Evidence of age - 1. Ice Cores

[Saucy]

When have you observed large amounts of precipitation making a layer of ice that seems to be hundreds of thousands of individual layers of ice? When have you observed a storm make layers of ice that alternate from light to dark and from different ratios of oxygen isotopes? You have observed that a storm can do this right?

I haven't seen anything on the scale of the ice cores from Antarctica. Are you kidding me? Have you studied the cores yourself also? If you haven't, then you don't have the right to point this out to me as if because I haven't seen and studied it for myself then I have nothing to go by. But I have seen it on a much smaller scale with the snow in my driveway. After one storm, the snow compacts and even melts a little and turns to ice and is covered by the next storm. And by golly you can even see a layer of dirt in between them! Anyone who's ever dusted anything in their lives knows how quickly a layer of dust can gather.

But unlike Antarctica, the snow rarely lasts all season. We usually have periods of melting and then another storm will come along. But I have easily seen in a period of multiple storms in a very cold weather pattern the differences in snow and layers from each storm and the little warming in between that melted the snow just a little bit. It's impossible for the sun to melt the top a little, trap the warmer air molecules then refreeze at night?

If you have a big storm with warmer or cooler air drop a lot of precipitation, wouldn't that show up as a layer of differing isotopes?

Have you observed this happening? What study has been done to show that a big storm can simulate layers of seasonal alterations in isotope ratios? You have observed this right?

This was a question. But I did make the point above that Antarctica rarely gets above freezing and is usually in the negative temperatures and you told me that even a 20-30 degree change is enough to change the isotopes. That's what you told me. And usually storms involve a temperature swing, dealing with either warm or cold fronts. That's what causes storms generally right? A clash of warm and cold air?

It's improbable to think that throughout one season you're going to have the same exact temperatures throughout. I know from experience that you're going to have periods of warmer and colder temperatures brought about by frontal systems. So another QUESTION for you is: if you have a period of warmer weather, which usually brings about more precipitation, would those warmer isotopes not show up in the ice?

It seems LOGICAL to me that if you can record different isotopes just by the changing of temperatures, even a small temperature change can been seen, if a thirty degree difference between winter and summer can be seen, then a thirty degree change will also be recorded from a single storm that dumps a lot of snow. If this period was from right after the flood when temperatures were swinging and storms were blowing and you had a storm that dumped 5 feet of snow, that wouldn't be recorded? How much ice can five feet of snow produce? Ten feet?

Again, if you take the God factor out of the equation, you get different results. Was there a scientist around 4,000 years ago recording the weather patterns and comparing them to the patterns of today? No, there wasn't. So all science has to go on is speculation and theories based upon the weather that you see today. Antarctica gets very little precipitation today. If you use that model, of course it will take hundreds of thousands of years to create that amount of ice. But if at some point in history, which HASN'T been recorded, the numbers were a lot different, then how do you take it into effect?

 

[Saucy]

(Two more points. Firstly, Saucy, these ice cores are kilometers long. You can't do any ice fishing through 2,800 meters of ice, can you? That's why these ice cores don't melt or fissure. They are reliable records of historical climactic conditions -

Thank you for your in-depth analysis

But I gotta ask you, wouldn't the numbers be obscured some by the amount of pressure and weight on the layers? The ice is moving and shifting and there's so much weight that compresses the layers. Would it be difficult to get the same layers of perfect information through kilometers of ice?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Again, if you take the God factor out of the equation, you get different results.

Translation: the supernatural must be invoked in order to get the results demanded by creationism, and our natural evidence must be a lie otherwise. This is Omphalos, and makes God the author of confusion. God is not the author of confusion.

Was there a scientist around 4,000 years ago recording the weather patterns and comparing them to the patterns of today? No, there wasn't. So all science has to go on is speculation and theories based upon the weather that you see today.

Are scientists around analyzing a car crash or murder as it happens? No. Do they have more than "speculation"? Very much so.

 

[Saucy]

Translation: the supernatural must be invoked in order to get the results demanded by creationism, and our natural evidence must be a lie otherwise. This is Omphalos, and makes God the author of confusion. God is not the author of confusion.

No. Man, who is infallible, often times messes up and rather than take the answer the bible has already supplied for us, we want to do our own little investigation. Just like a scientist investigating a car crash or a murder scene...they can be wrong! And sometimes are.

 

[artybloke]

You really think that all the scientists who have studied ice cores and come to the same conclusions about age could be wrong, but some creationist who interprets the Bible literally but has never done any science in their lives could be right?

You have a serious dose of cognitive dissonance there, buddy.

 

[philadiddle]

Saucy,

I understand your objections when it comes to fluctuating temperatures possibly influencing the measurements. But understand that oxygen-18 doesn't just "appear" if the temperature changes from day to day, it needs to build up.

Think about this though, there are scientists who are funded with tens of thousands of dollars of expensive equipment and who travel all the way to remote locations to spend their time taking ice core samples, and then preserve and ship them to a facility with other very expensive, very precise equipment. They study snowfall patterns that we observe and measure what they look like years later, and also take samples of how the isotopes change from season to season, and even from day to day. Do you honestly think that they never considered that the temperature can change from week to week? Do you think that they go to all this trouble just to be told by a guy on the internet that there are key components to their measurements that they haven't considered?

They base their conclusions on what we observe happening today. You base your conslusions on the assumption that they don't know what they are doing.

 

[duordi]

Do I think the scientific community can be wrong?

History has many examples of the “scientific” community being turned on its head so based on past history I would say yes.

This is because mankind accepts a theory and indoctrinates the theory.
Once this has been accomplished selective evidence collection is used to support the prevailing belief.

The ice core theory has been presented as if it is unquestionable.
May I point out a few things?

First the top layers of the ice core do not look like the mid or bottom layers because of the pressure of the ice above it make the layers if they exist indiscernible.

The mid and lower layers are difficult to define at best and are fit to a theory which dictates a long consistent yearly cycle. I am not suggesting that you should not make assumptions, I just wanted to point out it is not as clear as you are making it out to be.

Secondly you have not tested your theory where you are able. This is where selective evidence comes into play.

At this site

Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth

There is discussion about some World War II planes which were dug up from a snow field. The site is a site which accepts “creation theory” but sources are listed.

So it appears that the scientific community was so eager to accept the old Earth age of 160,000 years for the Greenland ice sheet that no one checked the accuracy of the “annual snow ring theory”. The amount of snow which covered the planes indicated there was about 5 foot of coverage per year (250 feet of ice in 50 years) the Greenland ice sheet is about 4000 foot thick. When corrected for some compression of the ice layers it would take less than 1000 years to form the Greenland ice sheet.

It turns out that you can get an ice/snow ring with a thaw-freeze cycle, isotopes, dust, etc. and all.

You can assume the weather at the poles was always as it is now which would prevent a thaw freeze cycle. This would be a poor assumption of course because there are tropical fossils under the ice so it would seem at the beginning of an ice age the weather would have been moderated allowing a freeze-thaw cycle.

So the idea that ice ring data supports an old Earth is questionable even assuming a long slow continual consistent accumulation of ice.


Duordi

 

[Saucy]

Do you think that they go to all this trouble just to be told by a guy on the internet that there are key components to their measurements that they haven't considered?

If you and the scientists have it all figured out, then what's the point of having this conversation. Almighty science wins again. They are never wrong. Let's all bow down and worship a report made by a scientist.

I know my above statement sounds rude, but that's exactly how the "intelligent" people think. Science is infallible even though it is often proven wrong time and time again. A scientist already has the bias that the earth is billion of years old. A scientists already has the bias that Noah's Flood didn't happen. A scientist already has the bias that no supernatural forces interfered with the earth at any time.

Scientists are naturalist people. In order to follow scientific results and believe them, then you must think like an atheist.

Ask yourself this: Does God exist? If God exists, then ask yourself did He create the earth? Did he judge people and make things happen? Or did He take a hands off approach?

If you believed God exists then you must open your mind to the idea that maybe things happened the way He said they did in His word. You're taking man's word over God's. I don't really care if a billion atheistic scientists came to the same conclusion because they don't take into account that a very real God interacted with the earth and that interaction changes their results.

No scientist, if he ever wants to be taken seriously in the scientific community, would say, "Well there's evidence of Noah's flood". A single world-wide flood would take what looks like could take millions of years or form but do it in a very short amount of time. Like the Grand Canyon. Even though there's evidence that the entire earth has been covered by water, you don't want to believe in a flood? Why not? Why do you accept naturalistic explanations only and discount the very hand of God?

 

[duordi]

Don’t get upset, the majority of the people here have an old earth viewpoint.
They are not being, mean, they really believe what they are saying and have no desire to look for any other possibilities.
They are using selective data gathering methods.

You on the other hand can look at both viewpoints.
This will give you an advantage but you have to understand the assumptions and methods used yourself, so do some reading.

I am sure every one here is smart but they are not an expert in all fields and may not know much about this particular one.

Do not assume they are telling the truth, find out for sure.

They would not lie to you intentionly, but may be willingly deceived.


Duordi

 

[philadiddle]

May I point out a few things?

Sure

First the top layers of the ice core do not look like the mid or bottom layers because of the pressure of the ice above it make the layers if they exist indiscernible.

The mid and lower layers are difficult to define at best and are fit to a theory which dictates a long consistent yearly cycle. I am not suggesting that you should not make assumptions, I just wanted to point out it is not as clear as you are making it out to be.

Does this make it totally out to lunch? Or just not perfectly black and white?

Secondly you have not tested your theory where you are able. This is where selective evidence comes into play.

What further tests can be done?

At this site

There is discussion about some World War II planes which were dug up from a snow field. The site is a site which accepts “creation theory” but sources are listed.

This was already discussed in this thread, I even mentioned it in the OP and had a link that explained it.

So it appears that the scientific community was so eager to accept the old Earth age of 160,000 years for the Greenland ice sheet that no one checked the accuracy of the “annual snow ring theory”. The amount of snow which covered the planes indicated there was about 5 foot of coverage per year (250 feet of ice in 50 years) the Greenland ice sheet is about 4000 foot thick. When corrected for some compression of the ice layers it would take less than 1000 years to form the Greenland ice sheet.

This is exactly what Saucy said earlier in the thread and I already responded to it.

It turns out that you can get an ice/snow ring with a thaw-freeze cycle, isotopes, dust, etc. and all.

What do you mean, that you can get the whole cycle to repeat in just a few days? What is your source for this?

You can assume the weather at the poles was always as it is now which would prevent a thaw freeze cycle. This would be a poor assumption of course because there are tropical fossils under the ice so it would seem at the beginning of an ice age the weather would have been moderated allowing a freeze-thaw cycle.

What is your argument here?

So the idea that ice ring data supports an old Earth is questionable even assuming a long slow continual consistent accumulation of ice.

Duordi

You haven't given any reasons to think that it's questionable. You haven't addressed the actual methods used to date ice cores.

 

[philadiddle]

If you and the scientists have it all figured out, then what's the point of having this conversation. Almighty science wins again. They are never wrong. Let's all bow down and worship a report made by a scientist.

I find this ironic. You think the scientists in the field doing the work don't know what they are talking about, but you have it all figured out because of your fallible interpretation of a religious text.

I'm not claiming that science has it all figured out, but you are asserting that they overlooked something as simple as how multiple snowfalls in a year would affect the data. That's just silly.

They actually can test how they measure years. For example, they can look at volcanic ash in the ice cores from volcanoes that erupted a couple thousand years ago and match up the number of layers to how many years ago the volcanoe erupted (an example is given in the last link in the OP).

I know my above statement sounds rude, but that's exactly how the "intelligent" people think. Science is infallible even though it is often proven wrong time and time again. A scientist already has the bias that the earth is billion of years old. A scientists already has the bias that Noah's Flood didn't happen. A scientist already has the bias that no supernatural forces interfered with the earth at any time.

Nobody has the bias that the ice has to be hundred's of thousands of years old. The ice could be 2,000 years old and that wouldn't affect the age of the earth. It's the data that tells us it is old, not a bias.

Scientists are naturalist people. In order to follow scientific results and believe them, then you must think like an atheist.

This is nonsense, I believe God is capable of making a world that works, I don't have to insert God into the mechanisms that He put in place, they function just fine on their own.

Ask yourself this: Does God exist? If God exists, then ask yourself did He create the earth? Did he judge people and make things happen? Or did He take a hands off approach?

You said earlier that the age of the earth isn't an issue for you, it seems like it is more of an issue than you realise. You seem to have it tied tightly into your worldview.

If you believed God exists then you must open your mind to the idea that maybe things happened the way He said they did in His word. You're taking man's word over God's. I don't really care if a billion atheistic scientists came to the same conclusion because they don't take into account that a very real God interacted with the earth and that interaction changes their results.

I'm not taking man's word over God's word, I'm taking objective evidence found in God's creation over your fallible interpretation of God's word.

Why do you accept naturalistic explanations only and discount the very hand of God?

I accept naturalistic explanations for naturalistic processes. Do you accept the theory of relativity to explain the motion of the planets or do you think God makes the planets move?

 

[Saucy]

Sorry if I sounded upset, but the debate started out nice and respectful and I felt that more it went on, the more upset and frustrated my opponent in this debate got and even became rude at points.

The evidence isn't so "clear" to me as they expect it should be. I don't just willingly accept a scientific report as absolute, undeniable truth. People make mistakes. Computers are made by people so they, too, make mistakes. They don't come up with the information or "equation" on their own. A scientist gives it the equation to start with. They START with the bias and information that the earth is old, so NO result will ever be that the earth is young. Ever.

When they leave college and go to work in the field, they just endured however many years of study saying that the earth is old. They will never be taken seriously (as you see from the many creationist scientists today) if they ever said they think the earth is young.

Do you know of any scientist today who is a creationist and well-respect by anyone other than creationists? You are unwilling to actually look at the creationist evidence. You think ALL old earth information always trumps creationist information. You are biased. I am not because it doesn't matter to me if I'm wrong.

I believe the earth could be old. I can even support that the earth can be old, such as the earth being form and void when God did His thing. But I can also support that the earth is young. I just don't trust all science.

 

[duordi]

Well if I have a plane that is buried in the ice 50 years and I have a few hundred rings that would be enough for me doubt the anual assumption.

I read your references defining why this case should be ignored but I have a problem with knowing it is there all indications are that it proves that the annual ice ring assumption incorrect, and then ignoring it.
I tell you, the curiosity is killing me.
My understanding is that the majority of the ice below the top layer is dated based on thickness of ice assuming the upper current formation rates.

So if a large part of the lower ice was one event it would be assumed to be a long duration of time.

It appears that ice dating can be calibrated. That is to say you can assign any time duration to a thickness of ice you want to by modifing your assumptions or choosing your calibration method (the planes or an annual ring assumption).

Your "explaination" of the multiplication of the ice rings assumes that the weather conditions were always as they are now.

We have tropical fossils below the ice so it was warmer at some point.
What was the snowfall at each point in the formation?
It is hard to know what it was but we can know it was not always the same.

I complement you in including information which could be considered to contradict in your premise in your initial post
Thumbs up to you



Duordi

 

[duordi]

Keep this attitude and you will do well.

There is as much danger in accepting one position without question, as there is in accepting the other position without question.


Duordi

 

[Saucy]

I read your references defining why this case should be ignored but I have a problem with knowing it is there all indications are that it proves that the annual ice ring assumption incorrect, and then ignoring it.
I tell you, the curiosity is killing me.

Exactly. This is what I've been questioning the whole time. You have multiple ice layers (several hundred years worth accumulated in fifty), yet in that case, it doesn't mean anything. But in every other circumstance the equation is the way science says it is???

That's why I think science is biased. Here you have absolute proof that not every layer equals one year! But you don't see it that way.

So this is one of those things that I don't buy ice cores as absolute proof of old earth. If you care to continue on this debate respectfully without getting upset, then please bring up your next bit of evidence of an old earth that we can have a debate on.

 

[artybloke]

If you and the scientists have it all figured out, then what's the point of having this conversation.

There isn't any. Science has it right. Fundamentalism has it wrong. Full stop.

 

[shernren]

Exactly. This is what I've been questioning the whole time. You have multiple ice layers (several hundred years worth accumulated in fifty), yet in that case, it doesn't mean anything. But in every other circumstance the equation is the way science says it is???

Do you remember what you said the last time?

Ice shifts. It moves. It breaks, melts, refreezes. I live in Michigan so I know this for a fact. I've gone ice fishing enough to know the different ice patterns you get. In one winter, you can tell from the ice and snow on the ground after shoveling your driveway the different storms you had. There can be hard, compact snow lower down, separated by dust layers and on top the more recent snow. Sometimes the snow, even well below zero, seems to go away, albeit very slowly.

Here now is the irony. The planes you were talking about crash-landed on an active glacier. In other words, it landed on precisely the kind of place you were talking about - the kind of place where ice shifts and moves and breaks and melts and refreezes. The GISP2 and Vostok ice cores, however, were drilled far inland, precisely the opposite of the kind of place you were talking about - places where regular precipitation is extremely rare. The melt layers you see above the planes? You don't see them in the GISP2 and Vostok ice cores.

Given the location, therefore, using the many layers above the planes to discredit ice cores is a little bit like spending your entire life in a male toilet and then pooh-poohing reports from the outside world about these strange things called "high heels".

(I respect your question about high pressure on the layers, but remember that pressure would necessarily act downwards. If you press down on a peanut butter sandwich, the peanut butter might squeeze outwards, but it certainly wouldn't squeeze upwards. Same with gas. If you think there is enough pressure to obliterate the layers, then that same large pressure would also trap the gas dissolved in the water right where it is, making any gas measurements all the more accurate.)

One more thing:

Do you know of any scientist today who is a creationist and well-respect by anyone other than creationists? You are unwilling to actually look at the creationist evidence. You think ALL old earth information always trumps creationist information. You are biased. I am not because it doesn't matter to me if I'm wrong.

I would say that such an argument is premature at best and plain wrong at worst. Of course you aren't biased - or rather, of course you think you aren't biased.

But then again, to me it looks like you think ALL creationist information always trumps old earth information - or why else do you keep producing more of it? And I suspect that you are unwilling to actually look at the old earth evidence (such as how atmospheric O18 isotopic ratios correlate between the GISP2 ice core and the seabed sediments).

And do you know of any scientist today who is an evolutionist and well-respected by anyone other than evolutionists - that is, well-respected by creationists? I contend that you certainly don't respect any evolutionist scientists. After all, if I respected one of my students (and I respect all of them), I would not accuse them of having made a mistake unless I could articulate exactly what that mistake is. What more if the person I am accusing of a mistake is someone older and more experienced than me!

So we are at a stalemate here. You think I am biased, but I could claim that you are biased. You think I automatically favor old earth information, but I think you automatically favor the reverse. You think evolutionists automatically disrespect creationists, but I think creationists automatically disrespect evolutionists.

There is one crucial difference, however: when I say a creationist source is mistaken, I take the time to point out exactly what the mistake is. You, however, are often content to say "scientists make mistakes, computers make mistakes, we all make mistakes" without committing yourself to say exactly where the mistake in my reasoning is.

What does that difference suggest to you?

 

[duordi]

My expectation would be if there is a question about the method used to collect the information than we should check it.
If the ice is flowing can we compensate?
In other forms of dating there is some attempt made to find a correction for errors encountered.

Why should we ignore the whole thing here?
This is called selective data gathering.
If it doesn't say what you want it to then don't look.

It is not the fault of the people who dug up the planes and it is not the fault of "some creationist" who asked the question.

Are we afraid of what we will find? Multiple rings per year maybe?

If the planes proved that evoloution was true how fast do you think everything would be researched and doccumented?

Purhaps ice rings are not so cut and dry as we were lead to believe.


Duordi

 

[Saucy]

No I don't think Creationist information trumps science at all. Creationist information only makes me doubt a scientist's bias and that the information can be interpreted in more than one way. I've also mentioned in this debate that creationists are biased as well. So I never said one side is and the other isn't.

I grew up atheist. My field of favor is astronomy. I love astronomy. I grew up wanting to be an astronomer and if I was any good at math (and I SUCK at math ) I would've tried to go to college to be one. So I love science. I love exploration. I love God's creation.

When I think of the stars, I think of the verse:

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:"
- Genesis 1:14

We needed (and probably still do) stars put into the heavens, not just for God's infinite glory, but for man to use as signs and so they can tell what the season is for their crops and it was used for travel and as a calendar. To me, that's intent and intelligence.

But it also means that God could've spoken the stars into existence at one moment in time and the light appeared for that purpose. At the same time, a scientist will look at the stars, their vast distances and say, "Wow. Light travels at such and such a speed and that star is so many billions of light years away, which means that that star must have existed for billions and billions of years!"

Do you see what I'm trying to say? There is NO other way for man to interpret the age of the universe other than by looking at the furthest lights and assuming that is the tell-all of age. When in reality, God could've created it a few thousand years ago for the purpose of helping mankind.

So saying that science might be misinformed is not a personal attack on science or scientists. I love science! My study of creationism also is just looking at ALL the evidence and not being short-sighted by just one piece of evidence, because I can interpret the evidence in more than one way.

I have yet to come across a single piece of evidence that can't be looked at both ways. If God is real and the bible is telling the truth, then it's a very real possibility that God interacted with the earth. The creation event was a supernatural event that cannot be tested by science and thus when you try to look at it with naturalistic eyes, you're not going to take into effect God's divine nature. You're going to see something that could be a wrong interpretation of the evidence.

The only thing I got frustrated at during this debate was my opponent getting frustrated. What is the implication to you if the earth is young?

 

[Saucy]

I also wanted to say, that if the weight of the top layers is so heavy and it compresses the layers and some are pushed outward at the bottom, then you really don't have an accurate telling of years because at some point, the weight of the ice (which is heavy enough to compress the actual rock under it) would look like one big layer rather than multiple layers.

And you stated that the area where the planes are have much more precipitation thus more layers can form to look like two hundred years in fifty years time? But where the ice was taken there is less precipitation? Well you just confirmed it for me! If fifty years worth of melting and refreezing and more snowfall can look like two hundred years, then what about the flood event that was ALL over the world and heavy precipitation that would occur for the thousands of years afterward???