant cooling transition occurrs 10 to15 Mya). This is reflected in an increase in the d18 O record between 14 and 15Ma, caused by the rapid growth of the Antarctic ice sheet (Shackleton & Kennet, 1975) and a deep water cooling event (4 to 5°C) (Moore et al., 1987).”

Geological Time Scale for the origins and evolution of life.


“The current icy period of Antarctica's history began about 25 million years
ago in the Miocene epoch. The oldest and deepest parts of the ice are
believed to be 15 million years old. “

Antarctic Ice

 

[Zaius137]

Zaius137…Quit beating around the bush…


RickG… Really? Other readers of this thread. Please comment on who you perceive as beating around the bush.

You seemed to have scored the support of some fine participants.

Atheist viewpoints make some strange bedfellows…

 

[Keachian]

You do know that calling a Christian an Atheist, or saying that they are unsaved is against the rules right?

 

[Zaius137]

You do know that calling a Christian an Atheist, or saying that they are unsaved is against the rules right?

Atheist viewpoints make some strange bedfellows…

I know you are not an atheist… but some of your views?

 

[Keachian]

accepting evolution is not an atheist exclusive club, in fact the majority of people who accept evolution are Christian

 

[Zaius137]

I never met a Atheist who believed in the Genesis creation. But I have met confused Christians that were evolutionists. By deductive reasoning I can claim that evolution has more to do with Atheism than Christianity.