Ice Core Chronology

[RickG]

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.

I disagree with that assessment. I have previously explained that if there had been any changes in any scientific laws we would see those changes at the sub-atomic level. The chemistry and physics of atomic particles would be completely different from the previous and latter. We see layer upon layer of ice cores with exactly the same chemistry and physics laid down in exactly the same manner, both from Greenland ice cores and Antarctic ice cores. The same information is consistent in Marine Oxygen Isotopes going back millions of years. We see the same exact chemistry and physics in all layers of stratigraphy in the geologic column. We see the same exact chemistry and physics in tree rings, varves, speleothems, etc., etc., etc.. We see the same decay rates of radionuclides emitted in gamma rays from supernovae millions of light years distant.

There are no assumptions there. These are actual physical measurements repeated countless times yielding the same data time and time again without fail. There is nothing circular or assumed there. Conversely, your argument makes only a claim with zero measurements, data, facts, or anything to support it. Be honest, where is the assumption.

 

[Ken Behrens]

I disagree with that assessment. I have previously explained that if there had been any changes in any scientific laws we would see those changes at the sub-atomic level. The chemistry and physics of atomic particles would be completely different from the previous and latter. We see layer upon layer of ice cores with exactly the same chemistry and physics laid down in exactly the same manner, both from Greenland ice cores and Antarctic ice cores. The same information is consistent in Marine Oxygen Isotopes going back millions of years. We see the same exact chemistry and physics in all layers of stratigraphy in the geologic column. We see the same exact chemistry and physics in tree rings, varves, speleothems, etc., etc., etc.. We see the same decay rates of radionuclides emitted in gamma rays from supernovae millions of light years distant.

There are no assumptions there. These are actual physical measurements repeated countless times yielding the same data time and time again without fail. There is nothing circular or assumed there. Conversely, your argument makes only a claim with zero measurements, data, facts, or anything to support it. Be honest, where is the assumption.

I am coming from a different point of view. As a mathematician, I look at what theories might exist. I have seen a model of reality which is a painting in 5 dimensions. There is no movement. We imagine both time and movement because of our position in the picture. And yet, all known equations check, modeling only our perception. To see that such a thing can happen, we need only look at what Pliny wrote in 60AD about the heliocentric solar system. (Yes, he knew about it). He said "those who believe in this theory err, because they do not allow the gods their personalities". They had no proof of either system, yet they chose, for religious reasons, which to believe. We have no proof that these galaxies or that even time exists other than as a misinterpretation of something inside us. The opposite argument is that the big bang was in higher dimensions also, and due to expanding and collapsing in that space, physical laws seen now are the outcome of rapid changing of physical laws in exactly such a way to cause the appearance of long-term constancy. The ice, trees, radiation came at the same time, and thus appear to be older than they are. I agree with you that it is a stretch, but so was the existence of the fourth dimension in 1850. You may know that complex variable calculus produced the theoretical (and then ridiculous sounding) hypothesis of a fourth dimension. In the 1860's the theoretical existence of radio waves was discovered, and it was proved they need four dimensions to propagate. Marconi's radio broadcast proved the existence of the higher dimension.

The issue is social and is part of religion. So many people mindlessly reject science on the basis of disagreement with the Bible. It is intrinsic to human nature to believe that faith can create something new. And indeed, the fourth dimension is such a creation, and one that already existed. It took 40 years for Einstein to get the numbers in order, but given enough motivation (and predicting religious change has proven difficult in the last couple decades), there is no reason that such a theory could not gain popular acceptance in 50 years or so. I'm trying to understand more science, so I can see what is provable and not provable, as theories change.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

How do you since clearly even if we follow thwe belief of an old earth (which I agree with btw) those ice cores would not hold a continuous record beyond the last warming period, or the one before that, or the one before that......
So during these other warming periods the ice never melted and disrupted any chronological record? I noticed it melted during this period and it is less than all the others.....

But I can see why most are confused, because they do not adjust their clocks for the time dilation that occurred when God "stretched out the heavens". Therefore using the rate of clocks today to try to calculate into the past when the decay rates were orders of magnitude faster, giving a false view of how old the earth actually is.

 

[RickG]

How do you since clearly even if we follow thwe belief of an old earth (which I agree with btw) those ice cores would not hold a continuous record beyond the last warming period, or the one before that, or the one before that......
So during these other warming periods the ice never melted and disrupted any chronological record? I noticed it melted during this period and it is less than all the others.....

The graph you are showing is an Antarctic Vostok temperature record. I believe you have a misunderstanding of what it is representing. First, Antarctica has been in its current polar position for over 23 million years. Second, the temperatures shown are anomalies from a baseline, not actual temperature. The baseline is not "0" as a layman may perceive. In fact the current "Summer" average temperature for Vostok is -31.9 deg. C, which does not even come close to approaching a melt period.

 

[RickG]

But I can see why most are confused, because they do not adjust their clocks for the time dilation that occurred when God "stretched out the heavens". Therefore using the rate of clocks today to try to calculate into the past when the decay rates were orders of magnitude faster, giving a false view of how old the earth actually is.

You have two problems with that statement, one of which I have already addressed above. The make up of atoms of specific elements is what dictates whether it is a stable or unstable isotope. In the case of unstable isotopes, the decay rate is dependent upon the atomic structure of each isotope. Change that structure and you have a different isotope, thus the decay rate and process. If decay rates had changed in the past we should see the same elements with different structures. The fact is, we don't.

Here's another way, look at the decay series of Uranium 235 (235U).

235U decays through a series of decay of unstable isotopes before reaching the final stable isotope of lead 207Pb. Note that each decay from one isotope to the other is different, thus there is a specific ratio of each element with one another throughout the decay chain, which we see whether a rock dated 20 thousand years or 20 million years, they remain the same. If decay rates had changed, those ratios would be considerably different.

Or still another way. If you are looking at a 6,000 year old earth and the decay rates were faster in the past, that would mean that 750,000 times what it is today. The earth would have been fried.

Do I need to go into extinct isotopes as well? Hmmmm?

 

[-57]

quick search found the following

The second dating detail questions whether or not each layer represents a year. A single large storm can deposit multiple layers that might look like annual layers, and multiple dust layers may also be deposited within a single year.6 No modern scientist watched the ice sheets form, so it’s possible that storms or phases within a storm, not whole winters, deposited many of them. This would have been especially true during the post-Flood Ice Age, a time of numerous storms and volcanic eruptions.7

Ironically, the hundreds of thousands of supposedly annual layers are far too few for old-earth expectations. For instance, secular scientists expected the bottom of the GISP2 core to be more than 200,000 years old.8 Yet, even after their convenient re-count of the bottom part of the core, they could only find about 110,000 supposed “annual” layers. Thus, even after forcing the data into old-earth assumptions, they still didn’t find enough layers to fit their expectation of many hundreds of thousands of years.9

These two important details derail the ice-core argument for an old earth: layers are not necessarily annual, and researchers employ circular reasoning to adjust counts to fit the vast ages they expect. The volcanism during the Flood year would have warmed ocean water enough for increased evaporation and precipitation to rapidly build the ice sheets.7 A post-Flood ice age best explains the origin of today’s ice sheets.

ref.

 

[RickG]

quick search found the following

The second dating detail questions whether or not each layer represents a year. A single large storm can deposit multiple layers that might look like annual layers, and multiple dust layers may also be deposited within a single year.6 No modern scientist watched the ice sheets form, so it’s possible that storms or phases within a storm, not whole winters, deposited many of them. This would have been especially true during the post-Flood Ice Age, a time of numerous storms and volcanic eruptions.7

It doesn't matter if there were 5000 snow storms during a year, what matters is the difference between winter and summer which is easily distinguished by the hydrogen and oxygen heavy isotope ratios, not to mention all the other contaminants that are unique to specific seasons.

 

[ScottA]

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

We do not explain ourselves against the thoughts of evil men. Nor do we have to, for God has told us: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Do those who are "created" tell Him who created all things, that the nature of time is something different than He has said? Only a fool would put the word of God and that of His witnesses in one hand and the word of worldly men in the other, and go the way of evil men.

Have you not read that God places what He wishes before men and asks, "What do you see?"...and then explains it differently than what is obvious?

One must decide whom he will take his answers from. By this very act, we are either with God...or not.

 

[RickG]

We do not explain ourselves against the thoughts of evil men. Nor do we have to, for God has told us: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Do those who are "created" tell Him who created all things, that the nature of time is something different than He has said? Only a fool would put the word of God and that of His witnesses in one hand and the word of worldly men in the other, and go the way of evil men.

Have you not read that God places what He wishes before men and asks, "What do you see?"...and then explains it differently than what is obvious?

One must decide whom he will take his answers from. By this very act, we are either with God...or not.

What does that have to do with ice core chronology?

 

[ScottA]

What does that have to do with ice core chronology?

You should be asking, What has ice core chronology have to do with the story and revelation of Jesus Christ? Or what does a sword have to do with a God whose name is Peace?

The answer is the same: These are the great divide spoken of in the scriptures - the things that divide us...the wheat from the tares.

Are we wiser than God, that we should follow the wisdom of men and their findings about what God has devised to let our hearts be know? If we think so, we condemn ourselves.

Ice core chronology is just one of many forks in the road. The sheep know His voice...and follow Him - not the findings of evil men.

 

[RickG]

You should be asking, What has ice core chronology have to do with the story and revelation of Jesus Christ? Or what does a sword have to do with a God whose name is Peace?

Scott, this thread is about ice core chronology. If you wish to discuss the story and revelation of Jesus Christ, I suggest participating in any of the many threads devoted to that in the CF. Staying on topic would be much appreciated. Thank you.

 

[ScottA]

Scott, this thread is about ice core chronology. If you wish to discuss the story and revelation of Jesus Christ, I suggest participating in any of the many threads devoted to that in the CF. Staying on topic would be much appreciated. Thank you.

As I said...the ice core chronology...is...a fork in the road of life: If one follows the ice core chronology...they are not following the chronology of Christ - not following Christ.

Which makes your response and your position...crystal clear.

 

[RickG]

As I said...the ice core chronology...is...a fork in the road of life: If one follows the ice core chronology...they are not following the chronology of Christ - not following Christ.

I disagree.

Which makes your response and your position...crystal clear.

Yes, it is quite crystal clear. The topic of this thread is ice core chronology. Do you have a question about it?

 

[ScottA]

I disagree.

That is because you are not listening. John 8:38

Yes, it is quite crystal clear. The topic of this thread is ice core chronology. Do you have a question about it?

I already asked my question: "What do you see?" Jeremiah 1:11, Jeremiah 1:13

 

[RickG]

That is because you are not listening. John 8:38

I already asked my question: "What do you see?" Jeremiah 1:11, Jeremiah 1:13

Scott, first I suggest reviewing the OP of this thread. After that, please review my posts in this thread #9, #14, & #17. They contain specific information as to how ice core chronology is performed.

Your participation in this thread is appreciated, but that participation needs to be on topic. Thank you.

 

[-57]

It doesn't matter if there were 5000 snow storms during a year, what matters is the difference between winter and summer which is easily distinguished by the hydrogen and oxygen heavy isotope ratios, not to mention all the other contaminants that are unique to specific seasons.

I disagree and provided you a reference.

 

[ScottA]

Scott, first I suggest reviewing the OP of this thread. After that, please review my posts in this thread #9, #14, & #17. They contain specific information as to how ice core chronology is performed.

Your participation in this thread is appreciated, but that participation needs to be on topic. Thank you.

Your OP:

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

My point is...that it is your explanation on "how ice core chronology is performed"...that is what is actually off topic.

Ice core chronology does not explain the controversy between itself and the young earth position.

It's not that ice core chronology is a complete waste of time - it's just seeing "through the glass, dimly." But since you seem to prefer it over the word of God alone...I indulge you in your preference, by asking: "What do you see?"...that I may interpret it through the lens of manifest revelation.

 

[RickG]

I disagree and provided you a reference.

You disagree because you are ignoring the science of how ice core chronology is done. The amount of snow falls during a season has nothing to do with annual layers or how they are counted.

 

[RickG]

Your OP:
My point is...that it is your explanation on "how ice core chronology is performed"...that is what is actually off topic.

The premise behind a young earth 6,000 - 10,000 years old is to challenge dating methods that exceeds that timeline. One rarely challenged, especially in the CF, is ice core chronology. Ice core chronology is not only a non-radiometric dating method, it is also nothing to do with a speed of light change or a change in physics sometimes claimed. Thus, how do you explain ice core chronology when it greatly exceeds the young timelines.

Ice core chronology does not explain the controversy between itself and the young earth position.

What little that is presented by the creation science community discrediting ice cores either has nothing to do with the science at all (i.e., "Lost Squadron", numerous snow falls, etc.), or are misrepresentations of it.

It's not that ice core chronology is a complete waste of time - it's just seeing "through the glass, dimly." But since you seem to prefer it over the word of God alone...I indulge you in your preference, by asking: "What do you see?"...that I may interpret it through the lens of manifest revelation.

Then perhaps, as I previously suggested, if you wish to discuss the word of God, participate in a thread targeted for that discussion. This thread is concerned with the science of ice core chronology and nothing else. Your cooperation will be appreciated. Thank you.

 

[ScottA]

The premise behind a young earth 6,000 - 10,000 years old is to challenge dating methods that exceeds that timeline. One rarely challenged, especially in the CF, is ice core chronology. Ice core chronology is not only a non-radiometric dating method, it is also nothing to do with a speed of light change or a change in physics sometimes claimed. Thus, how do you explain ice core chronology when it greatly exceeds the young timelines.

It is a matter of context. There is a context pertaining to the physical world, another context for the spiritual activities within the world, and yet another for matters strictly pertaining to God: "a time, times, and half a time."

If you compare the creation story (spiritual time) with ice core chronology (physical time), it is a violation of context. The two are not the same...nor is there any means of translation or conversion with which to make comparisons. "What communion has light with darkness?"

Thus, if one decides to follow the physical world as being the only correct timetable, it is an [unnecessary] choice and departure from believing God. On the contrary, the more correct timetable is God's...which makes both the creation story and the physical (ice core chronology) wrong - except...within their proper context. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."