How can young earth creationism stand up to ice core data?

originally posted by: JameSimon
borntowatch pops up, this is promising. I have something for you:

I'm agnostic (not atheist) and I believe in the scientific method. I believe in some sort of "afterlife" and I would never say that a "creator", no matter what it is, is impossible. Now you tell me:

- Science provides proof, raw data, and constantly tries to negate itself to create more accurate / valid theories. We call this the scientific method;
- Religions base their beliefs in 2nd/3rd/4th (...) hand accounts and a few books that provide 0 proof, 0 data, expecting us to believe in "their word".

How people like me, believers in the scientific method, prayers to a religion that you call "Science"?

Well James Simon can you explain to me the scientific method that is used in evolution.

Other Than imagining the fossil record, assuming everything else.

Can you show me evolution in action, some macrobiology, I will take anything as long as it conforms to the scientific method.

Repeatable
Observable and
Testable.

Did you know that was the scientific method.

Now please end my misery and prove me wrong, get the data, post a link, with a description in your own words

No youtube, thats just I dont have time

Simple

It can't.

originally posted by: flyingfish

Ironically scientist are currently using radar and Isotopes in the ice core samples to identify Greenland's annual snow accumulation. 6-10 feet of ice a year is consistent for that area and one would expect planes to be under 260 feet of ice after 46 years.
Also, you fail to realize the ice core samples we are talking about are from depths reaching 9,000 feet and better! That's over a mile!

So can you confirm to me, in a clear and straightforward statement that you believe that you believe that, for the last 80 million years or whatever you believe, 6 to 8 foot of snow has fallen every year, no permafrosts, no ice ages, no global warming anomalies

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: flyingfish

Ironically scientist are currently using radar and Isotopes in the ice core samples to identify Greenland's annual snow accumulation. 6-10 feet of ice a year is consistent for that area and one would expect planes to be under 260 feet of ice after 46 years.
Also, you fail to realize the ice core samples we are talking about are from depths reaching 9,000 feet and better! That's over a mile!

So can you confirm to me, in a clear and straightforward statement that you believe that you believe that, for the last 80 million years or whatever you believe, 6 to 8 foot of snow has fallen every year, no permafrosts, no ice ages, no global warming anomalies

Oh, it's you again. What a surprise. Not. Permafrost affects soil under certain temperatures. So you obviously fail to understand that. When there are ice ages there is going to be more snow, to the point where they become glaciers. And under global climate change said glaciers will weaken and then retreat. Have you seen Chasing Ice yet? I recommend it.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: flyingfish

Ironically scientist are currently using radar and Isotopes in the ice core samples to identify Greenland's annual snow accumulation. 6-10 feet of ice a year is consistent for that area and one would expect planes to be under 260 feet of ice after 46 years.
Also, you fail to realize the ice core samples we are talking about are from depths reaching 9,000 feet and better! That's over a mile!

So can you confirm to me, in a clear and straightforward statement that you believe that you believe that, for the last 80 million years or whatever you believe, 6 to 8 foot of snow has fallen every year, no permafrosts, no ice ages, no global warming anomalies

No...Please keep up!
6-8 feet snow a year would only accommodate information from ice cores in that area, at that depth, and at that age of 46 year accumilation.
If you want to observe ice ages and climate change you must go further (deeper) back in time. If you actually bothered to read the article you would have learned these ice cores are very old in depths up to 3000 m.

a reply to: flyingfish

you realize that at say 250 feet in 45 years then

9k feet is only 1620 years...

not exactly that long ago

in order to go back say 10000 years you would need a depth of aprox 55,555 feet

or aprox 10 miles

to go back 800k years like the op states its like 800 miles

these are just back of napkin numbers but ....well...

just sayin

a reply to: Another_Nut

A few issues here that need to be addresses.
1. Ice core samples are taken from latitues that are much higher than where the WW2 plane was found in Greenland.

2.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.

3. The planes are on an active glacier and have moved approx. 2km since they landed. The movement of the glacier also impacts the burial depth.

4. The planes had landed(and consequently were found) near the coast towards the southern end of Greenland at a location that 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
5. The planes are buried under 268 feet of SNOW not ice. Huge difference in context no?


You are comparing the depth of snow over the tops of planes on a moving glacier to stable regions where ice cores are taken from to obtain your estimates of 9000 feet = 1600 years. Let's look at the Vostok core sample taken in the 70's.

It was a total of 2083 meters in lengths. Less than 9000 feet. It goes back 160,000 years +/- 15KA

To demonstrate the methods used in dating ice-cores I will use the Vostok ice-core as an example because I found plenty of literature on it and because it is an Antarctic ice-core which was what the original post was about.

How It Was Collected

The Vostok Ice-Core was collected in East Antarctica by the Russian Antarctic expedition. The Vostok Ice-Core is 2,083 meters long and was collected in two portions: 1) 0 - 950 m in 1970-1974, 2) 950 - 2083 m in 1982-1983. The total depth of the ice sheet from which the core was collected is approximately 3,700 meters.

Experimental Methodology

The ice core was sliced into 1.5-2.0 meter segments. A discontinuous series sampled every 25 meters and a continuous series from 1,406 to 2,803 meters were then sent in solid form to Grenoble, France for further analysis.

At Grenoble the ice was put into clean stainless steel containers. The samples were crushed and then melted with the gases given off collected and saved for further analysis. The melt water was tested for chemical composition and then electrolysised.

The methods used in the determination of the ages include 18O/16O isotopic analysis [1], independent ice-flow calculations [1], comparison with other ice cores [1], paleoclimatic comparison [1], comparison with deep sea cores [1], 10Be/9Be isotopic analysis [2], deuterium/hydrogen isotopic analysis [3], comparison with marine climatic record [3], CO2 correspondances between dated ice-cores [4] and CO2 correspondances with dated oceanic cores [4].

The results determined from these various samples were consistent between the continuous and discontinuous slices within the sections that overlapped. They were also consistent with Greenland ice-cores, other Antarctic ice-cores, dated volcanic records, deep sea cores, and paleoclimatic evidence.

Results

While unable to provide specific dates (within a millenia), the analysis show definate evidence of the the last two ice ages. Using the methods listed above the bottom of the ice-core was laid down 160,000 +- 15,000 years ago. It should be noted that all of the methods listed above were consistent with the above results.

Just a further note on dating ice core samples... 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.

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: flyingfish

you realize that at say 250 feet in 45 years then

9k feet is only 1620 years...

not exactly that long ago

in order to go back say 10000 years you would need a depth of aprox 55,555 feet

or aprox 10 miles

to go back 800k years like the op states its like 800 miles

these are just back of napkin numbers but ....well...

just sayin

Thanks for the reply.
But, If you bothered to read the thread you would know I was answering this post!
The poster was confused about World War II bombers buried in 260 feet of ice in Greenland.
The Planes do not disprove ice core data!

Many Christians and I have many on my Facebook feed. Do believe that Genesis must be taken literally and that the earth therefore must be as old as the genealogy is outlined in the bible. That's where they get the 6-10,000 year stuff.

Proof is in how popular Ken Ham and his ilk are.

You may have problems or more accurately questions as to how accurate carbon dating is etc, but from all the scientific evidence...everything together...it points to a very old earth....I have to go with Billions of years.

For the sake of argument, let's say that creationism is correct...um..who says that Christianity is correct? What of the ancient Babylonians or Greeks or Sumarians or Aztec or Muslims...which creation theory must we accept. Which one is correct?

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Methods

At the Bern laboratory, four to six samples of approximately 8 grams from each depth level (0.55m intervals) in the ice core are crushed under vacuum conditions. The sample container is connected to a cold trap for several minutes to release air from the clathrates and the air is then expanded to a measuring cell where a laser measures absorption in a vibration–rotation transition line of the CO2 molecule. Calibration is done using a CO2-in-air standard gas of 251.65 parts per million by volume (ppmv) scaled on the WMO mole fraction scale. At Grenoble (Laboratory of Glaciology, Geophysics and Environment) one to three ice samples of about 40 grams each are crushed under vacuum conditions, and after about 20 minutes the extracted gas is expanded in the sample loop of a gas chromatograph and analyzed. Depending on the amount of extracted air, three to five successive analyses are done. To avoid possible effects of water-vapor interference, the CO2 ratio is calculated as the ratio of the CO2 peak to the air (O2 + N2) peak. Calibration is done using an Air Liquide standard scaled on CSIRO standards (172.8 ppmv, 260.3 ppmv, and 321.1 ppmv). Uncertainty is a few ppmv; measurement error for the Bern laboratory is given in the data file, and the Grenoble Lab generally compares within a few ppmv for the common time interval.

Quote from above source.

I've had the privilege of seeing first-hand, ice cores from Antarctica, stored at the Rafter Laboratories of IGNS

New Zealand Ice Core Research Facility

Man, was it cold!!!

originally posted by: TheChrome
My question is: Why do atheists/evolutionists think the bible says the earth was created 6000 years ago? Have they read the bible? Probably not. Presumably they are quoting other certain people who claim to be Christian, who probably haven't read the bible either.

Do you honestly believe that it is the atheists who believe that? That is the claim made by young earth creationists. Most folks don't care what the bible says if they are not believers. The 6,000 number is what creationists believe they have added up to equal the presumed lineage in the bible. The bible itself doesn't actually say that. I don't understand why they are so adamant about that figure as it involves humans that live 900+ years and all kinds of other weird assumptions.

originally posted by: borntowatch
Well James Simon can you explain to me the scientific method that is used in evolution.
Other Than imagining the fossil record, assuming everything else.
Can you show me evolution in action, some macrobiology, I will take anything as long as it conforms to the scientific method.
Repeatable
Observable and
Testable.
Did you know that was the scientific method.
Now please end my misery and prove me wrong, get the data, post a link, with a description in your own words
No youtube, thats just I dont have time

Challenge accepted, only took me 10 seconds to find macro evolution in observable time:~

Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows.

In just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder bite, researchers say.

Link

“Striking differences in head size and shape, increased bite strength and the development of new structures in the lizard’s digestive tracts were noted after only 36 years, which is an extremely short time scale,” says Duncan Irschick, a professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “These physical changes have occurred side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure.”

Link

Ecologists have published a paper showing that when drastic environmental and population changes occur, rapid evolution takes over to ensure a species survives.

The study, published in Ecology Letters and carried out by researchers from the University of Leeds, Umeå University in Sweden and the University of Aberdeen, shows that environmental changes and selective culling of soil mite populations leads to significantly altered ages of maturity.For instance, when the adult population was significantly culled, it took just 20 generations for the mites to double the time spent as juveniles.

Link

originally posted by: CB328
I just found a good website about the dating of ice cores. What's interesting is that they mention how they can be dated in other ways than just counting ice layers, which makes it very credible to me. If the earth was created just 6000 years ago, then how can ice sheets be dated back to 800,000 years?

www.antarcticglaciers.org...

It's all a trick by Satan to lead you astray of the REAL truth? Didn't you know? That's how they seemingly wave away dinosaur bones.

a reply to: JameSimon

Born's response will be that you have only proved adaptation within kinds and rant on about how macro is magically different from micro evolution. He'll only believe evolution if we can watch a cat turn into a dog in real time or if a monkey gives birth to a human.

originally posted by: CB328
I just found a good website about the dating of ice cores. What's interesting is that they mention how they can be dated in other ways than just counting ice layers, which makes it very credible to me. If the earth was created just 6000 years ago, then how can ice sheets be dated back to 800,000 years?

www.antarcticglaciers.org...

I can see what you're saying, however dating ice cores in based upon a whole host of scientific assumptions passed off as fact.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Don't keep us in suspense! What exactly are these assumptions you allude to.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Don't keep us in suspense! What exactly are these assumptions you allude to.

I'm off to work, but count me in! I love assumed facts...lol.

a reply to: CB328

It can't, really simple.

Young earth creationism is more of a straw man in 2015 for atheists and evolutionists anyways.
Any Christian that can think for themselves, doesn't have to believe what the clergy is dogmatically teaching which are lies.

This is really simple, Genesis 1:1 includes the formation of the planet earth, it is an undetermined period of time.
So when science say the earth is 4 Billion plus years old that seems about right to me.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Young earth creationism is more of a straw man in 2015 for atheists and evolutionists anyways.

I think you need to read up on what a strawman argument actually is.

YECs exist. They post their nonsense here. They routinely get debunked. Repeat.

Any Christian that can think for themselves, doesn't have to believe what the clergy is dogmatically teaching which are lies.

"No true Scotsman". Except that the YECs would say the same about you.

This is really simple, Genesis 1:1 includes the formation of the planet earth, it is an undetermined period of time.
So when science say the earth is 4 Billion plus years old that seems about right to me.

The account of genesis is a fairy tale, made up by people who knew no better. Attempting to retcon science into Genesis is not only absurd but utterly doomed to failure.

a reply to: GetHyped

YECs exist. They post their nonsense here.

Yeah and it's trolling the intelligent discussion at this point, when it does happen, but it is getting rarer, I am in these threads all the time and hardly see them anymore.