Young Earth Creationist dynamics.

Valkhorn · Mar 5, 2012

Zaius137 said:
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.

“That's because East Antarctica is far too cold, even in summer, for any appreciable melting to happen.”

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’t fit. I prefer to question to gain the deeper understanding.

Good luck with your unsupported belief.

So you're actually confusing the surface of ice in one location versus water that is under 2-3 miles of solid ice? I'm not sure how someone could make this large of an error unless they did it deliberately.

By the way, only a creationist would try to nitpick over something so specific over the age of the antarctic ice cap while completely ignoring the fact that there is absolutely no way it could have been made in 6,000 years. Only a creationist would argy bargy over whether the ice was 3 or 15 million years old and claim that science knows nothing, when they claim at the same time the earth is 6,000 years old even though we have trees older than that living today.

<staff edit>

Split Rock · Mar 5, 2012

Valkhorn said:
So you're actually confusing the surface of ice in one location versus water that is under 2-3 miles of solid ice? I'm not sure how someone could make this large of an error unless they did it deliberately.

By the way, only a creationist would try to nitpick over something so specific over the age of the antarctic ice cap while completely ignoring the fact that there is absolutely no way it could have been made in 6,000 years. Only a creationist would argy bargy over whether the ice was 3 or 15 million years old and claim that science knows nothing, when they claim at the same time the earth is 6,000 years old even though we have trees older than that living today.

<staff edit>

Holy Cow, Dude! Been years! How are you?

As you can see, not much has changed here...

Zaius137 · Mar 5, 2012

Valkhorn said:
So you're actually confusing the surface of ice in one location versus water that is under 2-3 miles of solid ice? I'm not sure how someone could make this large of an error unless they did it deliberately.

By the way, only a creationist would try to nitpick over something so specific over the age of the antarctic ice cap while completely ignoring the fact that there is absolutely no way it could have been made in 6,000 years. Only a creationist would argy bargy over whether the ice was 3 or 15 million years old and claim that science knows nothing, when they claim at the same time the earth is 6,000 years old even though we have trees older than that living today.

<staff edit>

Actually there is very good evidence that ice core chronology and current interpretation is wrong. In the case of Greenland there was the discovery of World War II planes found a depth of 250 feet and 3 miles from the location at which they were ditched 50 years ago. Actual observed evidence of young ice cores chronology.

If the aircraft were buried under about 250 feet of ice and snow in about 50 years, this means the ice sheet has been accumulating at an average rate of five feet per year. The Greenland ice sheet averages almost 4000 feet thick. If we were to assume the ice sheet has been accumulating at this rate since its beginning, it would take less than 1000 years for it to form and the recent-creation model might seem to be vindicated. MOD 4: Ice Cores And The Age Of The Earth

Zaius137 · Mar 5, 2012

When these factors are taken into account, the average annual thickness of ice at Camp Century located near the northern tip of Greenland is believed to vary from about fourteen inches near the surface to less than two inches near the bottom (Hammer, et al., 1978).[2] If, for simplicity, we assume the average annual thickness to be the mean between the annual thickness at the top and at the bottom (about eight inches), this still gives an age of less than 6000 years for the 4000-foot-thick ice sheet to form under uniformitarian conditions.
MOD 4: Ice Cores And The Age Of The Earth

Valkhorn · Mar 5, 2012

Zaius137 said:
Actually there is very good evidence that ice core chronology and current interpretation is wrong. In the case of Greenland there was the discovery of World War II planes found a depth of 250 feet and 3 miles from the location at which they were ditched 50 years ago. Actual observed evidence of young ice cores chronology.

If the aircraft were buried under about 250 feet of ice and snow in about 50 years, this means the ice sheet has been accumulating at an average rate of five feet per year. The Greenland ice sheet averages almost 4000 feet thick. If we were to assume the ice sheet has been accumulating at this rate since its beginning, it would take less than 1000 years for it to form and the recent-creation model might seem to be vindicated. MOD 4: Ice Cores And The Age Of The Earth

You didn't just reference this PRATT did you?

This shows how little you know about the entire subject.

Those planes landed in areas with high precipitation. Some of those places near the coast of Greenland probably get on average 10 feet a year in snow or more. Antarctica is a desert, with most places receiving less than a cm of precipitation per year.
Snow accumulates at different rates in different places. See above.
As snow accumulates, the weight of it compresses whatever is beneath it. Ice at the bottom is under so much weight that it can get to the point where it can no longer be solid ice at that temperature, and melts - forming underground lakes and other underground bodies of water, or being squeezed out to the oceans.
The climate of Antarctica has been EXTREMELY stable for a very long time, and we know how many years the ice has been there through many independent dating methods. Others have pointed out that certain known geologic events (like volcanic eruptions) show up in the right layers, so we know the dating is correct.

You just keep digging yourself into a deeper hole. People have explained to you how you know nothing about ice cores and you keep spouting PRATT after PRATT.

Are you serious? This has to be a joke, and I'm calling Poe's Law on this one.

EDIT: Adding a link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html

Ice layers are counted by different methods (mainly, visible layers of hoar frost, visible dust layers, and layers of differing electrical conductivity) which have nothing to do with thickness. These methods corroborate each other and match with other independently determined dates (Seely 2003).

The airplanes landed near the shore of Greenland, where snow accumulation is rapid, at about 2 m per year. Allowing for some compaction due to the weight of the snow, that accounts for the depth of snow under which they are buried. The planes are also on an active glacier and have moved about 2 km since landing. Ice core dating takes place on stable ice fields, not active glaciers. The interior of Greenland, where ice cores were taken, receives much less snow. In Antarctica, where ice cores dating back more than 100,000 years have been collected, the rate of snow accumulation is much less still.

A report of "many hundreds" of layers in the ice above the Lost Squadron may also be explained by the airplanes' location on Greenland. That location is relatively warm because it is low and more southerly; its surface gets repeatedly melted during the summer, creating multiple melt layers per year. At the site of the GISP2 ice core, melting occurs only about once every couple centuries. Melt layers are easily distinguished in ice cores. The more than 100,000 layers in ice cores are definitely not melt layers (Seely 2003).

Valkhorn · Mar 5, 2012

Split Rock said:
Holy Cow, Dude! Been years! How are you?

As you can see, not much has changed here...

I've been lurking for a while and thought I'd dust off the old account. I need to change my location and account settings though, eventually.

I see the usual people are still around on both sides. <staff edit>

Zaius137 · Mar 5, 2012

Valkhorn said:
You didn't just reference this PRATT did you?

This shows how little you know about the entire subject.

Those planes landed in areas with high precipitation. Some of those places near the coast of Greenland probably get on average 10 feet a year in snow or more. Antarctica is a desert, with most places receiving less than a cm of precipitation per year.

Snow accumulates at different rates in different places. See above.

As snow accumulates, the weight of it compresses whatever is beneath it. Ice at the bottom is under so much weight that it can get to the point where it can no longer be solid ice at that temperature, and melts - forming underground lakes and other underground bodies of water, or being squeezed out to the oceans.

The climate of Antarctica has been EXTREMELY stable for a very long time, and we know how many years the ice has been there through many independent dating methods. Others have pointed out that certain known geologic events (like volcanic eruptions) show up in the right layers, so we know the dating is correct.

You just keep digging yourself into a deeper hole. People have explained to you how you know nothing about ice cores and you keep spouting PRATT after PRATT.

Are you serious? This has to be a joke, and I'm calling Poe's Law on this one.

EDIT: Adding a link:
CD410: Airplanes Buried in Ice

This shows how little you know about the entire subject.

Those planes landed in areas with high precipitation. Some of those places near the coast of Greenland probably get on average 10 feet a year in snow or more. Antarctica is a desert, with most places receiving less than a cm of precipitation per year.

Very Good… Today Antarctica is very dry but maybe not so in the past.

Snow accumulates at different rates in different places. See above.

Funny…. I did not know that…

As snow accumulates, the weight of it compresses whatever is beneath it. Ice at the bottom is under so much weight that it can get to the point where it can no longer be solid ice at that temperature, and melts - forming underground lakes and other underground bodies of water, or being squeezed out to the oceans.

None of this lines up with any evidence. Ice under Antarctica does not melt under pressure… And the East Antarctica ice shelf is assumed to be stable by the most scientific investigation. Being squeezed out to the ocean is nonsense. You need a quote.

The climate of Antarctica has been EXTREMELY stable for a very long time, and we know how many years the ice has been there through many independent dating methods. Others have pointed out that certain known geologic events (like volcanic eruptions) show up in the right layers, so we know the dating is correct.

This has been a very long discussion and I invite you to read all the posts on this thread. I have provided many citations that present an alternative view and will not repost them here. You really need to come up to speed on this for yourself if you want to participate in the current discussion.

<staff edit>

Valkhorn · Mar 5, 2012

Zaius137 said:
This shows how little you know about the entire subject.

Those planes landed in areas with high precipitation. Some of those places near the coast of Greenland probably get on average 10 feet a year in snow or more. Antarctica is a desert, with most places receiving less than a cm of precipitation per year.

Very Good… Today Antarctica is very dry but maybe not so in the past.

Snow accumulates at different rates in different places. See above.

Funny…. I did not know that…

As snow accumulates, the weight of it compresses whatever is beneath it. Ice at the bottom is under so much weight that it can get to the point where it can no longer be solid ice at that temperature, and melts - forming underground lakes and other underground bodies of water, or being squeezed out to the oceans.

None of this lines up with any evidence. Ice under Antarctica does not melt under pressure… And the East Antarctica ice shelf is assumed to be stable by the most scientific investigation. Being squeezed out to the ocean is nonsense. You need a quote.

The climate of Antarctica has been EXTREMELY stable for a very long time, and we know how many years the ice has been there through many independent dating methods. Others have pointed out that certain known geologic events (like volcanic eruptions) show up in the right layers, so we know the dating is correct.

This has been a very long discussion and I invite you to read all the posts on this thread. I have provided many citations that present an alternative view and will not repost them here. You really need to come up to speed on this for yourself if you want to participate in the current discussion.

<staff edit>

Ice doesn't melt under pressure? What are you smoking? Water has many different phases, and what phase water is at depends MORE than on what temperature it is at. Phases of matter usually depend on temperature AND pressure:

And, have you even tried to look through google?

https://www.google.com/search?q=ice+melts+under+pressure&oq=ice+melts+under+pressure

I have followed and read this thread since the beginning and have read all of your arguments (and all of them have been thoroughly refuted).

<staff edit>

RickG · Mar 5, 2012

Zaius137 said:
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 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?

No ice to date has been dated to 2.5 million years. As for AiG, they have never performed any scientific research. All they do is to misrepresent research that has already been performed.

RickG · Mar 5, 2012

Zaius137 said:
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

But they did not.

Zaius137 · Mar 5, 2012

Valkhorn said:
Ice doesn't melt under pressure? What are you smoking? Water has many different phases, and what phase water is at depends MORE than on what temperature it is at. Phases of matter usually depend on temperature AND pressure:

And, have you even tried to look through google?

https://www.google.com/search?q=ice+melts+under+pressure&oq=ice+melts+under+pressure

I have followed and read this thread since the beginning and have read all of your arguments (and all of them have been thoroughly refuted).

So you're either joking, or willfully ignorant.

I guess you are not as matriculate as you think you are. One more time for the record The pressures at the bottom of Antarctica ice is not the mechanism for forming liquid water. Three hundred atmospheres is not enough pressure to cause a transition but only a hold off in the freezing point. Here are the mechanisms for the formation of liquid water. Be careful to read the fifth paragraph Maybe I better include it.

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

Nice graph though

Zaius137 · Mar 6, 2012

RickG said:
No ice to date has been dated to 2.5 million years. As for AiG, they have never performed any scientific research. All they do is to misrepresent research that has already been performed.

Rick Look they even took a picture.

Zaius137 · Mar 6, 2012

Originally Posted by 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

But they did not.

I know that Rick Ice cores have never been retrieved older than 4 thousand years

Valkhorn · Mar 6, 2012

Zaius137 said:
Originally Posted by 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

But they did not.

I know that Rick… Ice cores have never been retrieved older than 4 thousand years…

The oldest ice cores retrieved so far are about 800,000 years.

New Ice Core Reveals 800,000 Years of Climate History

You aren't going to get 3,260 meters of ice in the climate of Antarctica in 4,000 years. That averages over 1 meter of 'ice' per year (not snow). Snow to ice at that temperature has a water ratio of over 50:1, so you would need 50x the amount of snow to produce solid ice that thick. So, you'd need 50 meters of snowfall ON AVERAGE per year for 4,000 years to produce ice that thick. You aren't going to get that much precipitation at the bottom of the world in the antarctic since it is a desert and has been for a long time.

<staff edit>

Valkhorn · Mar 6, 2012

Zaius137 said:
Rick Look they even took a picture.

Taking a picture is not scientific research.

Valkhorn · Mar 6, 2012

Zaius137 said:
<staff edit>

<staff edit>

Ice melts under pressure:
Melting of ice under pressure

Additionally, meltwater refreezes at the bottom:
Reading layers when layers are disturbed | The Concord Consortium

You could have looked at the phase chart of water and saw this for yourself, or looked at the google search, and you didn't bother.

<staff edit>

Zaius137 · Mar 6, 2012

Valkhorn said:
<staff edit>

Ice melts under pressure:
Melting of ice under pressure

Additionally, meltwater refreezes at the bottom:
Reading layers when layers are disturbed | The Concord Consortium

<staff edit>

When some one can not accept evidence in front of them….

<staff edit> abnegation is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.[1] The subject may use:

I refer you to Sigmund Freud….

Opps.. he is dead, maybe with Darwin discussing how wrong they were….

Valkhorn · Mar 6, 2012

Zaius137 said:
When some one can not accept evidence in front of them….

<staff edit> abnegation is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.[1] The subject may use:

I refer you to Sigmund Freud….

Opps.. he is dead, maybe with Darwin discussing how wrong they were….

That's the definition of creationism. <staff edit>

Valkhorn · Mar 6, 2012

<staff edit>

Address my posts. I've addressed yours. Or, do you want me to give you more evidence of an ancient earth?

Above is a diagram of the layers of the grand canyon. See the uncomformity? There had to be enough time for there to be deposition of all of the layers below it, time for the Vishnu Schist to form, and time for the layers to be eroded enough to form the unconformity before new sedimentation happened on top of it.

This is NOT going to happen in 4,000 years.

Or how about varves?

Each layer is an annual lake bed deposition. Here there are 2,000,000 layers. This is not going to happen in 4,000 years.

RickG · Mar 6, 2012

Zaius137 said:
Rick… Look they even took a picture….

The article you cited did not state that they dated the ice to 2.5 million years. It said they hoped to be able to. I then went to a scientific search engine and searched for all the papers published by Andrei Kurbatov. He has done a lot of research in paleoclimatology, much of it in Antarctica, Canada and Greenland. Nothing in any of his published research is there anything about having dated any ice more than 850,000 years.

Your article: "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."

Here is a list of published research by Kurbatov from 2009 to present. Your article was dated 2009.

Kraus and Kurbatov (2010) Chemical fingerprint of bulk tephra from Late Pleistocene / Holocene volcanoes in the northern Antarctic Peninsula area
ingentaconnect Discovery of a nanodiamond-rich layer in the Greenland ice sheet
http://www.library.umaine.edu/theses/pdf/KorotkikhE2009.pdf

and the paper your article is talking about:
Interpreting ancient ice in a shallow ice core from the South Yamato (Antarctica) blue ice area using flow modeling and compositional matching to deep ice cores | Mendeley

Facts are facts. What you have been claiming is not supported in any of your citations nor any I have searched for.<staff edit> This is not a case where we have conflicting ideas, it's a case where you are making claims and giving citations that you say support your claims when in fact they do not.

Young Earth Creationist dynamics.

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

Conflation of Blathers

Real science and faith are compatible.

Real science and faith are compatible.

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

Real science and faith are compatible.

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Real science and faith are compatible.

Real science and faith are compatible.

Attachments

Real science and faith are compatible.

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

Real science and faith are compatible.

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency