Ice Core Chronology

[RickG]

Those of you with a young earth view of 6,000 - 10,000 years, how do you explain ice core chronology?

 

[Ken Behrens]

I have many ancient writings suggesting a successful weather control mechanism was in use for several centuries. If this is so, it would be possible to construct several apparent freeze/thaw cycles even per week. Still, 800k years is hard to account for. 4 a day for 400 years would be needed, but is hard to imagine. Several additional cycles could be added by continental movements in and out of the Arctic zones during the flood. (And I'm not saying I am a young earth view person, just sharing what I know that is relevant.)

 

[RickG]

I have many ancient writings suggesting a successful weather control mechanism was in use for several centuries. If this is so, it would be possible to construct several apparent freeze/thaw cycles even per week.

Hi Ken, thanks for your response. From what source are those ancient writings? Nevertheless, freeze/thaw cycles regardless of how many or how frequent have nothing to do with how ice core chronologies are obtained.

Still, 800k years is hard to account for.

For those who have no background in the processes that is understandable.

4 a day for 400 years would be needed, but is hard to imagine.

Again, freeze/thaw cycles and their frequency are completely irrelevant.

Several additional cycles could be added by continental movements in and out of the Arctic zones during the flood. (And I'm not saying I am a young earth view person, just sharing what I know that is relevant.)

Continental movements on that scale and timeline would not only melt all ice on earth it would melt the earth as well (thermodynamics 101).

 

[Ken Behrens]

Looks like it's a conversation between the two of us right now.

The evidence is basically philological comparative studies of many texts. Some as simple as Oxford Sumerian Dept. placing online the translation that says "when rainfall was increased" with that particular verb tense. But Sumerian Cylinder seals, the famine stele, the various flood legends in everything from Book of Enoch to the Popul Vuh, and the inconsistency of the original Hebrew in Genesis with the English we learned in school, suggest a technology was operative. There are mathematical coincidences as well, such as the measurement of distances in the Newark Works matching to within an inch that required for Tesla's patents, and the same "raygun" being drawn on the walls in the temple of Hathor at Denderah, and the hand of the Atlantean gods in the statues at Tula, Mexico, with the same name, size, shape, and reported function. And now the discovery that we cannot duplicate technologically the lettering found in what is thought to be the recovered thummim of the Bible. Any one thing by itself is just a legend, but together, I think we have enough to start reexamining ancient evidence in the light of a new theory.

So you say you want to teach? Okay, explain to me the ice core process. I always assumed we get a sample of ice, and count and examine layers where it thawed and refroze, and then count and analyze for environmental changes like we do tree rings. I see nothing that convinces me otherwise as of yet. If I misunderstand the process, then, maybe learning the right thing will give me another idea to explain where they come from consistent with the theory of technology I am thinking of.

There is another theory to look at in line with the earth melting, as that is close to the verbiage used about the flood in the Popul Vuh.

 

[4x4toy]

Those of you with a young earth view of 6,000 - 10,000 years, how do you explain ice core chronology?

Why would you need to know more than the evidence with the "Lost Squadron" in Greenland ? Known times vs depths of ice to recovery then total depth of ice to the ground puts a total time of accumulation and compaction closer to the end of the great flood .. Pretty much slams the door , right ?
I'm no scientist but I love science

 

[4x4toy]

Looks like it's a conversation between the two of us right now.

The evidence is basically philological comparative studies of many texts. Some as simple as Oxford Sumerian Dept. placing online the translation that says "when rainfall was increased" with that particular verb tense. But Sumerian Cylinder seals, the famine stele, the various flood legends in everything from Book of Enoch to the Popul Vuh, and the inconsistency of the original Hebrew in Genesis with the English we learned in school, suggest a technology was operative. There are mathematical coincidences as well, such as the measurement of distances in the Newark Works matching to within an inch that required for Tesla's patents, and the same "raygun" being drawn on the walls in the temple of Hathor at Denderah, and the hand of the Atlantean gods in the statues at Tula, Mexico, with the same name, size, shape, and reported function. And now the discovery that we cannot duplicate technologically the lettering found in what is thought to be the recovered thummim of the Bible. Any one thing by itself is just a legend, but together, I think we have enough to start reexamining ancient evidence in the light of a new theory.

So you say you want to teach? Okay, explain to me the ice core process. I always assumed we get a sample of ice, and count and examine layers where it thawed and refroze, and then count and analyze for environmental changes like we do tree rings. I see nothing that convinces me otherwise as of yet. If I misunderstand the process, then, maybe learning the right thing will give me another idea to explain where they come from consistent with the theory of technology I am thinking of.

There is another theory to look at in line with the earth melting, as that is close to the verbiage used about the flood in the Popul Vuh.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Hi , Ken I'm YEC , I do not recognize the Book of Enoch , but I know many do , no problem .. Do I think there are lost ancient tech ? Sure .. Have you ever seen anything on Ed Leedscanlin and his creation of the Coral Castle , remarkable !!! Also I think many mysteries like the raygun you mention could have been a result of demonic dreams and visions of future events primitively recorded as easily as Gods prophets foretold what they were inspired to record .. Just sayin . Ever heard of Edgar Casey the Sleeping Prophet ? Lots of remarkable stuff out there .. As to the ice cores , it is all speculation imo depending on your prejudice ..

You don't have to "recognize" a book to admit that it has existed since about 100BC. I'm not talking about being inspired; I'm talking about being a historical record of what someone thought (and sold a lot of copies of) the ancient world was like before the Library of Alexandria was destroyed.

Compare the quoted evidence and then see if you still think that about the xiucoatl/nekhba.

I am aware of Edgar Cayce and the Coral Castle.

I only offered these sources to support that we have not examined every possible theory, not to get into a discussion of ancient science not relevant to ice cores. Maybe we need to take this discussion to a new thread, and save this one for the ice cores, like Rick G would like?

 

[4x4toy]

You don't have to "recognize" a book to admit that it has existed since about 100BC. I'm not talking about being inspired; I'm talking about being a historical record of what someone thought (and sold a lot of copies of) the ancient world was like before the Library of Alexandria was destroyed.

Compare the quoted evidence and then see if you still think that about the xiucoatl/nekhba.

I am aware of Edgar Cayce and the Coral Castle.

I only offered these sources to support that we have not examined every possible theory, not to get into a discussion of ancient science not relevant to ice cores. Maybe we need to take this discussion to a new thread, and save this one for the ice cores, like Rick G would like?

Forgive me , Ill leave ..

 

[RickG]

So you say you want to teach?

The concentration of my M.S. in Physical Earth Science was Paleoclimatology, Thesis on occurrence and causes of continental glaciations.

Okay, explain to me the ice core process. I always assumed we get a sample of ice, and count and examine layers where it thawed and refroze, and then count and analyze for environmental changes like we do tree rings. I see nothing that convinces me otherwise as of yet. If I misunderstand the process, then, maybe learning the right thing will give me another idea to explain where they come from consistent with the theory of technology I am thinking of.

A huge misunderstanding is how annual layers are deposited. On the surface each depositional event, a snow storm, is seen as a distinct layer. As seasonal layers accumulate, summer and winter snow can often be distinguished by a hard surface, or even sometimes a melt layer, at the top of each summer layer. The thing to understand about this is that this is not yet consolidated as ice. This upper area which can be more than a hundred feet, depending upon amount of annual accumulation, is what is called the "firn". Below the firn we have solid ice. In the firn area as it compacts we no longer see individual snow falls, rather what is seen is a summer layer and a winter layer (light & dark layers). Also as the snow/ice compacts with depth the layers also become thinner. This is what is called visual layers. In the early days of ice core chronology there were very few cores taken and no where near the depths that they are now taken. But now, with more sophisticated equipment and methods, other criteria are use for counting layers.

One of the methods of counting annual layers is through stable isotopes. What is used are the heavy isotopes of Hydrogen and Oxygen, that is the δD and δ18O values. Or more specifically the ratios of Deturium (2H & 1H) and
Oxygen (18O & 16O). The reason these isotopes are useful is their ratios which vary due to temperature. As seasonal temperatures cool (summer to winter) more of the heavier isotopes fall out of the atmosphere where snow forms. So by looking at those ratios, summer and winter layers are quite distinguishable, thus making any visual layer anomalies completely irrelevant. Nevertheless, the isotope ratio method does have its limits which is affected by diffusion of the isotopes. The limit of course varies as it is dependent upon the thickness of each annual layer. As layers get thinner due to compaction distinguishing the ratios becomes more difficult. Most layers are distinguishable up to 8,000 years but some have been distinguishable up to 18,000 years. Beyond that there are other methods that can be used.

Other methods are by impurity measurements, which provides a plethora of data not only to annual layers, but seasonal layers as well, because those impurities are unique to specific seasons. An example is the dust content of the ice. Part of the dust is soluble which is responsible for the main part of the Calcium ions found in the ice, as well the insoluble dust particles can be detected using light scattering techniques. Dust content peaks every year in spring when storms bring in relatively large amounts of dust. Thus, peak dust concentrations not only show an annual layer, but they also show that that part of the layer was deposited in the spring. Other ion concentrations are unique to seasons as well. Sodium peaks in the winter, while the concentrations of Nitrate and Ammonium peak in summer.

So, do you see now why I say that individual visual snowfall layers are completely irrelevant? And this just scratches the surface. The very things that identify seasonal and annual layers are also unique to climate conditions for looking into past climates.

 

[RickG]

Why would you need to know more than the evidence with the "Lost Squadron" in Greenland ? Known times vs depths of ice to recovery then total depth of ice to the ground puts a total time of accumulation and compaction closer to the end of the great flood .. Pretty much slams the door , right ?
I'm no scientist but I love science

The "Lost Squadron" is by a person knows absolutely nothing about ice core chronology, which his presentation of it demonstrates. http://creation.com/the-lost-squadron

1. Ice cores are taken from stable cratons, not in areas of outward glacial movement.
2. The Lost Squadron was in SE Greenland where glacial flow is active, thus no ice cores would be taken from there.
3. The area where the LS is located receives more than 2 meters of snow annually which more than accounts for the 150 ft of snow over it.
4. Depth of snow has nothing to do with how annual layers are determined other than the deeper the older they are. See my post #9 to see how they are counted.

I'm no scientist but I love science

Where is the science in Lost Squadron article I linked above?

 

[Ken Behrens]

Forgive me , Ill leave ..

I hope to see you in another thread, and discuss some of what you are proposing.

 

[Ken Behrens]

The concentration of my M.S. in Physical Earth Science was Paleoclimatology, Thesis on occurrence and causes of continental glaciations.


A huge misunderstanding is how annual layers are deposited. On the surface each depositional event, a snow storm, is seen as a distinct layer. As seasonal layers accumulate, summer and winter snow can often be distinguished by a hard surface, or even sometimes a melt layer, at the top of each summer layer. The thing to understand about this is that this is not yet consolidated as ice. This upper area which can be more than a hundred feet, depending upon amount of annual accumulation, is what is called the "firn". Below the firn we have solid ice. In the firn area as it compacts we no longer see individual snow falls, rather what is seen is a summer layer and a winter layer (light & dark layers). Also as the snow/ice compacts with depth the layers also become thinner. This is what is called visual layers. In the early days of ice core chronology there were very few cores taken and no where near the depths that they are now taken. But now, with more sophisticated equipment and methods, other criteria are use for counting layers.

One of the methods of counting annual layers is through stable isotopes. What is used are the heavy isotopes of Hydrogen and Oxygen, that is the δD and δ18O values. Or more specifically the ratios of Deturium (2H & 1H) and
Oxygen (18O & 16O). The reason these isotopes are useful is their ratios which vary due to temperature. As seasonal temperatures cool (summer to winter) more of the heavier isotopes fall out of the atmosphere where snow forms. So by looking at those ratios, summer and winter layers are quite distinguishable, thus making any visual layer anomalies completely irrelevant. Nevertheless, the isotope ratio method does have its limits which is affected by diffusion of the isotopes. The limit of course varies as it is dependent upon the thickness of each annual layer. As layers get thinner due to compaction distinguishing the ratios becomes more difficult. Most layers are distinguishable up to 8,000 years but some have been distinguishable up to 18,000 years. Beyond that there are other methods that can be used.

Other methods are by impurity measurements, which provides a plethora of data not only to annual layers, but seasonal layers as well, because those impurities are unique to specific seasons. An example is the dust content of the ice. Part of the dust is soluble which is responsible for the main part of the Calcium ions found in the ice, as well the insoluble dust particles can be detected using light scattering techniques. Dust content peaks every year in spring when storms bring in relatively large amounts of dust. Thus, peak dust concentrations not only show an annual layer, but they also show that that part of the layer was deposited in the spring. Other ion concentrations are unique to seasons as well. Sodium peaks in the winter, while the concentrations of Nitrate and Ammonium peak in summer.

So, do you see now why I say that individual visual snowfall layers are completely irrelevant? And this just scratches the surface. The very things that identify seasonal and annual layers are also unique to climate conditions for looking into past climates.

My training is in higher mathematics (BA, MS, ADB and 35 years of teaching in college), and I am not happy with any current theory of creation dates. Maybe we will get into that later.

So, if I understand you right, there can be many layers to a year, and counting years would require analysis of each layer to determine many factors. What theories used to be used, assumed that there was a winter and spring each year, as there is now, and examined types of ice to find the points where they changed season. The isotope method also assumes that there is one cycle of seasons each year ("summer and winter....are quite distinguishable.) Dust and other ions also are assumed to be seasonal. I am more interested in the philosophy and limits of the method, of course, for my purposes.

You also say that counts up to 8000BP are quite frequent, with a few readings of 18,000BP.

I had assumed that ice core samples formed quite a bigger hurdle for YEC than I think I am hearing from you. Let's assume that one one of the following theories (which I have uncovered in my comparative philological studies) are correct. Suppose there was a technology operative that controlled the weather. 1. Altering seasons to make "1 year" a month over 1200 years (which is possible if some of what I have read is true) would easily explain the counts obtained so far, even in a 4000 BC chronology. 2. If there was a flood, and the continents separated during it, that may have also created several more summer/winter occurrences. 3. The technology appears to have been able to alter radio absorption from space, and that might well confuse ion concentrations. 4. If indeed parts of the earth's core was being ejected into space, that would certainly alter dust, ion, and snow concentrations. Finally, if, as some YEC's have proposed, the physical constants that govern time and space had changed before written records, that would make all the natural laws we were depending on give false conclusions.

I'm not saying I believe any of these theories, but no one is considering any of them, and I think that is wrong. If I reading you right, your expertise seems to suggest hat it may be possible to harmonize the ice core readings with YEC.

 

[pat34lee]

A huge misunderstanding is how annual layers are deposited. On the surface each depositional event, a snow storm, is seen as a distinct layer. As seasonal layers accumulate, summer and winter snow can often be distinguished by a hard surface, or even sometimes a melt layer, at the top of each summer layer. The thing to understand about this is that this is not yet consolidated as ice. This upper area which can be more than a hundred feet, depending upon amount of annual accumulation, is what is called the "firn". Below the firn we have solid ice. In the firn area as it compacts we no longer see individual snow falls, rather what is seen is a summer layer and a winter layer (light & dark layers). Also as the snow/ice compacts with depth the layers also become thinner. This is what is called visual layers. In the early days of ice core chronology there were very few cores taken and no where near the depths that they are now taken. But now, with more sophisticated equipment and methods, other criteria are use for counting layers.

Problem. Some years would be warm, possibly melting years' or decades'
worth of ice. Also, due to drift and other conditions, the ice taken from
two spots not far apart could have vastly different layers.

 

[RickG]

My training is in higher mathematics (BA, MS, ADB and 35 years of teaching in college), and I am not happy with any current theory of creation dates. Maybe we will get into that later.

Thanks for sharing your background Ken. A later discussion on creation dates would be interesting.

So, if I understand you right, there can be many layers to a year, and counting years would require analysis of each layer to determine many factors.

One of the latest techniques developed is Continuous Flow Analysts, which is an apparatus that allows a continuous chemical analysis, thus showing the peaks of each ion, particulate, or isotope. Or specifically:

The amount of insoluble dust, and the size distribution of the particles
The concentration of NH4+, Ca2+, NO3–, Na+, SO42–, HCHO, and H2O2
The conductivity of the melt water (which is tightly connected with the ion content)​

As well, different cores are compared for verification. Also note that I included a few others I didn't mention earlier.

What theories used to be used, assumed that there was a winter and spring each year, as there is now, and examined types of ice to find the points where they changed season.

I would think that being to go back chronologically as it does with specific seasonal alternating indicators is pretty solid in showing consistency. Having said that, I won't gloss it over as being perfect, there are anomalies that do occur, but have little impact on the overall data and consistency, especially when compared with other cores which can fill in the gaps.

The isotope method also assumes that there is one cycle of seasons each year ("summer and winter....are quite distinguishable.) Dust and other ions also are assumed to be seasonal. I am more interested in the philosophy and limits of the method, of course, for my purposes.

Both the heavy isotopes (2H & 18O) are temperature sensitive and used for measuring paleo-temperatures. The others are assumed because that is when they occur. Another one I didn't mention is pollen. Also understand that Greenland cores are also compared with Antarctic cores as wells, thus we are looking at global climates. Another thing I haven't mentioned yet is the comparison and agreement with other methods in determining paleo climates and temperatures. Volcanic eruptions put dust into the upper atmosphere which also eventually settles on ice caps. The volcanic dust can be radiometrically dated through several independent methods. Additionally Marine Oxygen Isotopes (MOI) leave a climate and temperature record as well.

You also say that counts up to 8000BP are quite frequent, with a few readings of 18,000BP.

I had assumed that ice core samples formed quite a bigger hurdle for YEC than I think I am hearing from you.

That is just with the isotopes which I believe I mentioned earlier diffuse under certain conditions, thus have a limit. The other constituents are readable up to 800,000 (Antarctica) years and beyond. The thing I like for people to understand that with the numerous different constituents, each of which can be used as an annual marker, increases the accuracy of information obtained. As for YEC, I guess I mislead you there a bit by only mentioning the dates for the isotope method. In fact, the oldest ice core dated so far goes back 1.5 million years in Antarctica.

I don't have time to answer the rest of your post now but will try to get back to that part tomorrow.

God Bless.

 

[Ken Behrens]

A later discussion on creation dates would be interesting.

I would think that being to go back chronologically as it does with specific seasonal alternating indicators is pretty solid in showing consistency. Having said that, I won't gloss it over as being perfect, there are anomalies that do occur, but have little impact on the overall data and consistency, especially when compared with other cores which can fill in the gaps.

I don't have time to answer the rest of your post now but will try to get back to that part tomorrow.

God Bless.

The later discussion would be the real application of this information.

To really understand all of the methods, I think I'd have to spend some time in a lab assisting. I have to take your word that the observations are valid, but I wonder if we understand all the factors that contribute to each type.

As far as anomalies, I would be interested in coordinating the size of anomaly with the location. We must allow for the common theory that the continents separated thus Greenland could have been part of Antarctica at one time.

I'll keep checking back.

God bless you as well.

 

[RickG]

I had assumed that ice core samples formed quite a bigger hurdle for YEC than I think I am hearing from you. Let's assume that one one of the following theories (which I have uncovered in my comparative philological studies) are correct. Suppose there was a technology operative that controlled the weather. 1. Altering seasons to make "1 year" a month over 1200 years (which is possible if some of what I have read is true) would easily explain the counts obtained so far, even in a 4000 BC chronology. 2. If there was a flood, and the continents separated during it, that may have also created several more summer/winter occurrences. 3. The technology appears to have been able to alter radio absorption from space, and that might well confuse ion concentrations. 4. If indeed parts of the earth's core was being ejected into space, that would certainly alter dust, ion, and snow concentrations. Finally, if, as some YEC's have proposed, the physical constants that govern time and space had changed before written records, that would make all the natural laws we were depending on give false conclusions.

I'm not saying I believe any of these theories, but no one is considering any of them, and I think that is wrong. If I reading you right, your expertise seems to suggest hat it may be possible to harmonize the ice core readings with YEC.

None of those ideas are considered because all the data shows none of that ever happened, nor does the physics support any of it. Let's look at them one by one.

1. Altering seasons to make "1 year" a month over 1200 years (which is possible if some of what I have read is true) would easily explain the counts obtained so far, even in a 4000 BC chronology. First, what causes seasons? The earth's orbit and inclination. How does man change that and how does life even exist if it occurred? If a month equals a year, then that gives humans a week to plant, grow, and harvest their crops.

2. If there was a flood, and the continents separated during it, that may have also created several more summer/winter occurrences. True that continental positions and topography influence climate and ocean currents. But again, thermodynamics. The energy required to do such a thing would evaporate all water from the lakes, streams and oceans, not to mention melting the earth.

3. The technology appears to have been able to alter radio absorption from space, and that might well confuse ion concentrations. A a person who spent 30 years doing chemistry, part of which was testing and evaluating irradiation concentration and absorption and its effect on polymer chains and organic and inorganic compounds. No it would not alter ion concentrations, but it would most likely destroy all life on earth.

4. If indeed parts of the earth's core was being ejected into space, that would certainly alter dust, ion, and snow concentrations. If that were to happen, again, the earth would be a molten sphere.

Finally, if, as some YEC's have proposed, the physical constants that govern time and space had changed before written records, that would make all the natural laws we were depending on give false conclusions. First, that is a completely off-the-wall YEC accusation with zero evidence to support it. All they can say is how do we know it didn't? That's quite simple actually. Each of all the naturally occurring elements has a very specific composition of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Change that composition and you have a different element or isotope of the same element. Each of those elements and isotopes behave in a specific manner based on their composition and structure. If any of that had changed in the past to yield something completely different, it would it would be there for us to see. The fact is scientists have even tried to alter changes in atoms and they behave the same way under conditions of heat, stress, pressure, cold, etc. that far exceed anything they would receive in hature, and the natural laws do not change. In addition, with respect to decay rates of radioisotopes, we know those rates have not changed over time because we have measured scientists have measured decay rates of isotopes emitted from gamma rays from supernovae millions of light years distant.​

 

[RickG]

Problem. Some years would be warm, possibly melting years' or decades' worth of ice.

Then that would make the ice cores actually much older due to missing layers.

Also, due to drift and other conditions, the ice taken from
two spots not far apart could have vastly different layers.

Ice cores are taken from the stable domes, not zones of ablation. Besides, comparison of ice cores from different dome areas as well as comparison of Greenland and Antarctic ice domes yield the same information.

 

[Ken Behrens]

None of those ideas are considered because all the data shows none of that ever happened, nor does the physics support any of it. Let's look at them one by one.

1. Altering seasons to make "1 year" a month over 1200 years (which is possible if some of what I have read is true) would easily explain the counts obtained so far, even in a 4000 BC chronology. First, what causes seasons? The earth's orbit and inclination. How does man change that and how does life even exist if it occurred? If a month equals a year, then that gives humans a week to plant, grow, and harvest their crops.

2. If there was a flood, and the continents separated during it, that may have also created several more summer/winter occurrences. True that continental positions and topography influence climate and ocean currents. But again, thermodynamics. The energy required to do such a thing would evaporate all water from the lakes, streams and oceans, not to mention melting the earth.

3. The technology appears to have been able to alter radio absorption from space, and that might well confuse ion concentrations. A a person who spent 30 years doing chemistry, part of which was testing and evaluating irradiation concentration and absorption and its effect on polymer chains and organic and inorganic compounds. No it would not alter ion concentrations, but it would most likely destroy all life on earth.

4. If indeed parts of the earth's core was being ejected into space, that would certainly alter dust, ion, and snow concentrations. If that were to happen, again, the earth would be a molten sphere.

Finally, if, as some YEC's have proposed, the physical constants that govern time and space had changed before written records, that would make all the natural laws we were depending on give false conclusions. First, that is a completely off-the-wall YEC accusation with zero evidence to support it. All they can say is how do we know it didn't? That's quite simple actually. Each of all the naturally occurring elements has a very specific composition of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Change that composition and you have a different element or isotope of the same element. Each of those elements and isotopes behave in a specific manner based on their composition and structure. If any of that had changed in the past to yield something completely different, it would it would be there for us to see. The fact is scientists have even tried to alter changes in atoms and they behave the same way under conditions of heat, stress, pressure, cold, etc. that far exceed anything they would receive in hature, and the natural laws do not change. In addition, with respect to decay rates of radioisotopes, we know those rates have not changed over time because we have measured scientists have measured decay rates of isotopes emitted from gamma rays from supernovae millions of light years distant.​

1. Since we do not have the time or the space to examine everything either of us is saying in detail, let me say you misunderstand something here. We can make seasons in a lab very easily, I can make ice and melt in my kitchen every day. I bet in a week, I could make a two foot ice core (that an expert like you wold know was a fake in about 5 minutes, of course). I am referring to localized weather change stations 1/2 mile across with about 16 mile radius of influence, located here and there on the earth. I am not talking about earthwide phenomena. They simply planted elsewhere. So, then my question is, are these cores gathered from a sufficient number of locations to rule out a few of such installations, assuming they could otherwise be shown to exist?
2. Where can I get some numbers on that? It is the second time I've heard it since coming to this site, but I have never heard it before.
3. I am speaking of localized installations. Some of the records specifically speak of dangerous runoff, with warning signs posted.
4. I am talking about much smaller quantities than you are thinking, like the debris from a volcano.

You're right, either side can say how do we know. Both of our arguments are circular. It's that way the minute you get into anything in space also. It's the same as, you could still believe the earth was flat if you chose, until the technology got us into space to look at it from up there. Your argument requires that "natural laws do not change" and that is specifically the point that the YEC argument challenges.

 

[RickG]

1. Since we do not have the time or the space to examine everything either of us is saying in detail, let me say you misunderstand something here. We can make seasons in a lab very easily, I can make ice and melt in my kitchen every day. I bet in a week, I could make a two foot ice core (that an expert like you wold know was a fake in about 5 minutes, of course).

But you can't do it in nature.

I am referring to localized weather change stations 1/2 mile across with about 16 mile radius of influence, located here and there on the earth. I am not talking about earthwide phenomena. They simply planted elsewhere. So, then my question is, are these cores gathered from a sufficient number of locations to rule out a few of such installations, assuming they could otherwise be shown to exist?

Ken, no one can control weather and climate in a 16 mile radius. No such technology even exists today.

2. Where can I get some numbers on that? It is the second time I've heard it since coming to this site, but I have never heard it before.

I think the question to ask is how reliable is that source and are they truly describing something or only repeating folktales?

3. I am speaking of localized installations. Some of the records specifically speak of dangerous runoff, with warning signs posted.

What records?

4. I am talking about much smaller quantities than you are thinking, like the debris from a volcano.

I think we are drifting way too far from the topic.

You're right, either side can say how do we know. Both of our arguments are circular. It's that way the minute you get into anything in space also. It's the same as, you could still believe the earth was flat if you chose, until the technology got us into space to look at it from up there.[/quote]
How is my argument circular?

Your argument requires that "natural laws do not change" and that is specifically the point that the YEC argument challenges.

Did I not already explain to you in another thread we know the natural laws have not changed on the sub-atomic level. If there was any change it would be more than evident. What we see, with respect to the earth, is unaltered chemistry and physics.

Now, back to the OP. "Those of you with a young earth view of 6,000 - 10,000 years, how do you explain ice core chronology?"

 

[Ken Behrens]

I think we are drifting way too far from the topic.

How is my argument circular?


Did I not already explain to you in another thread we know the natural laws have not changed on the sub-atomic level. If there was any change it would be more than evident. What we see, with respect to the earth, is unaltered chemistry and physics.

Now, back to the OP. "Those of you with a young earth view of 6,000 - 10,000 years, how do you explain ice core chronology?"

The drifting is why I won't go any more into this. I was hoping you could help me credit or discredit the theory, which as you say, could just be folklore, I suppose.

Your argument uses the assumption that scientific laws do not change to prove that today's science can evaluate yesterday's artifacts. That is circularity.

Thank you for what you have been able to give me.