My Lost Squadron Challenge

[AV1611VET]

AV, you have shown that you would rather support people you know are being dishonest ...

That's a pretty provocative statement, Psycho.

If I've shown that, how about a link, Psycho?

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Then demonstrate it.

What do you want us for?

And were you talking about Mr. Hovind, or ... say ... Moses?

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's a pretty provocative statement, Psycho.

If I've shown that, how about a link, Psycho?

You have literally said yourself that you would rather support dishonest creationists than honest evolutionists, literally. And I am not so obsessed with this site that I would keep random links of you saying these things, but I have to ask am I wrong?

 

[RickG]

That's a pretty provocative statement, Psycho.

If I've shown that, how about a link, Psycho?

Your tag line for one which says "science can take a hike".

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Be my guest.

 

[CabVet]

Be my guest.

He already did that.

 

[Strathos]

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.

Funny how you're always accusing people of using an "Arab phone", yet you continually commit the fallacy of equivocation.

Yes, the term "creationist" can mean "anyone who believes that the universe/existence/reality was ultimately created by God or some similar higher intelligence", but the way the term is most commonly used and understood, it means "anyone who believes that the universe, the earth, and living creatures were created (more or less) in their present state by God or some similar higher intelligence".

99.9% of the time, when you hear the word "creationism" or "creationist", it's referring to the second definition, not the first one. You know this. Yet you keep trying to equivocate.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

That's a pretty provocative statement, Psycho.

If I've shown that, how about a link, Psycho?
​

You have literally said yourself that you would rather support dishonest creationists than honest evolutionists, literally.
And I am not so obsessed with this site that I would keep random links of you saying these things, but I have to ask am I wrong?

Wow!
That is a pretty bold statement.


.

 

[CabVet]

Wow!
That is a pretty bold statement.

One that is demonstrated in this forum every single day.

 

[Strathos]

He's even supported Muslim creationists, saying that they were fine with him as long as they opposed evolution.

 

[CabVet]

He's even supported Muslim creationists, saying that they were fine with him as long as they opposed evolution.

Prime example of creationists spreading lies:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7833548/

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

He's even supported Muslim creationists, saying that they were fine with him as long as they opposed evolution.

So what are the views of both apostate religions of Judaism and Islam concerning creationism and evolution?
Are they as divided on those views just as Christianity appears to be ?

.

 

[Strathos]

Creationism is popular among Muslims, not sure about Jews actually.

 

[RickG]

Since I've been away for quite a while and just now returning I thought I would revive this thread with the hope of having some actual discussion with respect actual ice core dating methods and those methods which are grossly misrepresented in the article cited in the OP. For those who haven't reviewed the original OP here it is again.

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 Wieland 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

 

[Split Rock]

Since I've been away for quite a while and just now returning I thought I would revive this thread with the hope of having some actual discussion with respect actual ice core dating methods and those methods which are grossly misrepresented in the article cited in the OP. For those who haven't reviewed the original OP here it is again.

The tag line at the top of the article says a lot:

Deeply buried missing planes challenge ‘slow and gradual’ preconceptions​

Geologists do not assume everything is a 'slow and gradual' process. Geologists know that some processes, such as volcanism and blizzards, can occur very quickly. This is a typical creationist conflation of uniformitarianism and the idea that every process is 'slow and gradual.' Uniformitarianism just means that past processes, whatever their rate, are the same processes that occur today. It does NOT mean that they are all 'slow and gradual.'

 

[RickG]

Also the fact that the area where the planes are located receives on average some 2 meters of snow annually, more than enough to account for the depth of the planes.

 

[lasthero]

If I can take a little tangent, one thing that's always fascinated me with ice core dating (and other methods, too, really) is the correlation. How we can analyze ice core's and date materials found inside them, and they actually match up. It was one of the big things that broke my YEC beliefs, and to this day, I've never heard a real creationist explanation for why this is - why, when we analyze volcanic ash from an ice layer that's supposed to be, say, 8,000 years old, the ash comes back as 8,000 years. At best, I'll get an accusation of falsified results, with nothing to back it up.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

When one has dug in so deep, do they really have a choice?

 

[RickG]

If I can take a little tangent, one thing that's always fascinated me with ice core dating (and other methods, too, really) is the correlation. How we can analyze ice core's and date materials found inside them, and they actually match up. It was one of the big things that broke my YEC beliefs, and to this day, I've never heard a real creationist explanation for why this is - why, when we analyze volcanic ash from an ice layer that's supposed to be, say, 8,000 years old, the ash comes back as 8,000 years. At best, I'll get an accusation of falsified results, with nothing to back it up.

Exactly, not only that but ice cores can show seasonal layers as well within annual layers. Interestingly enough it isthose seasonal indicators that scientists are wanting to evaluate in that they open a window into past climates. The fact that ice cores can be dated through those multiple and completely independent sources is only icing on the cake. No pun intended.

 

[EternalDragon]

If I can take a little tangent, one thing that's always fascinated me with ice core dating (and other methods, too, really) is the correlation. How we can analyze ice core's and date materials found inside them, and they actually match up. It was one of the big things that broke my YEC beliefs, and to this day, I've never heard a real creationist explanation for why this is - why, when we analyze volcanic ash from an ice layer that's supposed to be, say, 8,000 years old, the ash comes back as 8,000 years. At best, I'll get an accusation of falsified results, with nothing to back it up.

It is not like that at all which shows you just take man's word over
God's word.

Dating is a difficult task. Five different dating methods have been used for Vostok cores, with differences such as 300 years per meter at 100 m depth, 600yr/m at 200 m, 7000yr/m at 400 m, 5000yr/m at 800 m, 6000yr/m at 1600 m, and 5000yr/m at 1934 m.

Different dating methods makes comparison and interpretation difficult. Matching peaks by visual examination of Moulton and Vostok ice cores suggests a time difference of about 10,000 years but proper interpretation requires knowing the reasons for the differences.

Ice core - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia