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.
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.
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.
Well, as I just showed, there is a reason why the bottom of the ice sheet can't be older than 15my.
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.
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?
Russians drill to 14 million year old lake
Russian Drill Penetrates 14-Million-Year-Old Antarctic Lake
OOPss dont 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.
They did NOT determine that date by counting annual rings!
Stop spreading Falsehoods!
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.
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?
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.
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.
Did they just invent that age or do you have a citation?
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.
They do not conflict in dates Youre 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?
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?