My Lost Squadron Challenge

[RickG]

Carl Wieland wrote an article about a squadron of planes that were forced to land on the Greenland ice cap during WWII. They were subsequently over the years covered by snow and ice until they were found some 50 years later at a depth of some 158 ft.

Geologist, Glaciologists, and climatologists use ice cores to determine past climates. Of course in doing this ice cores also provide a means for dating the ice based on accumulated annual layers. Within these layers are a number of constituents which can be used to determine age, temperature, season, climate, drought, etc..

In his article uses the depth at which the planes were located to be a reason why ice core chronologies are false. He also goes off on several tangents that have nothing to do with ice core chronology.

I have read through the article several times and have been unable to find anything that describes any of the methods for dating ice cores.

I have posted a link below to the article and would like to have some serious discussion on just how this article discredits ice core chronology.

The lost squadron - creation.com

 

[AV1611VET]

I have posted a link below to the article and would like to have some serious discussion on just how this article discredits ice core chronology.

We've discussed this before, Rick.

I believe you said something about the squadron being found at the edge of the glacier, and edges of glaciers are exceptions to the one-layer-equals-one-year paradigm.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by RickG

I have posted a link below to the article and would like to have some serious discussion on just how this article discredits ice core chronology.
​

We've discussed this before, Rick.

I believe you said something about the squadron being found at the edge of the glacier, and edges of glaciers are exceptions to the one-layer-equals-one-year paradigm.

Thou hast a good memory for an old fart, Phil

http://www.christianforums.com/t7706078-6/#post61894174
My Ice Core Chronology Challenge

Okay Young Earthers. Let's see your reasons why you think ice core chronology doesn't work.

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

I'm not a 'young earther,' but I'm under the assumption from what you told me, that ice core chronology doesn't work on the outer edges of the field in question ... (or is it in the center where it doesn't work)?

​

I think you have a misunderstanding. It works, but not in the way that you perceive it. There are several things that come into play. If I recall, what you are referring to is the "lots squadron", that is a squadron of P-38's that had to ditch over Greenland. One of the young earth claims there is that the planes were found 40 or 50 years later covered in over 200 feet of snow & ice. Their reasoning is that if they were buried that deep in so few years, ice cores would have to be hundreds of miles thick to represent the hundreds of thousands of years they ice core chronologies give. That of course is pure rubbish on several levels. (1) An annual layer has nothing to do with thickness. (2) The planes went down near the coast where large amounts of snow accumulates, unlike that of interior Greenland where snow fall is much less. (3) And I think this is the one you are specifically talking about AV, is that ice cores are generally not obtained for dating purposes from such locations because of the constant flow of ice. Rather, cores that are useful in obtaining paleoclimate data and dating are obtained from stable interior areas where ice flow is little if any.

Does that answer your question?

.

 

[Loudmouth]

The key components are . . .

1. The difference in annual precipitation between the coast where the planes were found and the middle of the island where the ice cores were taken.

2. The actual methodology for determining the age of the ice (hint: oxygen isotopes).

3. The difference between a static ice sheet and a glacier.

Those are the big three.

 

[Loudmouth]

You missed one.
4. The source was a Creationist website.

If we didn't discuss stuff from creationist websites, what would we discuss? The scientific debate was finished 200 years ago.

 

[lesliedellow]

Are you saying you like talking about rubbish with Creationists? they don't know any better but you should.

So you are here to tell other people how to spend their time, are you? And who gave you the power to legislate?

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you saying you like talking about rubbish with Creationists? they don't know any better but you should.

I like demonstrating that it is rubbish.

 

[RickG]

We've discussed this before, Rick.

Yes, but I want to focus on this particular article. There reason being that it discredits ice core chronology when it doesn't even really attempt to talk about anything related to ice core chronology. Annual layers are not dated by their depth/thickness as the article implies, nor do they date to millions of years which Wieland goes off on a tangent with.

 

[RickG]

The key components are . . .

1. The difference in annual precipitation between the coast where the planes were found and the middle of the island where the ice cores were taken.

True, ice cores are taken from stable areas, not moving glaciers. Also, the area in which the planes landed receives an annual snowfall of more than 2 meters, which easily explains the depth at which the planes were located.

2. The actual methodology for determining the age of the ice (hint: oxygen isotopes).

He did hint at isotope ratios which is only one method and a very limited one. Oxygen isotopes, O-18 specifically, are only useful to a little over 12,000 years due to diffusion. Other methods are used beyond that. Deuterium (H-2)is also used in the same manner which was not mentioned. The discussion then goes way off topic with tree rings and corals.

3. The difference between a static ice sheet and a glacier.

Yes big difference. Only a creationist would even think of getting an ice core where the planes are located. But even at that, if one were taken there it would have only shown an age of 50 years. Chronologies are not determined by depth of the ice.

 

[selfinflikted]

Wait. I think we are all ignoring the elephant in the room here.

AV = "Phil"?

Did I read that right on page one? I have always wondered.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Allistair

You missed one.
4. The source was a Creationist website.
​

If we didn't discuss stuff from creationist websites, what would we discuss?
The scientific debate was finished 200 years ago.

It would be boring......


. .............




.

 

[RickG]

Well, the main thing about the lost squadron article is that in its attempt to discredit ice core chronology, if fails to even discuss any of the methods used. Nevermind the author has no background in it whatsoever.

 

[RickG]

Well, it's been a while with no discussion. It seems that creationists are completely baffles by even the basics of ice core chronology.

 

[Strathos]

Well, it's been a while with no discussion. It seems that creationists are completely baffles by even the basics of ice core chronology.

Or they just don't want to address it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or they just don't want to address it.

Maybe we* don't want to discuss the article, which is the crux of the challenge?

* You're a creationist too, according to Wikipedia. So let's see you discuss it.

 

[RickG]

Maybe we* don't want to discuss the article, which is the crux of the challenge?

* You're a creationist too, according to Wikipedia. So let's see you discuss it.

The article demonstrates a complete deliberate misrepresentation of ice core chronology. It is so bad it doesn't even address the simplistic basics of it. Then again, the author of the article, like most creationist, have absolutely no background in any science that they profess to know more than the experts.

A link to the wiki article AV. Please and thank you.

 

[AV1611VET]

The article demonstrates a complete deliberate misrepresentation of ice core chronology.

Then why do you want to discuss it?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then why do you want to discuss it?

AV, you have shown that you would rather support people you know are being dishonest who are creationists than people who are being honest about evidence for evolution.

 

[RickG]

Then why do you want to discuss it?

To demonstrate the deliberate misrepresentation by the people you think so much of.

 

[CabVet]

Then why do you want to discuss it?

To show that not all creationists repeat lies just because they support their position.