- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,791
- 52,555
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
That's a pretty provocative statement, Psycho.
If I've shown that, how about a link, Psycho?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's a pretty provocative statement, Psycho.AV, you have shown that you would rather support people you know are being dishonest ...
Then demonstrate it.To demonstrate the deliberate misrepresentation by the people you think so much of.
That's a pretty provocative statement, Psycho.
If I've shown that, how about a link, Psycho?
That's a pretty provocative statement, Psycho.
If I've shown that, how about a link, Psycho?
Be my guest.To show that not all creationists repeat lies just because they support their position.
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.
Wow!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?
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?He's even supported Muslim creationists, saying that they were fine with him as long as they opposed evolution.
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
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?