It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

If it's an insult to tell you that you are wrong, and that you are coming from an unscientific position of ignorance, then I don't know what to say. The link you just posted supports ice core data, it doesn't claim it's unreliable or that facts are assumed. I don't see the problems you refer to. Can you at least quote them?


The posted link is full of the inherent difficulties associated with dating ice core... If you just look you will see them too.

For example... When counting ice rings you are looking for items that vary with the seasons in a consistent manner.

That there my friend is an assumption.




posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Not at all. This has already been covered, if not in this thread, at least in another.
Just because you don't understand doesn't mean it's wrong...



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Howdy,

I quite like the story of the lost squadron. Could you explain why it is impossible that ice dating is accurate in more stable ice fields? Also, I'm unaware of any ice core analyses of the glacier in which the squadron was found. I am aware there are inaccuracies and things that need to be considered when analyzing ice core data, but what does this example show other than that there are different precipitation and ice accumulation rates in different areas?

Sincere regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

LINK

This scientists work for example shows that decay rates are potentially not consistent.

The assumed consistent decay rates of radio active isotopes is an assumption.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Howdy,

I'm sorry to tell you those results are no longer considered accurate. Decay rates measured since then have not shown the same seasonal variance.

phys.org...

Regards,
Hydeman
edit on 13-8-2015 by hydeman11 because: edit for clarity



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: aorAki
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Not at all. This has already been covered, if not in this thread, at least in another.
Just because you don't understand doesn't mean it's wrong...


And we humbly wait with baited breath while you find a link to said proof...



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Phantom423

LINK

This scientists work for example shows that decay rates are potentially not consistent.

The assumed consistent decay rates of radio active isotopes is an assumption.


That isn't what he said at all. You're implying that ALL radioactive decay rates are in question. They are not. Manganese and its various isotopes have a decay rate from less than a nanosecond to approximately 1 second. 81Kr, which is used in ice core samplings, has a decay rate of 2.29(11)×105 a, or 229,000 years.

If radioactive decay rates were inaccurate, every diagnostic tool used in medicine that employs radioactive materials would put out false results. The H bomb could have never been developed. Nuclear energy could never be developed.

The impact of neutrinos or other particles generated by the Sun may change rates on a very small micro scale, but on the macro scale that is used in all aspects of engineering, science and medicine, they are accurate. He's a particle physicist - he's researching on an entirely different level.

In any case, it's not at all relevant to ice core analysis.

This is the original paper which describes the phenomenon:
arxiv.org...



edit on 13-8-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Howdy,

I'm sorry to tell you those results are no longer considered accurate. Decay rates measured since then have not shown the same seasonal variance.

phys.org...

Regards,
Hydeman


You my friend are very possibly right. The question was posed 'how can young earth creationism stand up to ice core data?'
It is not my intention nor do I need to prove that ice core doesn't work. I'm only required to show the inherent cracks in the models put forward.

Example.

The mathematics of radioactive decay depend on a key assumption that a nucleus of a radionuclide has no "memory" or way of translating its history into its present behavior.

Assumption.

I was fascinated by the link you posted however in the articles final sentience the word 'Assumption' appears in a key contextual location within the sentience.

I said that ice core dating was based upon assumptions and I have shown this.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Howdy,

I'm sorry to tell you those results are no longer considered accurate. Decay rates measured since then have not shown the same seasonal variance.

phys.org...

Regards,
Hydeman


You my friend are very possibly right. The question was posed 'how can young earth creationism stand up to ice core data?'
It is not my intention nor do I need to prove that ice core doesn't work. I'm only required to show the inherent cracks in the models put forward.

Example.

The mathematics of radioactive decay depend on a key assumption that a nucleus of a radionuclide has no "memory" or way of translating its history into its present behavior.

Assumption.

I was fascinated by the link you posted however in the articles final sentience the word 'Assumption' appears in a key contextual location within the sentience.

I said that ice core dating was based upon assumptions and I have shown this.


You haven't shown anything. Where's the probability model? Assumptions are based on probability models that have various degrees of freedom. If there's a model out there that shows a low probability of accuracy, show it to me.


edit on 13-8-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)


And you're wrong about "memory" - all elements decay to form other elements beginning with lead (or naturium). The "memory" is all around you.

Just to clarify - that's Pb204, or the primordial nuclide, not the nuclides which have isotopes.


edit on 13-8-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-8-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: aorAki
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Not at all. This has already been covered, if not in this thread, at least in another.
Just because you don't understand doesn't mean it's wrong...


And we humbly wait with baited breath while you find a link to said proof...


Well, it just goes to show that you haven't actually read through this thread. It was on page 2:


originally posted by: peter vlar
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.

edit on 13-8-2015 by aorAki because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Howdy,

If you are not arguing against the utility of the science, then I can't say I disagree that there are indeed (as you say) certain scenarios in which ice core data is inaccurate or needs to be considered in light of theories previously established. To borrow a phrase from the philosophy of science, all scientific endeavors are "theory laden." If that's your point, I have nothing to argue.

Regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
The ice core data could be wrong.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: starfoxxx

Howdy,

I get what you are saying, but data is never wrong. Interpretations can be wrong. The cores could be contaminated. Interpretation of the data can be incorrect. The data, though, is the data.

Regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: starfoxxx

Howdy,

I get what you are saying, but data is never wrong. Interpretations can be wrong. The cores could be contaminated. Interpretation of the data can be incorrect. The data, though, is the data.

Regards,
Hydeman


The 'data' would be wrong if you got it from an incorrect method of extracting the data.. while data can present us with better insights, predictions, and decisions, it can be misleading and, at times, plain useless. wrong data



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   
So you really expect people to believe that 800,000 layers could develop in just 6000 years?



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

You my friend are very possibly right. The question was posed 'how can young earth creationism stand up to ice core data?'
It is not my intention nor do I need to prove that ice core doesn't work. I'm only required to show the inherent cracks in the models put forward.

Example.

The mathematics of radioactive decay depend on a key assumption that a nucleus of a radionuclide has no "memory" or way of translating its history into its present behavior.

Assumption.

I was fascinated by the link you posted however in the articles final sentience the word 'Assumption' appears in a key contextual location within the sentience.

I said that ice core dating was based upon assumptions and I have shown this.


How big of a factor do you honestly believe this application is in regards to dating of ice cores? It's not as if ice core dates are derived from one singular test let alone one date based off of gaseous inclusions. There are 8 cross referenced dating methodologies used on ice core samples just off the top of my head and the radioactive dating of gaseous inclusions is just one of them. And of that method, 2 substances are tested for and used for dating. 14C and 36CL. I'm willing to give you a little leeway regarding your doubts on 36CL as it's got a fairly long half life of around 300KA. However 14C with it's 5700 year half life can in and of itself be cross referenced and verified with dendrochronology and guess what? It's always a match within a verrrryyyy small margin of error. So if you can calibrate your tests of 14C with the dendro cross reference, there really isn't a question as to the validity of the dates derived from that particular method. And again, there are over a half dozen additional tests that are then cross referenced. Ice cores are never going to give you a specific date down to a month and year but they can certainly give a pretty precise mean of paleoclimatic data for a given time frame with a reasonably small margin of error.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:48 AM
link   
The question of whether or not carbon dating is accurate, is still valid.
Science could prove the creation theory, if they were not so dead against it!

Who is to say that our focus on/in time is the very reason we are not limitless.
Don't get me wrong, I like living as a human in this time space continuum but I also know that that is not all there is.


Don't forget the power of now!



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodwoman
The question of whether or not carbon dating is accurate, is still valid.
Science could prove the creation theory, if they were not so dead against it!

Who is to say that our focus on/in time is the very reason we are not limitless.
Don't get me wrong, I like living as a human in this time space continuum but I also know that that is not all there is.


Don't forget the power of now!


Carbon dating has limited use over 50,000 years. If you read through this thread, you would see that 81Kr has been shown to be highly accurate and verified by non-correlated data.

You folks refuse to understand how science works. Hence, perpetual ignorance.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: starfoxxx
The ice core data could be wrong.


The only way you would know it was "wrong" is if you conducted a similar study under the same initial conditions and came up with very different data. You didn't do that. So why make a statement that 1) you can't verify and 2) has such a low probability of being correct that it's statistically irrelevant???



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: starfoxxx
The ice core data could be wrong.


The only way you would know it was "wrong" is if you conducted a similar study under the same initial conditions and came up with very different data. You didn't do that. So why make a statement that 1) you can't verify and 2) has such a low probability of being correct that it's statistically irrelevant???




OP asked a question i answered it...

Let me guess, you also believe the 'global warming' science... They said 20 years ago all the ice caps would be melted
by now... Science is not a religion, do not use it as one..




top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join