Young Earth Creationist dynamics.

[Zaius137]

Why do you keep drifting away from the discussion? Annual layers in ice cores date much further back in time than 6,000 years. That is an irrefutable fact. There is no science that contradicts that fact. The Earth is not young.

Well my point was that the irrefutable fact is not irrefutable. My belief is that since the dating of Antarctica ice cores does not even match the accepted dates for Antarctica snow fall there is a problem with the dating assumptions. In fact I believe that the layers you are calling annual layers are in fact individual storms that very in temperature. The conclusions of 400k years is all in the initial assumptions.

 

[CabVet]

Well my point was that the irrefutable fact is not irrefutable. My belief is that since the dating of Antarctica ice cores does not even match the accepted dates for Antarctica snow fall there is a problem with the dating assumptions. In fact I believe that the layers you are calling annual layers are in fact individual storms that very in temperature. The conclusions of 400k years is all in the initial assumptions.

Well, as I just showed, there is a reason why the bottom of the ice sheet can't be older than 15my.

 

[Zaius137]

Nice way to confuse the issue. The article you cite is about the solidification of water at extreme pressures in the center of a planet, those are not the conditions in Antarctica. If you are interested in actual science, check this:

Clausius-Clapeyron relation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scroll down to the bottom, there is an example in which the pressure needed to melt ice at 7 degrees C is calculated. That pressure is 1,000 kg/cm2 or 1,000 atmospheres. Ice at the bottom of the Antarctic icesheet is between 2 and 3 degrees C, so a much lower pressure is needed to melt it.

You are simply wrong about the ice sheet pressure being any kind of mechanism for liquid water at the bottom of the Antarctica ice sheet (nice try). The classic explanations are from thermal sources in the earth and fractures in the ice allowing liquid water to reach the bottom or an insulating blanket effect. In researching this I found a great deal of dispute on these mechanisms. By the way the pressure in the body of water is noted at 300 atmospheres only suspends the freezing point slightly.

Deeply buried ice may melt because overlying layers insulate the base, hemming in heat created there by friction, or radiating naturally from underlying rock. When the ice melts, refreezing may take place in multiple ways, the researchers say. If it collects along mountain ridges and heads of valleys, where the ice is thinner, low temperatures penetrating from the surface may refreeze it. In other cases, water gets squeezed up valley walls, and changes pressure rapidly. In the depths, water remains liquid even when it is below the normal freezing point, due to pressure exerted on it.

Some Antarctic Ice is Forming from Bottom | Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory


You might note in the following diagram that the older ice layers are deformed rather than eliminated.

 

[Zaius137]

Well, as I just showed, there is a reason why the bottom of the ice sheet can't be older than 15my.

Now you only need to show why ice cores at depths of 3,600 meters (above water) are not older than 400k years.

 

[RickG]

Well my point was that the irrefutable fact is not irrefutable. My belief is that since the dating of Antarctica ice cores does not even match the accepted dates for Antarctica snow fall there is a problem with the dating assumptions. In fact I believe that the layers you are calling annual layers are in fact individual storms that very in temperature. The conclusions of 400k years is all in the initial assumptions.

<staff edit>

1. You have not shown any non matching ice core dates. You have taken three unrelated sources all describing something different and tried to represent them as representing the same thing and being in conflict. <staff edit>

2. The 400K ice cores are dated by a combination of different annual layer chronologies. They are not assumptions, they are direct observations.

3. You don't seem to know the difference between an ice core and a marine sediment core.

 

[Zaius137]

<staff edit>

1. You have not shown any non matching ice core dates. You have taken three unrelated sources all describing something different and tried to represent them as representing the same thing and being in conflict. <staff edit>

2. The 400K ice cores are dated by a combination of different annual layer chronologies. They are not assumptions, they are direct observations.

3. You don't seem to know the difference between an ice core and a marine sediment core.

Rick&#8230;

You have not shown any non matching ice core dates. You have taken three unrelated sources all describing something different and tried to represent them as representing the same thing and being in conflict. <staff edit>

As for this item&#8230;

There is no discordance in different ice core dates because you used the same assumptions for dating them. You see the whole idea is to come up with the same dates from two separate methods, which alone would give you some validity to the ice core method. The fact is that your ice core dates are in complete disagreement with the accepted dates for Antarctica Ice. So what is your explanation for the discordance, all you have to say is that they are from two separate findings from two separate methods. You may not see that as a problem but in my book two separate methods finding two separate dates that need to agree does not make ice core dating undisputable. On the contrary it only places your ice core dating methods in queation. <staff edit>
The 400K ice cores are dated by a combination of different annual layer chronologies. They are not assumptions, they are direct observations.

They are not direct observations they are observations guided by the annual snow fall labeling paradigm.

You don't seem to know the difference between an ice core and a marine sediment core.



As of yet I have not mentioned the marine sediment core data, you brought that up.


The discordance I reference is the accepted ice sheet dates for Antarctica and your ice core dates. That is two sources giving two separate dates. It is time you questioned the methodologies involved.

 

[Zaius137]

This is how I believe the ice cores can be interpreted… The Bible holds a direct eyewitness account of a worldwide flood disaster….



Violent weather disturbances with large storms, a sudden cold snap, and high precipitation rates could very reasonably give rise to all the layers, dust bands, and isotope variations etc. that we find in the various ice sheets today.

Ancient Ice

 

[Zaius137]

Russians drill to 14 million year old lake&#8230;

Russian Drill Penetrates 14-Million-Year-Old Antarctic Lake

OOPss don&#8217;t they mean 450 thousand year old lake&#8230; Remember they counted the annual snow fall layers. Yes that is the definitive assumption or is it from fossil evidence or maybe the evolution paradigm? Or ice age data&#8230; does any of this agree anyware?

 

[Split Rock]

Russians drill to 14 million year old lake&#8230;

Russian Drill Penetrates 14-Million-Year-Old Antarctic Lake

OOPss don&#8217;t they mean 450 thousand year old lake&#8230; Remember they counted the annual snow fall layers. Yes that is the definitive assumption or is it from fossil evidence or maybe the evolution paradigm? Or ice age data&#8230; does any of this agree anyware?

They did NOT determine that date by counting annual rings!

<staff edit>

 

[CabVet]

Russians drill to 14 million year old lake…

Russian Drill Penetrates 14-Million-Year-Old Antarctic Lake

OOPss don’t they mean 450 thousand year old lake… Remember they counted the annual snow fall layers. Yes that is the definitive assumption or is it from fossil evidence or maybe the evolution paradigm? Or ice age data… does any of this agree anyware?

As I explained above, the age of the lake is not the same as the age of the ice sheet.

 

[Zaius137]

As I explained above, the age of the lake is not the same as the age of the ice sheet.

Let’s see the lake is just below the ice, the ice is dated to ~450k years so the lake is 14 million years old. That makes perfect sense.

 

[Zaius137]

They did NOT determine that date by counting annual rings!

Stop spreading Falsehoods!

Did they just invent that age… or do you have a citation?

 

[CabVet]

Let&#8217;s see the lake is just below the ice, the ice is dated to ~450k years so the lake is 14 million years old. That makes perfect sense.

From the discussions we had about genetics I really thought you were a bit better at understanding. I will <staff edit> try to explain again, step by step:

1) Ice melts at a certain pressure, even if temperatures are below freezing.

2) The column of ice has a weight. The taller the column, the more weight, and the more pressure on the bottom layers.

3) The more you add snow to the top of the ice sheet, the heavier it gets.

4) When the column gets too heavy, the bottom of it starts to melt. Melting means water going from solid state to liquid.

5) As time passes, more ice is added to the top of the ice sheet, and more melts at the bottom.

6) The ice is constantly recycled, newer ice accumulates on top, older ice melts at the bottom.

7) That is how you end up with a 400ky old ice sheet on top of a 15my lake.

8) Think of it this way, 10ky from today the bottom of the ice sheet will still be 400ky old because the ice that is at the bottom today will melt under the pressure of more ice being added on top.

I will use the skin analogy again, the oldest skin cell in our bodies is 50 days old. According to your logic, no human being could be older than 50 days. Do you get it now?

 

[Zaius137]

From the discussions we had about genetics I really thought you were a bit better at understanding. I will <staff edit> try to explain again, step by step:

1) Ice melts at a certain pressure, even if temperatures are below freezing.

2) The column of ice has a weight. The taller the column, the more weight, and the more pressure on the bottom layers.

3) The more you add snow to the top of the ice sheet, the heavier it gets.

4) When the column gets too heavy, the bottom of it starts to melt. Melting means water going from solid state to liquid.

5) As time passes, more ice is added to the top of the ice sheet, and more melts at the bottom.

6) The ice is constantly recycled, newer ice accumulates on top, older ice melts at the bottom.

7) That is how you end up with a 400ky old ice sheet on top of a 15my lake.

8) Think of it this way, 10ky from today the bottom of the ice sheet will still be 400ky old because the ice that is at the bottom today will melt under the pressure of more ice being added on top.

I will use the skin analogy again, the oldest skin cell in our bodies is 50 days old. According to your logic, no human being could be older than 50 days. Do you get it now?

Great except that no claim has ever been made that there is a river operating to drain the 14 million year old lake. Your argument just does not hold any water unlike the East Antarctica ice sheet&#8230;. Making up your own explanation shows a very good imagination. But the following suggests your assertions are nonsense.

&#8220;That's because East Antarctica is far too cold, even in summer, for any appreciable melting to happen.&#8221;

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1943136,00.html #ixzz1oAkVRkHA

It is OK for you to believe some thing beyond any evidence. Most people who buy into old earth speculation do accept evidences without thinking about them. But when you apply reason and investigate what the assertions are actually saying there are conclusions that just don&#8217;t fit. I prefer to question to gain the deeper understanding.

Good luck with your unsupported belief.

 

[RickG]

Rick…

Rick: You have not shown any non matching ice core dates. You have taken three unrelated sources all describing something different and tried to represent them as representing the same thing and being in conflict. That my friend is understandable at first, but now that it has been explained to you several times, your instance that they do is bordering on deliberate misrepresentation.

Zaius: As for this item…

There is no discordance in different ice core dates because you used the same assumptions for dating them. You see the whole idea is to come up with the same dates from two separate methods, which alone would give you some validity to the ice core method. The fact is that your ice core dates are in complete disagreement with the accepted dates for Antarctica Ice. So what is your explanation for the discordance, all you have to say is that they are from two separate findings from two separate methods. You may not see that as a problem but in my book two separate methods finding two separate dates that need to agree does not make ice core dating undisputable. On the contrary it only places your ice core dating methods in queation. So do you want to deliberately claim there is no discordance here? That my friend is deliberate misrepresentation.

There is absolutely no disagreement as CabVet and I have been patiently and on multiple posts have been trying to explain to you. The specific ice core you cited (400K) came from one of the Vostok cores. There are many such cores of different depths. The one you cited does not go beyond the annual layer range. It does not claim to date the complete date of the ice. Annual layer dates are obtainable due to the atmospheric differences between seasons. They are counted visually, by ratios of heavy to light oxygen isotopes, ratios of heavy to light hydrogen isotopes, ratios of acidity, and electrical conductivity. Marine (ocean) sediment cores dating in millions of years do not have a thickness limitation nor are they dated by annual layers in that range, rather through various radiometric methods including the uranium/thorium series but not limited to it. The marine sediment cores have nothing to do with the Vostok ice cores other than they correlate well with climate data and chronology. Where the ice cores leave off sediment cores continue. They do not conflict in dates.


Rick: The 400K ice cores are dated by a combination of different annual layer chronologies. They are not assumptions, they are direct observations.

They are not direct observations they are observations guided by the annual snow fall labeling paradigm. [/quote]

They are most certainly direct. What is measured is what was in the atmosphere at the time of deposition. It is still there encapsulated in the ice.

You don't seem to know the difference between an ice core and a marine sediment core.

As of yet I have not mentioned the marine sediment core data, you brought that up.

I didn't bring it up. I'm the one who pointed out to you that multimillion year date were derived from marine sediments, not ice cores. You had no idea they were different.

The discordance I reference is the accepted ice sheet dates for Antarctica and your ice core dates. That is two sources giving two separate dates. It is time you questioned the methodologies involved.

GREAT CAESARS GHOST! They give different dates because they are measuring different places and events having different chronologies. They are not related. What do you not understand about that?

 

[Split Rock]

Did they just invent that age… or do you have a citation?

Do you have a citation? You are the one who claimed they counted annual rings. Put up or shut up.

 

[grimbly]

Great except that no claim has ever been made that there is a river operating to drain the 14 million year old lake. Your argument just does not hold any water unlike the East Antarctica ice sheet…. Making up your own explanation shows a very good imagination. But the following suggests your assertions are nonsense.


Good luck with your unsupported belief.

Here let me help you with our unsupported beliefs.
Let me google that for you

 

[Zaius137]

From RickG...There is absolutely no disagreement as CabVet and I have been patiently and on multiple posts have been trying to explain to you. The specific ice core you cited (400K) came from one of the Vostok cores. There are many such cores of different depths. The one you cited does not go beyond the annual layer range. It does not claim to date the complete date of the ice. Annual layer dates are obtainable due to the atmospheric differences between seasons. They are counted visually, by ratios of heavy to light oxygen isotopes, ratios of heavy to light hydrogen isotopes, ratios of acidity, and electrical conductivity. Marine (ocean) sediment cores dating in millions of years do not have a thickness limitation nor are they dated by annual layers in that range, rather through various radiometric methods including the uranium/thorium series but not limited to it. The marine sediment cores have nothing to do with the Vostok ice cores other than they correlate well with climate data and chronology. Where the ice cores leave off sediment cores continue. They do not conflict in dates.



“They do not conflict in dates” You’re abnegation is complete and at that point only a counselor can help or maybe the Holy Spirit. I know it is too painful to admit that maybe your understanding could use a reality check.

At this point we are an exercise in the argument clinic….

argument clinic - Bing Videos

There is a known syndrome that could be at work in you.

Quote from AiG….

Ice flow modeling assumes an ice sheet in equilibrium for millions of years. So, old age is automatically built into the ice cores. Deep-sea cores also have oxygen or deuterium isotope fluctuations. Ice cores are simply wiggle matched to the deep-sea cores, which are then dated by correlation to the astronomical theory of the ice ages or the Milankovitch mechanism, reinforced by radiometric dating of certain key points, called reference horizons.17 The whole enterprise is one big exercise in circular reasoning, sometimes called the reinforcement syndrome.18

But here is Hope….
Look 2.5 million year old ice right on the surface… So just below that you should find much older ice…. 14 million year old ice?

 

[Zaius137]

Andrei Kurbatov and his colleagues believe that they can retrieve a nearly limitless supply of ice for climate research that dates back at least 2.5 million years -- located right at the surface and retrievable in a single season.
Old ice: Climate record from last 2.5 million years may sit at the surface of Allan Hills | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference

 

[CabVet]

“They do not conflict in dates” You’re abnegation is complete and at that point only a counselor can help or maybe the Holy Spirit. I know it is too painful to admit that maybe your understanding could use a reality check.

At this point we are an exercise in the argument clinic….

argument clinic - Bing Videos

There is a known syndrome that could be at work in you.

Quote from AiG….

Ice flow modeling assumes an ice sheet in equilibrium for millions of years. So, old age is automatically built into the ice cores. Deep-sea cores also have oxygen or deuterium isotope fluctuations. Ice cores are simply wiggle matched to the deep-sea cores, which are then dated by correlation to the astronomical theory of the ice ages or the Milankovitch mechanism, reinforced by radiometric dating of certain key points, called reference horizons.17 The whole enterprise is one big exercise in circular reasoning, sometimes called the reinforcement syndrome.18

But here is Hope….
Look 2.5 million year old ice right on the surface… So just below that you should find much older ice…. 14 million year old ice?

Three things:

1. I so wish you quoted properly, what is so hard about that?

2. EQUILIBIRUM does not mean an ice sheet that is complete. It means that the ice sheet has a constant thickness, precisely because the bottom of it melts. If you could go back thousands of years, the ice sheet would still be the same width and age. I come back to the human skin analogy, the oldest cells in the skin of any human being today are 50 days old, and the skin is in EQUILIBRIUM, again according to your logic no human can be older than 50 days.

3. I hope you realize we are not discussing the actual age of the ice sheet, but physical properties of it. These properties can actually be (and have been) observed by drilling through the ice sheet.