Dat Noah Flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2015, 09:08 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(02-04-2015 10:20 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Have you read the thread? The compaction of ice is a main reason to disregard these "800,000-year" ice cores...

*Thinks about where to begin*

Okay... so, snow settles on the ice of Greenland. It's white, light and 'fluffy'. Each flake takes up a certain amount of 'space'.

So... over time the total precipitation (I assume snow 'rains' like the liquid stuff?) of snow is such that previous flakes get 'buried' quite simply by more flakes and NOT enough melt away due to temperature etc.

Initially... the ice crystals(Snow) remain intact. Constantly pushed 'down' and covered etc. Caught between the crystals are any particulate matter small enough (Or dense and dead enough to be fallen over and lying on top of a certain 'layer' or amount) down to and including air (Or the gaseous elements around at the time)

Eventually the simple mass of the crystals begins to be enough to literally crush/compact(Heck, I do believe I can even use the term "Phase transition", since the crystals don't change from a solid on their own and YET some how manage to 'melt' into one another) into not separate crystals of ice but one, solid, homogenous mass of ice.

Note that anything previously caught up in those crystals is now as trapped as a bug in amber.

So... over a year, the amount of ice crystals (And occasional plane) that get dumped on the ice shelf/Greenland/Antarctica (Take your pick) changes. So, one ends up with something much like tree rings. Except tree rings don't squish themselves as they get created/layered down.

SO! Your comment about ice/snow depth due to seasonal deposits does NOT take into account mass compaction rates etc.

Just saying "Oh, between year 'X' and year 'Y" there's 250' material there-fore...." and trying to simply give a straight up extrapolation does not work.

Hence why the whole study of ice etc is it's own small niche of science.

I hope, as one lay-man to another, I've been helpful. Big Grin

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Peebothuhul's post
03-04-2015, 12:47 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(30-03-2015 01:58 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  As has been stated elsewhere, rain need not have been the sole source of water nor did the mountains need to stand at their present heights...
And has also been stated before, if mountains, such as Everest, were significantly smaller before the flood and were raised to their current heights during the time period of the flood, the amount of energy needed to do that in that short of a time span would be on a nuclear scale.
Forget people and animals drowning, large chunks of the Earth's crust would have liquefied.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like LostLocke's post
03-04-2015, 02:05 PM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2015 07:10 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(03-04-2015 09:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(02-04-2015 10:20 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Have you read the thread? The compaction of ice is a main reason to disregard these "800,000-year" ice cores...

*Thinks about where to begin*

Okay... so, snow settles on the ice of Greenland. It's white, light and 'fluffy'. Each flake takes up a certain amount of 'space'.

So... over time the total precipitation (I assume snow 'rains' like the liquid stuff?) of snow is such that previous flakes get 'buried' quite simply by more flakes and NOT enough melt away due to temperature etc.

Initially... the ice crystals(Snow) remain intact. Constantly pushed 'down' and covered etc. Caught between the crystals are any particulate matter small enough (Or dense and dead enough to be fallen over and lying on top of a certain 'layer' or amount) down to and including air (Or the gaseous elements around at the time)

Eventually the simple mass of the crystals begins to be enough to literally crush/compact(Heck, I do believe I can even use the term "Phase transition", since the crystals don't change from a solid on their own and YET some how manage to 'melt' into one another) into not separate crystals of ice but one, solid, homogenous mass of ice.

Note that anything previously caught up in those crystals is now as trapped as a bug in amber.

So... over a year, the amount of ice crystals (And occasional plane) that get dumped on the ice shelf/Greenland/Antarctica (Take your pick) changes. So, one ends up with something much like tree rings. Except tree rings don't squish themselves as they get created/layered down.

SO! Your comment about ice/snow depth due to seasonal deposits does NOT take into account mass compaction rates etc.

Just saying "Oh, between year 'X' and year 'Y" there's 250' material there-fore...." and trying to simply give a straight up extrapolation does not work.

Hence why the whole study of ice etc is it's own small niche of science.

I hope, as one lay-man to another, I've been helpful. Big Grin

Much cheers to all.

The part he misses is it isn't the depth of the ice, it is the rings/layers within it that can be counted, each year another layer forms, and we are able to differentiate the causal for each type of layer.

"The Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) was a multinational European research project, organized through the European Science Foundation. Funding came from 8 nations (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Switzerland, and United Kingdom), and from the European Union. GRIP successfully drilled a 3028 metre ice core to the bed of the Greenland ice sheet at Summit, Central Greenland from 1989 to 1992 at 72°35′N 37°38′W.

A portion of the core
Studies of isotopes and various atmospheric constituents in the core have revealed a detailed record of climatic variations reaching more than 100,000 years back in time. The results indicate that Holocene climate has been remarkably stable and have confirmed the occurrence of rapid climatic variation during the last ice age."

[Image: 198mx2.png]

19 cm long section of GISP 2 ice core from 1855 m showing annual layer structure illuminated from below by a fiber optic source. Section contains 11 annual layers with summer layers (arrowed) sandwiched between darker winter layers.

...

"110,000 annual oscillations counted in the
GISP2 core completely invalidate an age of just 6,000 years
for the ice sheet."

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf

to refute the ignorant lost bomber argument Q has found:

"In July of 1942, six pursuit planes (P-38’s)
and two bombers (B-17’s) crash-landed on
the Greenland ice cap. By 1990 they were
found under c. 250 feet of ice and snow,
which depth corresponds to c. 250 years of
accumulation for the GISP2 ice core. In his
1992 paper, Larry Vardiman mentioned the
surprising burial depth of the Lost Squadron
planes, but he admitted that their depth of
burial could not be simplistically used as
evidence that the ice cores are being misdated.
Some young-earthers have not been
as wise and have argued from the depth of
the WWII planes to the rejection of the age of
the ice cores.


Carl Wieland wrote a short paper in 1997
arguing on the basis of the depth of the
WWII airplanes that the 3,000 meter long
GRIP ice core “would only represent some
2000 years of accumulation.”42 Allowing for
some compression of lower layers and the
greater snowfall for a few centuries after the
Flood, he concluded, “There is ample time in
the 4,000 or so years since Noah’s day for the
existing amounts of ice to have built up.”
Kent Hovind, who has a four-minute tape
on the Internet about ice cores, calculated
that the WWII planes were covered at the
rate of c. 5½ feet of snow/year. He then said
that if you divide that rate into the 10,000
foot ice core, you only get 1,824 years; so
“4400 is a really reasonable assumption.”43
Hovind also telephoned Bob Cardin, who
was one of the main people who raised one
of the planes to the surface and asked him if
he had noticed how many layers there were
in the ice in the hole made to excavate the
plane. Cardin answered off the cuff, “Many
hundreds of them.” On the basis of this
answer, Hovind concluded that the lines in
the ice cores are not summer/winter, but
warm/cold lines and that thirty of them
could be made in a single year.

Two experienced glaciologists informed
me that Hovind is largely correct about the
“hundreds” of lines in the hole dug to
remove the WW2 planes. They both said that
the area where the planes landed is a relatively
warm area because of its lower, southern
elevation, and several melt layers can be
formed every year in regions like that which
would appear as layers in the hole. Add to
these melt layers the actual annual layers,
which near the top show up as several lines
within the space of a few inches, and you
can have an off the cuff estimate of “hundreds
of lines.” One can understand Hovind’s
confusion.


But let’s make this perfectly clear: The
110,000 layers of the GISP2 ice core are not
due to melting. They are definitely not melt
layers. Even if melting had occurred more
often in the past, layers due to melting are
readily recognized and would certainly not
be counted as annual.


This leaves the question: How could
some 250 feet of snow in the area of GISP2
cover a period of c. 250 years while 250 feet
of snow in the area of the Lost Squadron
planes only covers c. 50 years? In Richard
Alley’s book, The Two Mile Time Machine,
he says he is often asked this question. The
answer is: “The World War II planes landed
in one of the regions of Greenland where
snow accumulates fastest.”
And in answer
to the question: Did anyone ever figure out
why the Lost Squadron planes were buried
so much deeper than expected? Bob Cardin
told me that it was because the average snow
accumulation in that area is c. 7 feet/year
(7 x 50 = 350 feet deep). If you allow for some
compression, it is easy to understand how
the planes got buried 250 feet deep.
So, the area in which the Lost Squadron
landed, which is southern Greenland c. 10
miles from the east coast, with its high rate
of snow accumulation (c. 7 feet/year) vs. the
area of GISP2 in central Greenland with its
comparatively low rate of snow accumulation
(1 foot or so/year)46 is why 250 feet of
snow represents just 50 years for the Lost
Squadron but around 250 years for the
GISP2 ice core. And, of course, as one goes
down the core, the snow/ice is compressed
more and more so that each foot of ice represents
greater and greater lengths of time.

In conclusion we see that creation science has offered
little more than speculation as evidence to disprove the
validity of the dating of the GISP2 ice core.
Opposing this
speculation is solid empirical evidence that the layers of
hoar frost, dust, and electrical conductivity are seasonal,
not from storms, melting, different climate conditions or
any other such supposition. Although one of the methods
of counting annual layers may fail on rare occasions, the
other methods fill in and sustain the accuracy of the counting;
and the three methods regularly and repeatedly
corroborate each other. In addition, the validity of the dating
is established by the fact that there is a dovetailing of
the dates of GISP2 with the dates of solar cycles, sea
cores, tree rings, volcanic events, and more. The GISP2
ice core thus provides clear, scientific proof that there was
no global flood any time in the last 40,000 to 110,000 years


*drops mike* bam, that just happened, what's the next bit of misinformation you got Q?

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
03-04-2015, 02:22 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(02-04-2015 10:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(01-04-2015 04:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  So, you're assuming uniformitarianism? Consider

And ignoring the science of ice sheets.

How is uniformitarian assumption to look at the past 1,000 years of snowfall rates? Mainstream science makes leaps and fills in gaps of the past million years before modern homo sapiens... Consider

I'm not ignoring the science of ice sheets. Yet again, you make general statements that are untrue. YOU are ignoring my comments about the science of ice sheets that underscores their assumptions. Assumptions which pervert the data results because no-no-no--this Greenland ice couldn't be 10,000 years old, it must be 800,000 years old, just look at the dust in the ice, etc.

Of course you are; your ignorant statements about the age of the Greenland ice sheets display your lack of either knowledge or understanding.
AnswersInGenesis is not a credible source of scientific information.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
04-04-2015, 06:27 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(03-04-2015 02:05 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(03-04-2015 09:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  *Thinks about where to begin*

Okay... so, snow settles on the ice of Greenland. It's white, light and 'fluffy'. Each flake takes up a certain amount of 'space'.

So... over time the total precipitation (I assume snow 'rains' like the liquid stuff?) of snow is such that previous flakes get 'buried' quite simply by more flakes and NOT enough melt away due to temperature etc.

Initially... the ice crystals(Snow) remain intact. Constantly pushed 'down' and covered etc. Caught between the crystals are any particulate matter small enough (Or dense and dead enough to be fallen over and lying on top of a certain 'layer' or amount) down to and including air (Or the gaseous elements around at the time)

Eventually the simple mass of the crystals begins to be enough to literally crush/compact(Heck, I do believe I can even use the term "Phase transition", since the crystals don't change from a solid on their own and YET some how manage to 'melt' into one another) into not separate crystals of ice but one, solid, homogenous mass of ice.

Note that anything previously caught up in those crystals is now as trapped as a bug in amber.

So... over a year, the amount of ice crystals (And occasional plane) that get dumped on the ice shelf/Greenland/Antarctica (Take your pick) changes. So, one ends up with something much like tree rings. Except tree rings don't squish themselves as they get created/layered down.

SO! Your comment about ice/snow depth due to seasonal deposits does NOT take into account mass compaction rates etc.

Just saying "Oh, between year 'X' and year 'Y" there's 250' material there-fore...." and trying to simply give a straight up extrapolation does not work.

Hence why the whole study of ice etc is it's own small niche of science.

I hope, as one lay-man to another, I've been helpful. Big Grin

Much cheers to all.

The part he misses is it isn't the depth of the ice, it is the rings/layers within it that can be counted, each year another layer forms, and we are able to differentiate the causal for each type of layer.

"The Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) was a multinational European research project, organized through the European Science Foundation. Funding came from 8 nations (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Switzerland, and United Kingdom), and from the European Union. GRIP successfully drilled a 3028 metre ice core to the bed of the Greenland ice sheet at Summit, Central Greenland from 1989 to 1992 at 72°35′N 37°38′W.

A portion of the core
Studies of isotopes and various atmospheric constituents in the core have revealed a detailed record of climatic variations reaching more than 100,000 years back in time. The results indicate that Holocene climate has been remarkably stable and have confirmed the occurrence of rapid climatic variation during the last ice age."

[Image: 198mx2.png]

19 cm long section of GISP 2 ice core from 1855 m showing annual layer structure illuminated from below by a fiber optic source. Section contains 11 annual layers with summer layers (arrowed) sandwiched between darker winter layers.

...

"110,000 annual oscillations counted in the
GISP2 core completely invalidate an age of just 6,000 years
for the ice sheet."

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf

to refute the ignorant lost bomber argument Q has found:

"In July of 1942, six pursuit planes (P-38’s)
and two bombers (B-17’s) crash-landed on
the Greenland ice cap. By 1990 they were
found under c. 250 feet of ice and snow,
which depth corresponds to c. 250 years of
accumulation for the GISP2 ice core. In his
1992 paper, Larry Vardiman mentioned the
surprising burial depth of the Lost Squadron
planes, but he admitted that their depth of
burial could not be simplistically used as
evidence that the ice cores are being misdated.
Some young-earthers have not been
as wise and have argued from the depth of
the WWII planes to the rejection of the age of
the ice cores.

Carl Wieland wrote a short paper in 1997
arguing on the basis of the depth of the
WWII airplanes that the 3,000 meter long
GRIP ice core “would only represent some
2000 years of accumulation.”42 Allowing for
some compression of lower layers and the
greater snowfall for a few centuries after the
Flood, he concluded, “There is ample time in
the 4,000 or so years since Noah’s day for the
existing amounts of ice to have built up.”
Kent Hovind, who has a four-minute tape
on the Internet about ice cores, calculated
that the WWII planes were covered at the
rate of c. 5½ feet of snow/year. He then said
that if you divide that rate into the 10,000
foot ice core, you only get 1,824 years; so
“4400 is a really reasonable assumption.”43
Hovind also telephoned Bob Cardin, who
was one of the main people who raised one
of the planes to the surface and asked him if
he had noticed how many layers there were
in the ice in the hole made to excavate the
plane. Cardin answered off the cuff, “Many
hundreds of them.” On the basis of this
answer, Hovind concluded that the lines in
the ice cores are not summer/winter, but
warm/cold lines and that thirty of them
could be made in a single year.

Two experienced glaciologists informed
me that Hovind is largely correct about the
“hundreds” of lines in the hole dug to
remove the WW2 planes. They both said that
the area where the planes landed is a relatively
warm area because of its lower, southern
elevation, and several melt layers can be
formed every year in regions like that which
would appear as layers in the hole. Add to
these melt layers the actual annual layers,
which near the top show up as several lines
within the space of a few inches, and you
can have an off the cuff estimate of “hundreds
of lines.” One can understand Hovind’s
confusion.


But let’s make this perfectly clear: The
110,000 layers of the GISP2 ice core are not
due to melting. They are definitely not melt
layers. Even if melting had occurred more
often in the past, layers due to melting are
readily recognized and would certainly not
be counted as annual.


This leaves the question: How could
some 250 feet of snow in the area of GISP2
cover a period of c. 250 years while 250 feet
of snow in the area of the Lost Squadron
planes only covers c. 50 years? In Richard
Alley’s book, The Two Mile Time Machine,
he says he is often asked this question. The
answer is: “The World War II planes landed
in one of the regions of Greenland where
snow accumulates fastest.”
And in answer
to the question: Did anyone ever figure out
why the Lost Squadron planes were buried
so much deeper than expected? Bob Cardin
told me that it was because the average snow
accumulation in that area is c. 7 feet/year
(7 x 50 = 350 feet deep). If you allow for some
compression, it is easy to understand how
the planes got buried 250 feet deep.
So, the area in which the Lost Squadron
landed, which is southern Greenland c. 10
miles from the east coast, with its high rate
of snow accumulation (c. 7 feet/year) vs. the
area of GISP2 in central Greenland with its
comparatively low rate of snow accumulation
(1 foot or so/year)46 is why 250 feet of
snow represents just 50 years for the Lost
Squadron but around 250 years for the
GISP2 ice core. And, of course, as one goes
down the core, the snow/ice is compressed
more and more so that each foot of ice represents
greater and greater lengths of time.

In conclusion we see that creation science has offered
little more than speculation as evidence to disprove the
validity of the dating of the GISP2 ice core.
Opposing this
speculation is solid empirical evidence that the layers of
hoar frost, dust, and electrical conductivity are seasonal,
not from storms, melting, different climate conditions or
any other such supposition. Although one of the methods
of counting annual layers may fail on rare occasions, the
other methods fill in and sustain the accuracy of the counting;
and the three methods regularly and repeatedly
corroborate each other. In addition, the validity of the dating
is established by the fact that there is a dovetailing of
the dates of GISP2 with the dates of solar cycles, sea
cores, tree rings, volcanic events, and more. The GISP2
ice core thus provides clear, scientific proof that there was
no global flood any time in the last 40,000 to 110,000 years


*drops mike* bam, that just happened, what's the next bit of misinformation you got Q?

Science is awesome, the ice core data refutes the young-earth creation myth and worldwide flood myths, it's a two-fer!

Of course all Qlueless can do is invoke conspiratorial "uniformitarian assumptions" without providing any EVIDENCE to support this claim of bad dating on ice cores.

This is the kind of thing that angered me about creationist apologists, they would simply throw out cheap, ignorant excuses for why the scientists must be wrong without providing ANY evidence.

They weren't even capable of stepping up to the plate with real evidence to provide a reasonable refutation to the evidence that scientists provide. They actually think that their amateur speculation has any credibility without evidence, all they do is snipe from the stands like the amateurs they are, they're not playing in the real game, they're just spectators up in the stands getting drunk from their kool-aid.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
04-04-2015, 07:15 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2015 07:23 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(04-04-2015 06:27 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(03-04-2015 02:05 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  The part he misses is it isn't the depth of the ice, it is the rings/layers within it that can be counted, each year another layer forms, and we are able to differentiate the causal for each type of layer.

"The Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) was a multinational European research project, organized through the European Science Foundation. Funding came from 8 nations (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Switzerland, and United Kingdom), and from the European Union. GRIP successfully drilled a 3028 metre ice core to the bed of the Greenland ice sheet at Summit, Central Greenland from 1989 to 1992 at 72°35′N 37°38′W.

A portion of the core
Studies of isotopes and various atmospheric constituents in the core have revealed a detailed record of climatic variations reaching more than 100,000 years back in time. The results indicate that Holocene climate has been remarkably stable and have confirmed the occurrence of rapid climatic variation during the last ice age."

[Image: 198mx2.png]

19 cm long section of GISP 2 ice core from 1855 m showing annual layer structure illuminated from below by a fiber optic source. Section contains 11 annual layers with summer layers (arrowed) sandwiched between darker winter layers.

...

"110,000 annual oscillations counted in the
GISP2 core completely invalidate an age of just 6,000 years
for the ice sheet."

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf

to refute the ignorant lost bomber argument Q has found:

"In July of 1942, six pursuit planes (P-38’s)
and two bombers (B-17’s) crash-landed on
the Greenland ice cap. By 1990 they were
found under c. 250 feet of ice and snow,
which depth corresponds to c. 250 years of
accumulation for the GISP2 ice core. In his
1992 paper, Larry Vardiman mentioned the
surprising burial depth of the Lost Squadron
planes, but he admitted that their depth of
burial could not be simplistically used as
evidence that the ice cores are being misdated.
Some young-earthers have not been
as wise and have argued from the depth of
the WWII planes to the rejection of the age of
the ice cores.

Carl Wieland wrote a short paper in 1997
arguing on the basis of the depth of the
WWII airplanes that the 3,000 meter long
GRIP ice core “would only represent some
2000 years of accumulation.”42 Allowing for
some compression of lower layers and the
greater snowfall for a few centuries after the
Flood, he concluded, “There is ample time in
the 4,000 or so years since Noah’s day for the
existing amounts of ice to have built up.”
Kent Hovind, who has a four-minute tape
on the Internet about ice cores, calculated
that the WWII planes were covered at the
rate of c. 5½ feet of snow/year. He then said
that if you divide that rate into the 10,000
foot ice core, you only get 1,824 years; so
“4400 is a really reasonable assumption.”43
Hovind also telephoned Bob Cardin, who
was one of the main people who raised one
of the planes to the surface and asked him if
he had noticed how many layers there were
in the ice in the hole made to excavate the
plane. Cardin answered off the cuff, “Many
hundreds of them.” On the basis of this
answer, Hovind concluded that the lines in
the ice cores are not summer/winter, but
warm/cold lines and that thirty of them
could be made in a single year.

Two experienced glaciologists informed
me that Hovind is largely correct about the
“hundreds” of lines in the hole dug to
remove the WW2 planes. They both said that
the area where the planes landed is a relatively
warm area because of its lower, southern
elevation, and several melt layers can be
formed every year in regions like that which
would appear as layers in the hole. Add to
these melt layers the actual annual layers,
which near the top show up as several lines
within the space of a few inches, and you
can have an off the cuff estimate of “hundreds
of lines.” One can understand Hovind’s
confusion.


But let’s make this perfectly clear: The
110,000 layers of the GISP2 ice core are not
due to melting. They are definitely not melt
layers. Even if melting had occurred more
often in the past, layers due to melting are
readily recognized and would certainly not
be counted as annual.


This leaves the question: How could
some 250 feet of snow in the area of GISP2
cover a period of c. 250 years while 250 feet
of snow in the area of the Lost Squadron
planes only covers c. 50 years? In Richard
Alley’s book, The Two Mile Time Machine,
he says he is often asked this question. The
answer is: “The World War II planes landed
in one of the regions of Greenland where
snow accumulates fastest.”
And in answer
to the question: Did anyone ever figure out
why the Lost Squadron planes were buried
so much deeper than expected? Bob Cardin
told me that it was because the average snow
accumulation in that area is c. 7 feet/year
(7 x 50 = 350 feet deep). If you allow for some
compression, it is easy to understand how
the planes got buried 250 feet deep.
So, the area in which the Lost Squadron
landed, which is southern Greenland c. 10
miles from the east coast, with its high rate
of snow accumulation (c. 7 feet/year) vs. the
area of GISP2 in central Greenland with its
comparatively low rate of snow accumulation
(1 foot or so/year)46 is why 250 feet of
snow represents just 50 years for the Lost
Squadron but around 250 years for the
GISP2 ice core. And, of course, as one goes
down the core, the snow/ice is compressed
more and more so that each foot of ice represents
greater and greater lengths of time.

In conclusion we see that creation science has offered
little more than speculation as evidence to disprove the
validity of the dating of the GISP2 ice core.
Opposing this
speculation is solid empirical evidence that the layers of
hoar frost, dust, and electrical conductivity are seasonal,
not from storms, melting, different climate conditions or
any other such supposition. Although one of the methods
of counting annual layers may fail on rare occasions, the
other methods fill in and sustain the accuracy of the counting;
and the three methods regularly and repeatedly
corroborate each other. In addition, the validity of the dating
is established by the fact that there is a dovetailing of
the dates of GISP2 with the dates of solar cycles, sea
cores, tree rings, volcanic events, and more. The GISP2
ice core thus provides clear, scientific proof that there was
no global flood any time in the last 40,000 to 110,000 years


*drops mike* bam, that just happened, what's the next bit of misinformation you got Q?

Science is awesome, the ice core data refutes the young-earth creation myth and worldwide flood myths, it's a two-fer!

Of course all Qlueless can do is invoke conspiratorial "uniformitarian assumptions" without providing any EVIDENCE to support this claim of bad dating on ice cores.

This is the kind of thing that angered me about creationist apologists, they would simply throw out cheap, ignorant excuses for why the scientists must be wrong without providing ANY evidence.

They weren't even capable of stepping up to the plate with real evidence to provide a reasonable refutation to the evidence that scientists provide. They actually think that their amateur speculation has any credibility without evidence, all they do is snipe from the stands like the amateurs they are, they're not playing in the real game, they're just spectators up in the stands getting drunk from their kool-aid.

I wholeheartedly agree. it is like Ken Ham's misinformation museum, the fact he can even call it a museum is offensive....to take one misinterpreted, ignorant of the facts item and run with it is just so disingenuous. Remember the Ken Ham and Bill Nye's "debate"...and Ken's answer to everything was to slap on a self assured smile as he held up the bible and said, "The answers are in this little book"...and the crowd would high five each other and cheer...even though they were all too ignorant to have actually read the bible, know it doesn't have the answer to anything, nor understand how that is a ludicrous assertion to make in a serious debate on a scientific discussion. Their fans like Wail of the Child and Qless applaud and say "Yeah!...see those ice core samples don't refute a 6,000 year old earth, OR the global flood!"...no dipshits, actually they do....but it would require you having a clue, and being able to understand the science and the evidence.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
05-04-2015, 11:59 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(02-04-2015 10:22 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Actually, there are thousands of webpages online debunking uniformitarian science and a very old Earth.

But no peer reviewed material. Just a bunch of assertions made by laymen to fit a predrawn conclusion.

Quote:And there's no need for some wild conspiracy. ANY data any mainstream science debunking an old Earth must leave the scientist's hands immediately or he risks persecution.

"There's no need for some wild conspiracy, but if any scientist speaks out against an old earth, all the others conspire to persecute him!"

And don't think I didn't notice you provided no evidence, you just baselessly played the persecution card. I'm sure that's very convenient for you, arranging your assertions such that real scientific evidence pointing to your position is impossible, but I'm not required to take that seriously just because you said it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Esquilax's post
05-04-2015, 02:02 PM (This post was last modified: 06-04-2015 06:50 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(02-04-2015 10:22 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Actually, there are thousands of webpages online debunking uniformitarian science and a very old Earth.

What does that have to do with anything? There are tons of websites purporting 9/11 was a CIA conspiracy to draw us into war over oil...refuted by facts...hundreds of webpages about bigfoot...refuted by facts....hundreds of webpages about jesus...refuted by facts....hundreds of webpages about aliens on earth...refuted by facts...It is the quality, not the quantity of information that matters...1.6 billion people on earth think mohammad's consummation of his 9yo bride was divinely sanctioned too...doesnt make it right, or true...Ken Ham has a creation museum full of absolute lies, fabrication and delusion...just because some people are ignorant enough to go there and teach their kids ignorance...doesn't give his fairy tale credence...2 billion people cling to one of 40,000 versions of christianity...doesn't make it true...and this delusion has been solidly discredited too many times to count. If a proponent of young earth is someone who grew up in the faith, was home schooled or went to some private christian brain washing school, then on to a private university where he obtained a "doctorates degree in theology" and then he spins some misinformation and slaps it on a webpage with the "study proves christiainty is true" or some such hogwash, the fact he has a doctorates degree is irrelevant...it is the quality and validation of information, along with their education and credibility within the circles of knowledge that gives it some substantial heft....or complete ridicule if Dr Dipstick thinks jesus was a miracle performing demi god who rose from the grave and returned to heaven, while causing a zombie invasion and the earth to grow dark midday.

Understand the difference? Finding websites that support pseudoscience like AIG isn't hard, reading their assertions if one has some knowledge on the subject is just laughable and we can easily discredit the information.....only the truly brainwashed and ignorant could go along with their ridiculous posits. Actual agenda free professional and non-biased experts don't bother to engage and discredit these fairy tales most times, because they don't care what some wack job like Ken Ham is selling to people like you.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
06-04-2015, 09:18 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
All, we are going in circles, for which I do take some of the responsibility:

1. My "thousands of pages online" comment has to do with the fact that there are legitimate scientists commenting on the issues. However, we as individuals still need to read the facts and look them without simply parroting the page (either Christian or skeptic pages). For example, not one post in this 26-long pages of thread (unless I missed it) addressed my point re: the Greenland Ice Core research--that once you are taking cores of compacted snowfall, there is no way to determine the age of such snowfall, and therefore uniformitarian assumptions regarding a very old Earth are employed.

2. I'm not interested in repeating myself yet again on the Ice Core data--since I've opened lots of doors to look at the reasonable nature of the data on the ark, the Flood, etc. Let's move on or call it quits, please.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2015, 09:42 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(06-04-2015 09:18 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All, we are going in circles, for which I do take some of the responsibility:

1. My "thousands of pages online" comment has to do with the fact that there are legitimate scientists commenting on the issues. However, we as individuals still need to read the facts and look them without simply parroting the page (either Christian or skeptic pages). For example, not one post in this 26-long pages of thread (unless I missed it) addressed my point re: the Greenland Ice Core research--that once you are taking cores of compacted snowfall, there is no way to determine the age of such snowfall, and therefore uniformitarian assumptions regarding a very old Earth are employed.

2. I'm not interested in repeating myself yet again on the Ice Core data--since I've opened lots of doors to look at the reasonable nature of the data on the ark, the Flood, etc. Let's move on or call it quits, please.

GwG shed you to the woodbrought

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: