Science Proves the Bible Again

[bripat9643]

no it doesnt

Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki​

Ice layering: 145,000

A section of an ice core with clearly defined annual layers.

Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.

Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.

Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists.[20]

Nevertheless, the age of the Earth identified by these means is 160,000 years (±15,000 years), which makes it excruciatingly unlikely that the ice is anything less than 145,000 years. ​

if something was buried 75 yrs ago how many ice layers would there be???

I'm not sure I understand your question.

you wouldnt


ice llayers mean nothing


The lost squadron - creation.com

Ignorance, falsehoods and misrepresentations brought to you by the charlatans at one of the most notoriously inept fundamentalist ministries.

Do you have a link to any article the explains how "Glacier Girl" was discovered 268 feet under the ice?

 

[bripat9643]

Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki​

Ice layering: 145,000

A section of an ice core with clearly defined annual layers.

Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.

Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.

Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists.[20]

Nevertheless, the age of the Earth identified by these means is 160,000 years (±15,000 years), which makes it excruciatingly unlikely that the ice is anything less than 145,000 years. ​

if something was buried 75 yrs ago how many ice layers would there be???

I'm not sure I understand your question.

you wouldnt


ice llayers mean nothing


The lost squadron - creation.com

You mean the don't show the snow that accumulated over a year?

NOPE,, and if you read the article it will show the planes were buried about 75 yrs ago and had hundreds if not thousands of layers and was several hundred feet deep

We don't know how many layers there were. The people who recovered the plane didn't give a crap about counting the number of ice layers. We also don't know how thick each layer was.

 

[progressive hunter]

Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki​

Ice layering: 145,000

A section of an ice core with clearly defined annual layers.

Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.

Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.

Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists.[20]

Nevertheless, the age of the Earth identified by these means is 160,000 years (±15,000 years), which makes it excruciatingly unlikely that the ice is anything less than 145,000 years. ​

if something was buried 75 yrs ago how many ice layers would there be???

I'm not sure I understand your question.

you wouldnt


ice llayers mean nothing


The lost squadron - creation.com

Ignorance, falsehoods and misrepresentations brought to you by the charlatans at one of the most notoriously inept fundamentalist ministries.

Do you have a link to any article the explains how "Glacier Girl" was discovered to be 268 feet under the ice?

do you??

 

[Wyatt earp]

More evidence for God. Science backs up the Bible regarding porn use.

"The Bible tells us, in 1 Corinthians 6:18, that sexual sin has negative physical consequences:

Escape from sexual immorality. Every sin that a man commits is outside the body. But he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. (MEV)

Now, science has confirmed what God’s word has established.

Regardless of the type of sexual sin—premarital sex, adultery, or viewing pornography—it alters how the human brain functions. Indulged in repeatedly, one’s conscience is seared, a physical change in the brain that numbs one to the guilt and conviction of his or her wrongdoing.

MORE POWERFUL THAN MORPHINE

The producers of the Conquer Series—a cinematic DVD series that helps men break free from pornography— note that when porn is viewed, powerful hormones are released, including:

• oxytocin—called “the love hormone,” it is typically released when one is hugged or kissed, regulating social interactions, sexual reproduction, and human bonding.
• vasopressin—used as medication, it numbs pain.

This concoction of hormones rewires the brain, giving it the wrong material, luring one deeper into a prison of his or her own making. It’s intoxicating, intended to bring loved ones closer and promote mental healing, but instead having the opposite effect and confusing the mind.

Conquer Series expert contributor Heart to Heart Counseling Center Executive Director Dr. Doug Weiss said:

When [you] have a sexual experience, your brains makes these opiates which [are] four times stronger than morphine. Boom! It hits your brain, your brain lights up like a Christmas tree. This is the highest chemical reward your brain gets for anything. That’s why a lot of guys get in trouble, even in ministry. They don’t know their brain is defective.

This way, sexual sin takes a profound toll on the brain, and the rest of the body. The sinner knows watching porn is a shameful act that must be kept secret, yet each time one views it, he or she “trusts” it more as a result of the pairing and deep mental bond forged by the hormones."

TruNews with Rick Wiles, Real News, Latest News, Christian News

An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense

People get addicted on porn like drugs. That is not nonsense. It sounds you're addicted to nonsense.

On the other hand, you're addicted to sidestepping and deflection when direct refutation is presented to biblical "science" claims.

Absurdities of biblical "science" claims are easily refuted.

What's the most prescribed medicine? It's pain relief meds and people are wanting the strongest, getting addicted and dying for it.

Why do we watch porn for? Pleasure and prurient interest.

The above chemicals are good in moderation. What argument do you have when they are in excess and not in moderation, i.e. causing one to head towards addiction?

I'm only telling it like it is -- TRUTH. Your Satan filter has made you see "sidestepping and deflection" and think you have "direct refutation" when you are the one who is WRONG. Like I have been saying atheists and their scientists are usually wrong. Otherwise, you would be presenting better arguments by using the scientific method. None of your theories are observable, testable nor falsifiable while science backs up the Bible.

You won't be able to answer my question, when I just presented more evidence for the Bible and how science backs it up. This is ancient text we found and verified and it knows about stuff people do on the internet today.

Sorry, your appeals to Satan and other ancient fears and superstitious nonsense are yours to resolve.

The facts are, biological evolution, science, medicine... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Further, we actually have repeatable results that confirm the reliability of the scientific method, Your loathing for science, for reason and rationality while living your miserable existence in trembling fear of angry gods is truly pitiable. When it comes to ancient tales and fables, which are demonstrably wrong, the ranting from the hyper-religious devolve quickly into screeching tirades.

For all your screeching about “bible science”, it’s obvious you can’t provide a single, specific “scientific fact” from any of the various bibles.

keep on telling yourself that holly.....................

• The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.
  
  
• The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.
  
  
• The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.
  
  
• Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.
  
  
• The mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.
  
  
• Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.
  

 

[progressive hunter]

if something was buried 75 yrs ago how many ice layers would there be???

I'm not sure I understand your question.

you wouldnt


ice llayers mean nothing


The lost squadron - creation.com

You mean the don't show the snow that accumulated over a year?

NOPE,, and if you read the article it will show the planes were buried about 75 yrs ago and had hundreds if not thousands of layers and was several hundred feet deep

We don't know how many layers there were. The people who recovered the plane didn't give a crap about counting the number of ice layers. We also don't know how thick each layer was.

the pictures and video speak for themselves,,,its you that chooses to remain ignorant of them

 

[Hollie]

Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki​

Ice layering: 145,000

A section of an ice core with clearly defined annual layers.

Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.

Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.

Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists.[20]

Nevertheless, the age of the Earth identified by these means is 160,000 years (±15,000 years), which makes it excruciatingly unlikely that the ice is anything less than 145,000 years. ​

if something was buried 75 yrs ago how many ice layers would there be???

I'm not sure I understand your question.

you wouldnt


ice llayers mean nothing


The lost squadron - creation.com

You mean the don't show the snow that accumulated over a year?

NOPE,, and if you read the article it will show the planes were buried about 75 yrs ago and had hundreds if not thousands of layers and was several hundred feet deep

How would the charlatans at your fundie Christian ministry know how many layers of ice had accumulated?

Why don’t you present the data, ice cores, published papers they presented.

Thanks.

 

[progressive hunter]

if something was buried 75 yrs ago how many ice layers would there be???

I'm not sure I understand your question.

you wouldnt


ice llayers mean nothing


The lost squadron - creation.com

You mean the don't show the snow that accumulated over a year?

NOPE,, and if you read the article it will show the planes were buried about 75 yrs ago and had hundreds if not thousands of layers and was several hundred feet deep

How would the charlatans at your fundie Christian ministry know how many layers of ice had accumulated?

Why don’t you present the data, ice cores, published papers they presented.

Thanks.

sorry after your insults I would never try and debate a dumbcunt like you

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense

People get addicted on porn like drugs. That is not nonsense. It sounds you're addicted to nonsense.

On the other hand, you're addicted to sidestepping and deflection when direct refutation is presented to biblical "science" claims.

Absurdities of biblical "science" claims are easily refuted.

What's the most prescribed medicine? It's pain relief meds and people are wanting the strongest, getting addicted and dying for it.

Why do we watch porn for? Pleasure and prurient interest.

The above chemicals are good in moderation. What argument do you have when they are in excess and not in moderation, i.e. causing one to head towards addiction?

I'm only telling it like it is -- TRUTH. Your Satan filter has made you see "sidestepping and deflection" and think you have "direct refutation" when you are the one who is WRONG. Like I have been saying atheists and their scientists are usually wrong. Otherwise, you would be presenting better arguments by using the scientific method. None of your theories are observable, testable nor falsifiable while science backs up the Bible.

You won't be able to answer my question, when I just presented more evidence for the Bible and how science backs it up. This is ancient text we found and verified and it knows about stuff people do on the internet today.

Sorry, your appeals to Satan and other ancient fears and superstitious nonsense are yours to resolve.

The facts are, biological evolution, science, medicine... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Further, we actually have repeatable results that confirm the reliability of the scientific method, Your loathing for science, for reason and rationality while living your miserable existence in trembling fear of angry gods is truly pitiable. When it comes to ancient tales and fables, which are demonstrably wrong, the ranting from the hyper-religious devolve quickly into screeching tirades.

For all your screeching about “bible science”, it’s obvious you can’t provide a single, specific “scientific fact” from any of the various bibles.

keep on telling yourself that holly.....................

• The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.
  
  
• The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.
  
  
• The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.
  
  
• Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.
  
  
• The mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.
  
  
• Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.

Haha,yet another charlatan,retro-fitting cherry picked nonsense after the fact. What of all the biblical nonsense proven to be bullshit?

And where is all the knowledge and successful predictions from this batch of magical bullshit? Where were the biblical physicists, describingthe big bang, in the year 1500? Why is it you charlatans have to wait until this stuff os discovered? Why aren't you using the Bible to discover it?

Funny how the Bible allegedly teaches us about all this...and yet every one of you frauds had to wait for hard working scientists to dedicate their lives to extracting this knowledge, before any of you could wrap it in the veneer of your magical bullshit....

 

[progressive hunter]

People get addicted on porn like drugs. That is not nonsense. It sounds you're addicted to nonsense.

On the other hand, you're addicted to sidestepping and deflection when direct refutation is presented to biblical "science" claims.

Absurdities of biblical "science" claims are easily refuted.

What's the most prescribed medicine? It's pain relief meds and people are wanting the strongest, getting addicted and dying for it.

Why do we watch porn for? Pleasure and prurient interest.

The above chemicals are good in moderation. What argument do you have when they are in excess and not in moderation, i.e. causing one to head towards addiction?

I'm only telling it like it is -- TRUTH. Your Satan filter has made you see "sidestepping and deflection" and think you have "direct refutation" when you are the one who is WRONG. Like I have been saying atheists and their scientists are usually wrong. Otherwise, you would be presenting better arguments by using the scientific method. None of your theories are observable, testable nor falsifiable while science backs up the Bible.

You won't be able to answer my question, when I just presented more evidence for the Bible and how science backs it up. This is ancient text we found and verified and it knows about stuff people do on the internet today.

Sorry, your appeals to Satan and other ancient fears and superstitious nonsense are yours to resolve.

The facts are, biological evolution, science, medicine... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Further, we actually have repeatable results that confirm the reliability of the scientific method, Your loathing for science, for reason and rationality while living your miserable existence in trembling fear of angry gods is truly pitiable. When it comes to ancient tales and fables, which are demonstrably wrong, the ranting from the hyper-religious devolve quickly into screeching tirades.

For all your screeching about “bible science”, it’s obvious you can’t provide a single, specific “scientific fact” from any of the various bibles.

keep on telling yourself that holly.....................

• The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.
  
  
• The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.
  
  
• The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.
  
  
• Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.
  
  
• The mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.
  
  
• Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.

Haha,yet another charlatan,retro-fotting cherry picked nonaense after the fact. What of a the biblical nonsense proven to be bullshit?

And where is all the knowledge and successful predictions from this batch of magical bullshit? Where were the biblical physicists, describingthe big bang, in the year 1500?

Funny how the Bible allegedly teaches us about all this...and yetevery one of you frauds had to wait for hard working scientists to dedicate their lives to extracting this knowledge, before any of you could wrap it in the veneer of your magical bullshit....

troll

 

[Hollie]

An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense

People get addicted on porn like drugs. That is not nonsense. It sounds you're addicted to nonsense.

On the other hand, you're addicted to sidestepping and deflection when direct refutation is presented to biblical "science" claims.

Absurdities of biblical "science" claims are easily refuted.

What's the most prescribed medicine? It's pain relief meds and people are wanting the strongest, getting addicted and dying for it.

Why do we watch porn for? Pleasure and prurient interest.

The above chemicals are good in moderation. What argument do you have when they are in excess and not in moderation, i.e. causing one to head towards addiction?

I'm only telling it like it is -- TRUTH. Your Satan filter has made you see "sidestepping and deflection" and think you have "direct refutation" when you are the one who is WRONG. Like I have been saying atheists and their scientists are usually wrong. Otherwise, you would be presenting better arguments by using the scientific method. None of your theories are observable, testable nor falsifiable while science backs up the Bible.

You won't be able to answer my question, when I just presented more evidence for the Bible and how science backs it up. This is ancient text we found and verified and it knows about stuff people do on the internet today.

Sorry, your appeals to Satan and other ancient fears and superstitious nonsense are yours to resolve.

The facts are, biological evolution, science, medicine... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Further, we actually have repeatable results that confirm the reliability of the scientific method, Your loathing for science, for reason and rationality while living your miserable existence in trembling fear of angry gods is truly pitiable. When it comes to ancient tales and fables, which are demonstrably wrong, the ranting from the hyper-religious devolve quickly into screeching tirades.

For all your screeching about “bible science”, it’s obvious you can’t provide a single, specific “scientific fact” from any of the various bibles.

keep on telling yourself that holly.....................

• The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.
  
  
• The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.
  
  
• The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.
  
  
• Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.
  
  
• The mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.
  
  
• Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.

As usual, nothing in that long cut and paste speaks to anything but vague generalities.

 

[bripat9643]

if something was buried 75 yrs ago how many ice layers would there be???

I'm not sure I understand your question.

you wouldnt


ice llayers mean nothing


The lost squadron - creation.com

Ignorance, falsehoods and misrepresentations brought to you by the charlatans at one of the most notoriously inept fundamentalist ministries.

Do you have a link to any article the explains how "Glacier Girl" was discovered to be 268 feet under the ice?

do you??

The answer is that is snows more near the coast of Greenland where the plane crashed than were the ice cores were drilled, which is near the center of the continent. Near the coast Greenland gets about 1.5 meters of snow per year. 75 x 1.5 x 3.28 = 369 feet. Some compression undoubtedly occurred.

plucking creationism's low-hanging fruit: Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron

Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron


This is my first post here and I want to get into the meat of an argument I've had with a creationist here in Busan. Still, some background is probably necessary.

My creationist coworker sent me a long (20 page) discussion of why secular science is wrong about the age of the Earth. That was the first article he gave me. He has now sent me four or five and all of a similar length and breadth. There are two problems with much of the stuff he sends me. Well, two problems that affect my ability to respond.

First, although he gives an enormous number of references and links, he has admitted that he has not read all of them. To my uncertain knowledge, of the 39 bullet point examples he gives showing that modern science's aging techniques are wrong, he has read fewer than 10% himself. I believe this to true for all the references and mined quotes he offers. I feel that with his name on the article, all errors affect his credibility.
Second, he occasionally covers material that I don't understand well enough to critique and I don't think he understands well enough to use as a defense. For example, I know the absolute basics of radiocarbon dating and nothing of the practicalities. How does one collect a sample and ensure it is not contaminated? I don't know. For me, this is reason enough to read the articles with interest but not to post them with my stamp of approval. I'm not asking for expertise - that would be hypocritical- but when I offer a link, I do so only if I understand the concepts.

The article I'm starting on today covered many aspects of how to date the Earth or what is wrong with dating methods that give answers greater than 6-10,000 years. This article had many different articles and links in it and I am looking at one of these titled, "Ice Core Sample Dating/ The Lost Squadron". The original was by Carl Wieland and my coworker appears to have copied it in its entirety from creation.com/the-lost-squadron although the article contains a hyperlink to Answers in Genesis. I don't think there are copyright issues as he has given links and this means I can share a link the original article.

In brief, the Wieland's article attempts to show why ice cores taken from Greenland glaciers cannot show ages of tens of thousands of years. That material would be rather dry, and is in fact untrue, so he uses the dramatic true story of a fleet of US fighters and bombers that crash landed on the island as a disguise or hook. Indeed, of the fifteen or so paragraphs, ten describe the fate of the aircraft and only a few actually discuss ice cores. One of the key excerpts:
...the 3000-metre-long ice core [brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992] would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation.
The article is amazing as a tutorial in how to lie by omission. One would imagine that the ice cores were taken very near the crash-site. but the two are in fact hundreds of kilometres apart and in what I would describe as different climatic areas. The planes are near the coast where they receive ocean-effect precipitation (Wikipedia - short version: lots), while the ice core site is more than a hundred kilometres inland. Here is all the location information given:
Regarding the planes: "Realising that their only hope was to crash-land on the icy wastes of Greenland’s east coast, they desperately searched till they found a break in the cloud cover."
And here is everything the article has to say about the location of the ice cores: " "

On maps, the two locations are clearly distant. Further, one is quite distant inland, while the other is on the coast. Maps (Glacier Girl, Eismitte):







A possibly more accurate map of the ice core site is here.

Why is it important that one site is on the coast and the other more than a hundred kilometres inland? Because of something called Ocean Effect Snow. This is also known as Lake effect snow and simply describes the phenomenon of greater snowfall occurring close to unfrozen bodies of water than distant from water. Greenland's coast around the crash site received about 1.5 metres of snow per year but that does not mean that inland site would get a similar amount.

How much snow does the Eismitte get?
Between 1910 and '28, it received less than half a metre a year.



More recently (and from a different, but nearby location):






Both show average snowfalls of less than half a metre - the average in the image is 0.24- metres.
---
Added later: True Size Map shows the size of countries without distortion brought on by using a Mercator projection map. Because Greenland is so far north, it looks huge. In True Size Map, I pulled it down to the continental USA and it is a lot narrower there - but still longer North-South than the USA so clearly saying the two events are in Greenland cannot mean they must have similar weather conditions


---

I believe I have shown why Weiland's article cannot be trusted and is probably deliberately dishonest. Is there more to the story? Yes, thanks for asking.

From Weiland's article:
In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years. This is the only description of how secular scientists (should those two words be in quotes?) determine the age of segments of the ice core. There is no attempt to show why varying isotope ratios should be incorrect either. Left out of Weiland's work is how ice cores can be calibrated by looking for volcanic ash from known eruptions.

To summarize, not only are Weiland's conclusions wrong, they show a strange combination of in-depth research on certain areas and no research on others. The highest quality of research is on matters that do not relate to the controversy being discussed. For example, we learn what device is used, and what it's parameters are, for melting the ice to reach the planes, but no details on where the planes were found compared to the location of ice core drilling site. Further, they the two locations are suggested to be near one another -note the quote about 3000 metres of ice equalling 2000 years accumulation as if those 3000 metres were in the same climate zone.​

 

[Hollie]

I'm not sure I understand your question.

you wouldnt


ice llayers mean nothing


The lost squadron - creation.com

You mean the don't show the snow that accumulated over a year?

NOPE,, and if you read the article it will show the planes were buried about 75 yrs ago and had hundreds if not thousands of layers and was several hundred feet deep

How would the charlatans at your fundie Christian ministry know how many layers of ice had accumulated?

Why don’t you present the data, ice cores, published papers they presented.

Thanks.

sorry after your insults I would never try and debate a dumbcunt like you

How, umm, Christian of you.

 

[progressive hunter]

you wouldnt


ice llayers mean nothing


The lost squadron - creation.com

You mean the don't show the snow that accumulated over a year?

NOPE,, and if you read the article it will show the planes were buried about 75 yrs ago and had hundreds if not thousands of layers and was several hundred feet deep

How would the charlatans at your fundie Christian ministry know how many layers of ice had accumulated?

Why don’t you present the data, ice cores, published papers they presented.

Thanks.

sorry after your insults I would never try and debate a dumbcunt like you

How, umm, Christian of you.

when did I claim to be christian???

 

[progressive hunter]

I'm not sure I understand your question.

you wouldnt


ice llayers mean nothing


The lost squadron - creation.com

Ignorance, falsehoods and misrepresentations brought to you by the charlatans at one of the most notoriously inept fundamentalist ministries.

Do you have a link to any article the explains how "Glacier Girl" was discovered to be 268 feet under the ice?

do you??

The answer is that is snows more near the coast of Greenland where the plane crashed than were the ice cores were drilled, which is near the center of the continent. Near the coast Greenland gets about 1.5 meters of snow per year. 75 x 1.5 x 3.28 = 369 feet. Some compression undoubtedly occurred.

plucking creationism's low-hanging fruit: Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron

Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron


This is my first post here and I want to get into the meat of an argument I've had with a creationist here in Busan. Still, some background is probably necessary.

My creationist coworker sent me a long (20 page) discussion of why secular science is wrong about the age of the Earth. That was the first article he gave me. He has now sent me four or five and all of a similar length and breadth. There are two problems with much of the stuff he sends me. Well, two problems that affect my ability to respond.

First, although he gives an enormous number of references and links, he has admitted that he has not read all of them. To my uncertain knowledge, of the 39 bullet point examples he gives showing that modern science's aging techniques are wrong, he has read fewer than 10% himself. I believe this to true for all the references and mined quotes he offers. I feel that with his name on the article, all errors affect his credibility.
Second, he occasionally covers material that I don't understand well enough to critique and I don't think he understands well enough to use as a defense. For example, I know the absolute basics of radiocarbon dating and nothing of the practicalities. How does one collect a sample and ensure it is not contaminated? I don't know. For me, this is reason enough to read the articles with interest but not to post them with my stamp of approval. I'm not asking for expertise - that would be hypocritical- but when I offer a link, I do so only if I understand the concepts.

The article I'm starting on today covered many aspects of how to date the Earth or what is wrong with dating methods that give answers greater than 6-10,000 years. This article had many different articles and links in it and I am looking at one of these titled, "Ice Core Sample Dating/ The Lost Squadron". The original was by Carl Wieland and my coworker appears to have copied it in its entirety from creation.com/the-lost-squadron although the article contains a hyperlink to Answers in Genesis. I don't think there are copyright issues as he has given links and this means I can share a link the original article.

In brief, the Wieland's article attempts to show why ice cores taken from Greenland glaciers cannot show ages of tens of thousands of years. That material would be rather dry, and is in fact untrue, so he uses the dramatic true story of a fleet of US fighters and bombers that crash landed on the island as a disguise or hook. Indeed, of the fifteen or so paragraphs, ten describe the fate of the aircraft and only a few actually discuss ice cores. One of the key excerpts:
...the 3000-metre-long ice core [brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992] would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation.
The article is amazing as a tutorial in how to lie by omission. One would imagine that the ice cores were taken very near the crash-site. but the two are in fact hundreds of kilometres apart and in what I would describe as different climatic areas. The planes are near the coast where they receive ocean-effect precipitation (Wikipedia - short version: lots), while the ice core site is more than a hundred kilometres inland. Here is all the location information given:
Regarding the planes: "Realising that their only hope was to crash-land on the icy wastes of Greenland’s east coast, they desperately searched till they found a break in the cloud cover."
And here is everything the article has to say about the location of the ice cores: " "

On maps, the two locations are clearly distant. Further, one is quite distant inland, while the other is on the coast. Maps (Glacier Girl, Eismitte):







A possibly more accurate map of the ice core site is here.

Why is it important that one site is on the coast and the other more than a hundred kilometres inland? Because of something called Ocean Effect Snow. This is also known as Lake effect snow and simply describes the phenomenon of greater snowfall occurring close to unfrozen bodies of water than distant from water. Greenland's coast around the crash site received about 1.5 metres of snow per year but that does not mean that inland site would get a similar amount.

How much snow does the Eismitte get?
Between 1910 and '28, it received less than half a metre a year.



More recently (and from a different, but nearby location):






Both show average snowfalls of less than half a metre - the average in the image is 0.24- metres.
---
Added later: True Size Map shows the size of countries without distortion brought on by using a Mercator projection map. Because Greenland is so far north, it looks huge. In True Size Map, I pulled it down to the continental USA and it is a lot narrower there - but still longer North-South than the USA so clearly saying the two events are in Greenland cannot mean they must have similar weather conditions


---

I believe I have shown why Weiland's article cannot be trusted and is probably deliberately dishonest. Is there more to the story? Yes, thanks for asking.

From Weiland's article:
In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years. This is the only description of how secular scientists (should those two words be in quotes?) determine the age of segments of the ice core. There is no attempt to show why varying isotope ratios should be incorrect either. Left out of Weiland's work is how ice cores can be calibrated by looking for volcanic ash from known eruptions.

To summarize, not only are Weiland's conclusions wrong, they show a strange combination of in-depth research on certain areas and no research on others. The highest quality of research is on matters that do not relate to the controversy being discussed. For example, we learn what device is used, and what it's parameters are, for melting the ice to reach the planes, but no details on where the planes were found compared to the location of ice core drilling site. Further, they the two locations are suggested to be near one another -note the quote about 3000 metres of ice equalling 2000 years accumulation as if those 3000 metres were in the same climate zone.​

already seen this, and all it shows is that ice layers are subjective and unreliable for accurate dating on both sides

 

[Hollie]

You mean the don't show the snow that accumulated over a year?

NOPE,, and if you read the article it will show the planes were buried about 75 yrs ago and had hundreds if not thousands of layers and was several hundred feet deep

How would the charlatans at your fundie Christian ministry know how many layers of ice had accumulated?

Why don’t you present the data, ice cores, published papers they presented.

Thanks.

sorry after your insults I would never try and debate a dumbcunt like you

How, umm, Christian of you.

when did I claim to be christian???

So, I guess you’re not going present any data, published documents or results of testing done by the charlatans at your Christian fundie ministry to support a single element of silly link you posted.

Well done.

 

[Hollie]

you wouldnt


ice llayers mean nothing


The lost squadron - creation.com

Ignorance, falsehoods and misrepresentations brought to you by the charlatans at one of the most notoriously inept fundamentalist ministries.

Do you have a link to any article the explains how "Glacier Girl" was discovered to be 268 feet under the ice?

do you??

The answer is that is snows more near the coast of Greenland where the plane crashed than were the ice cores were drilled, which is near the center of the continent. Near the coast Greenland gets about 1.5 meters of snow per year. 75 x 1.5 x 3.28 = 369 feet. Some compression undoubtedly occurred.

plucking creationism's low-hanging fruit: Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron

Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron


This is my first post here and I want to get into the meat of an argument I've had with a creationist here in Busan. Still, some background is probably necessary.

My creationist coworker sent me a long (20 page) discussion of why secular science is wrong about the age of the Earth. That was the first article he gave me. He has now sent me four or five and all of a similar length and breadth. There are two problems with much of the stuff he sends me. Well, two problems that affect my ability to respond.

First, although he gives an enormous number of references and links, he has admitted that he has not read all of them. To my uncertain knowledge, of the 39 bullet point examples he gives showing that modern science's aging techniques are wrong, he has read fewer than 10% himself. I believe this to true for all the references and mined quotes he offers. I feel that with his name on the article, all errors affect his credibility.
Second, he occasionally covers material that I don't understand well enough to critique and I don't think he understands well enough to use as a defense. For example, I know the absolute basics of radiocarbon dating and nothing of the practicalities. How does one collect a sample and ensure it is not contaminated? I don't know. For me, this is reason enough to read the articles with interest but not to post them with my stamp of approval. I'm not asking for expertise - that would be hypocritical- but when I offer a link, I do so only if I understand the concepts.

The article I'm starting on today covered many aspects of how to date the Earth or what is wrong with dating methods that give answers greater than 6-10,000 years. This article had many different articles and links in it and I am looking at one of these titled, "Ice Core Sample Dating/ The Lost Squadron". The original was by Carl Wieland and my coworker appears to have copied it in its entirety from creation.com/the-lost-squadron although the article contains a hyperlink to Answers in Genesis. I don't think there are copyright issues as he has given links and this means I can share a link the original article.

In brief, the Wieland's article attempts to show why ice cores taken from Greenland glaciers cannot show ages of tens of thousands of years. That material would be rather dry, and is in fact untrue, so he uses the dramatic true story of a fleet of US fighters and bombers that crash landed on the island as a disguise or hook. Indeed, of the fifteen or so paragraphs, ten describe the fate of the aircraft and only a few actually discuss ice cores. One of the key excerpts:
...the 3000-metre-long ice core [brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992] would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation.
The article is amazing as a tutorial in how to lie by omission. One would imagine that the ice cores were taken very near the crash-site. but the two are in fact hundreds of kilometres apart and in what I would describe as different climatic areas. The planes are near the coast where they receive ocean-effect precipitation (Wikipedia - short version: lots), while the ice core site is more than a hundred kilometres inland. Here is all the location information given:
Regarding the planes: "Realising that their only hope was to crash-land on the icy wastes of Greenland’s east coast, they desperately searched till they found a break in the cloud cover."
And here is everything the article has to say about the location of the ice cores: " "

On maps, the two locations are clearly distant. Further, one is quite distant inland, while the other is on the coast. Maps (Glacier Girl, Eismitte):







A possibly more accurate map of the ice core site is here.

Why is it important that one site is on the coast and the other more than a hundred kilometres inland? Because of something called Ocean Effect Snow. This is also known as Lake effect snow and simply describes the phenomenon of greater snowfall occurring close to unfrozen bodies of water than distant from water. Greenland's coast around the crash site received about 1.5 metres of snow per year but that does not mean that inland site would get a similar amount.

How much snow does the Eismitte get?
Between 1910 and '28, it received less than half a metre a year.



More recently (and from a different, but nearby location):






Both show average snowfalls of less than half a metre - the average in the image is 0.24- metres.
---
Added later: True Size Map shows the size of countries without distortion brought on by using a Mercator projection map. Because Greenland is so far north, it looks huge. In True Size Map, I pulled it down to the continental USA and it is a lot narrower there - but still longer North-South than the USA so clearly saying the two events are in Greenland cannot mean they must have similar weather conditions


---

I believe I have shown why Weiland's article cannot be trusted and is probably deliberately dishonest. Is there more to the story? Yes, thanks for asking.

From Weiland's article:
In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years. This is the only description of how secular scientists (should those two words be in quotes?) determine the age of segments of the ice core. There is no attempt to show why varying isotope ratios should be incorrect either. Left out of Weiland's work is how ice cores can be calibrated by looking for volcanic ash from known eruptions.

To summarize, not only are Weiland's conclusions wrong, they show a strange combination of in-depth research on certain areas and no research on others. The highest quality of research is on matters that do not relate to the controversy being discussed. For example, we learn what device is used, and what it's parameters are, for melting the ice to reach the planes, but no details on where the planes were found compared to the location of ice core drilling site. Further, they the two locations are suggested to be near one another -note the quote about 3000 metres of ice equalling 2000 years accumulation as if those 3000 metres were in the same climate zone.​

already seen this, and all it shows is that ice layers are subjective and unreliable for accurate dating on both sides

Another false, ignorant, unsupported claim.

 

[bripat9643]

you wouldnt


ice llayers mean nothing


The lost squadron - creation.com

Ignorance, falsehoods and misrepresentations brought to you by the charlatans at one of the most notoriously inept fundamentalist ministries.

Do you have a link to any article the explains how "Glacier Girl" was discovered to be 268 feet under the ice?

do you??

The answer is that is snows more near the coast of Greenland where the plane crashed than were the ice cores were drilled, which is near the center of the continent. Near the coast Greenland gets about 1.5 meters of snow per year. 75 x 1.5 x 3.28 = 369 feet. Some compression undoubtedly occurred.

plucking creationism's low-hanging fruit: Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron

Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron


This is my first post here and I want to get into the meat of an argument I've had with a creationist here in Busan. Still, some background is probably necessary.

My creationist coworker sent me a long (20 page) discussion of why secular science is wrong about the age of the Earth. That was the first article he gave me. He has now sent me four or five and all of a similar length and breadth. There are two problems with much of the stuff he sends me. Well, two problems that affect my ability to respond.

First, although he gives an enormous number of references and links, he has admitted that he has not read all of them. To my uncertain knowledge, of the 39 bullet point examples he gives showing that modern science's aging techniques are wrong, he has read fewer than 10% himself. I believe this to true for all the references and mined quotes he offers. I feel that with his name on the article, all errors affect his credibility.
Second, he occasionally covers material that I don't understand well enough to critique and I don't think he understands well enough to use as a defense. For example, I know the absolute basics of radiocarbon dating and nothing of the practicalities. How does one collect a sample and ensure it is not contaminated? I don't know. For me, this is reason enough to read the articles with interest but not to post them with my stamp of approval. I'm not asking for expertise - that would be hypocritical- but when I offer a link, I do so only if I understand the concepts.

The article I'm starting on today covered many aspects of how to date the Earth or what is wrong with dating methods that give answers greater than 6-10,000 years. This article had many different articles and links in it and I am looking at one of these titled, "Ice Core Sample Dating/ The Lost Squadron". The original was by Carl Wieland and my coworker appears to have copied it in its entirety from creation.com/the-lost-squadron although the article contains a hyperlink to Answers in Genesis. I don't think there are copyright issues as he has given links and this means I can share a link the original article.

In brief, the Wieland's article attempts to show why ice cores taken from Greenland glaciers cannot show ages of tens of thousands of years. That material would be rather dry, and is in fact untrue, so he uses the dramatic true story of a fleet of US fighters and bombers that crash landed on the island as a disguise or hook. Indeed, of the fifteen or so paragraphs, ten describe the fate of the aircraft and only a few actually discuss ice cores. One of the key excerpts:
...the 3000-metre-long ice core [brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992] would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation.
The article is amazing as a tutorial in how to lie by omission. One would imagine that the ice cores were taken very near the crash-site. but the two are in fact hundreds of kilometres apart and in what I would describe as different climatic areas. The planes are near the coast where they receive ocean-effect precipitation (Wikipedia - short version: lots), while the ice core site is more than a hundred kilometres inland. Here is all the location information given:
Regarding the planes: "Realising that their only hope was to crash-land on the icy wastes of Greenland’s east coast, they desperately searched till they found a break in the cloud cover."
And here is everything the article has to say about the location of the ice cores: " "

On maps, the two locations are clearly distant. Further, one is quite distant inland, while the other is on the coast. Maps (Glacier Girl, Eismitte):







A possibly more accurate map of the ice core site is here.

Why is it important that one site is on the coast and the other more than a hundred kilometres inland? Because of something called Ocean Effect Snow. This is also known as Lake effect snow and simply describes the phenomenon of greater snowfall occurring close to unfrozen bodies of water than distant from water. Greenland's coast around the crash site received about 1.5 metres of snow per year but that does not mean that inland site would get a similar amount.

How much snow does the Eismitte get?
Between 1910 and '28, it received less than half a metre a year.



More recently (and from a different, but nearby location):






Both show average snowfalls of less than half a metre - the average in the image is 0.24- metres.
---
Added later: True Size Map shows the size of countries without distortion brought on by using a Mercator projection map. Because Greenland is so far north, it looks huge. In True Size Map, I pulled it down to the continental USA and it is a lot narrower there - but still longer North-South than the USA so clearly saying the two events are in Greenland cannot mean they must have similar weather conditions


---

I believe I have shown why Weiland's article cannot be trusted and is probably deliberately dishonest. Is there more to the story? Yes, thanks for asking.

From Weiland's article:
In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years. This is the only description of how secular scientists (should those two words be in quotes?) determine the age of segments of the ice core. There is no attempt to show why varying isotope ratios should be incorrect either. Left out of Weiland's work is how ice cores can be calibrated by looking for volcanic ash from known eruptions.

To summarize, not only are Weiland's conclusions wrong, they show a strange combination of in-depth research on certain areas and no research on others. The highest quality of research is on matters that do not relate to the controversy being discussed. For example, we learn what device is used, and what it's parameters are, for melting the ice to reach the planes, but no details on where the planes were found compared to the location of ice core drilling site. Further, they the two locations are suggested to be near one another -note the quote about 3000 metres of ice equalling 2000 years accumulation as if those 3000 metres were in the same climate zone.​

already seen this, and all it shows is that ice layers are subjective and unreliable for accurate dating on both sides

Wrong. It shows that the thickness of ice layers varies depending on the amount of snow the place where they are measured receives.

Your "Glacier Girl P38" example does not prove ice layers are invalid as a means of dating.

Now explain how the the earth is only 6000 years old when we have physical evidence in some places of 700,000 annual layers of ice

 

[bripat9643]

Ignorance, falsehoods and misrepresentations brought to you by the charlatans at one of the most notoriously inept fundamentalist ministries.

Do you have a link to any article the explains how "Glacier Girl" was discovered to be 268 feet under the ice?

do you??

The answer is that is snows more near the coast of Greenland where the plane crashed than were the ice cores were drilled, which is near the center of the continent. Near the coast Greenland gets about 1.5 meters of snow per year. 75 x 1.5 x 3.28 = 369 feet. Some compression undoubtedly occurred.

plucking creationism's low-hanging fruit: Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron

Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron


This is my first post here and I want to get into the meat of an argument I've had with a creationist here in Busan. Still, some background is probably necessary.

My creationist coworker sent me a long (20 page) discussion of why secular science is wrong about the age of the Earth. That was the first article he gave me. He has now sent me four or five and all of a similar length and breadth. There are two problems with much of the stuff he sends me. Well, two problems that affect my ability to respond.

First, although he gives an enormous number of references and links, he has admitted that he has not read all of them. To my uncertain knowledge, of the 39 bullet point examples he gives showing that modern science's aging techniques are wrong, he has read fewer than 10% himself. I believe this to true for all the references and mined quotes he offers. I feel that with his name on the article, all errors affect his credibility.
Second, he occasionally covers material that I don't understand well enough to critique and I don't think he understands well enough to use as a defense. For example, I know the absolute basics of radiocarbon dating and nothing of the practicalities. How does one collect a sample and ensure it is not contaminated? I don't know. For me, this is reason enough to read the articles with interest but not to post them with my stamp of approval. I'm not asking for expertise - that would be hypocritical- but when I offer a link, I do so only if I understand the concepts.

The article I'm starting on today covered many aspects of how to date the Earth or what is wrong with dating methods that give answers greater than 6-10,000 years. This article had many different articles and links in it and I am looking at one of these titled, "Ice Core Sample Dating/ The Lost Squadron". The original was by Carl Wieland and my coworker appears to have copied it in its entirety from creation.com/the-lost-squadron although the article contains a hyperlink to Answers in Genesis. I don't think there are copyright issues as he has given links and this means I can share a link the original article.

In brief, the Wieland's article attempts to show why ice cores taken from Greenland glaciers cannot show ages of tens of thousands of years. That material would be rather dry, and is in fact untrue, so he uses the dramatic true story of a fleet of US fighters and bombers that crash landed on the island as a disguise or hook. Indeed, of the fifteen or so paragraphs, ten describe the fate of the aircraft and only a few actually discuss ice cores. One of the key excerpts:
...the 3000-metre-long ice core [brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992] would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation.
The article is amazing as a tutorial in how to lie by omission. One would imagine that the ice cores were taken very near the crash-site. but the two are in fact hundreds of kilometres apart and in what I would describe as different climatic areas. The planes are near the coast where they receive ocean-effect precipitation (Wikipedia - short version: lots), while the ice core site is more than a hundred kilometres inland. Here is all the location information given:
Regarding the planes: "Realising that their only hope was to crash-land on the icy wastes of Greenland’s east coast, they desperately searched till they found a break in the cloud cover."
And here is everything the article has to say about the location of the ice cores: " "

On maps, the two locations are clearly distant. Further, one is quite distant inland, while the other is on the coast. Maps (Glacier Girl, Eismitte):







A possibly more accurate map of the ice core site is here.

Why is it important that one site is on the coast and the other more than a hundred kilometres inland? Because of something called Ocean Effect Snow. This is also known as Lake effect snow and simply describes the phenomenon of greater snowfall occurring close to unfrozen bodies of water than distant from water. Greenland's coast around the crash site received about 1.5 metres of snow per year but that does not mean that inland site would get a similar amount.

How much snow does the Eismitte get?
Between 1910 and '28, it received less than half a metre a year.



More recently (and from a different, but nearby location):






Both show average snowfalls of less than half a metre - the average in the image is 0.24- metres.
---
Added later: True Size Map shows the size of countries without distortion brought on by using a Mercator projection map. Because Greenland is so far north, it looks huge. In True Size Map, I pulled it down to the continental USA and it is a lot narrower there - but still longer North-South than the USA so clearly saying the two events are in Greenland cannot mean they must have similar weather conditions


---

I believe I have shown why Weiland's article cannot be trusted and is probably deliberately dishonest. Is there more to the story? Yes, thanks for asking.

From Weiland's article:
In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years. This is the only description of how secular scientists (should those two words be in quotes?) determine the age of segments of the ice core. There is no attempt to show why varying isotope ratios should be incorrect either. Left out of Weiland's work is how ice cores can be calibrated by looking for volcanic ash from known eruptions.

To summarize, not only are Weiland's conclusions wrong, they show a strange combination of in-depth research on certain areas and no research on others. The highest quality of research is on matters that do not relate to the controversy being discussed. For example, we learn what device is used, and what it's parameters are, for melting the ice to reach the planes, but no details on where the planes were found compared to the location of ice core drilling site. Further, they the two locations are suggested to be near one another -note the quote about 3000 metres of ice equalling 2000 years accumulation as if those 3000 metres were in the same climate zone.​

already seen this, and all it shows is that ice layers are subjective and unreliable for accurate dating on both sides

Wrong. It shows that the thickness of ice layers varies depending on the amount of snow the place where they are measured receives.

Your "Glacier Girl P38" example does not prove ice layers are invalid as a means of dating.

Now explain how the the earth is only 6000 years old when we have physical evidence in some places of 700,000 annual layers of ice

No more responses from the creationists?

 

[progressive hunter]

Ignorance, falsehoods and misrepresentations brought to you by the charlatans at one of the most notoriously inept fundamentalist ministries.

Do you have a link to any article the explains how "Glacier Girl" was discovered to be 268 feet under the ice?

do you??

The answer is that is snows more near the coast of Greenland where the plane crashed than were the ice cores were drilled, which is near the center of the continent. Near the coast Greenland gets about 1.5 meters of snow per year. 75 x 1.5 x 3.28 = 369 feet. Some compression undoubtedly occurred.

plucking creationism's low-hanging fruit: Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron

Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron


This is my first post here and I want to get into the meat of an argument I've had with a creationist here in Busan. Still, some background is probably necessary.

My creationist coworker sent me a long (20 page) discussion of why secular science is wrong about the age of the Earth. That was the first article he gave me. He has now sent me four or five and all of a similar length and breadth. There are two problems with much of the stuff he sends me. Well, two problems that affect my ability to respond.

First, although he gives an enormous number of references and links, he has admitted that he has not read all of them. To my uncertain knowledge, of the 39 bullet point examples he gives showing that modern science's aging techniques are wrong, he has read fewer than 10% himself. I believe this to true for all the references and mined quotes he offers. I feel that with his name on the article, all errors affect his credibility.
Second, he occasionally covers material that I don't understand well enough to critique and I don't think he understands well enough to use as a defense. For example, I know the absolute basics of radiocarbon dating and nothing of the practicalities. How does one collect a sample and ensure it is not contaminated? I don't know. For me, this is reason enough to read the articles with interest but not to post them with my stamp of approval. I'm not asking for expertise - that would be hypocritical- but when I offer a link, I do so only if I understand the concepts.
I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
The article I'm starting on today covered many aspects of how to date the Earth or what is wrong with dating methods that give answers greater than 6-10,000 years. This article had many different articles and links in it and I am looking at one of these titled, "Ice Core Sample Dating/ The Lost Squadron". The original was by Carl Wieland and my coworker appears to have copied it in its entirety from creation.com/the-lost-squadron although the article contains a hyperlink to Answers in Genesis. I don't think there are copyright issues as he has given links and this means I can share a link the original article.

In brief, the Wieland's article attempts to show why ice cores taken from Greenland glaciers cannot show ages of tens of thousands of years. That material would be rather dry, and is in fact untrue, so he uses the dramatic true story of a fleet of US fighters and bombers that crash landed on the island as a disguise or hook. Indeed, of the fifteen or so paragraphs, ten describe the fate of the aircraft and only a few actually discuss ice cores. One of the key excerpts:
...the 3000-metre-long ice core [brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992] would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation.
The article is amazing as a tutorial in how to lie by omission. One would imagine that the ice cores were taken very near the crash-site. but the two are in fact hundreds of kilometres apart and in what I would describe as different climatic areas. The planes are near the coast where they receive ocean-effect precipitation (Wikipedia - short version: lots), while the ice core site is more than a hundred kilometres inland. Here is all the location information given:
Regarding the planes: "Realising that their only hope was to crash-land on the icy wastes of Greenland’s east coast, they desperately searched till they found a break in the cloud cover."
And here is everything the article has to say about the location of the ice cores: " "

On maps, the two locations are clearly distant. Further, one is quite distant inland, while the other is on the coast. Maps (Glacier Girl, Eismitte):







A possibly more accurate map of the ice core site is here.

Why is it important that one site is on the coast and the other more than a hundred kilometres inland? Because of something called Ocean Effect Snow. This is also known as Lake effect snow and simply describes the phenomenon of greater snowfall occurring close to unfrozen bodies of water than distant from water. Greenland's coast around the crash site received about 1.5 metres of snow per year but that does not mean that inland site would get a similar amount.

How much snow does the Eismitte get?
Between 1910 and '28, it received less than half a metre a year.



More recently (and from a different, but nearby location):






Both show average snowfalls of less than half a metre - the average in the image is 0.24- metres.
---
Added later: True Size Map shows the size of countries without distortion brought on by using a Mercator projection map. Because Greenland is so far north, it looks huge. In True Size Map, I pulled it down to the continental USA and it is a lot narrower there - but still longer North-South than the USA so clearly saying the two events are in Greenland cannot mean they must have similar weather conditions


---

I believe I have shown why Weiland's article cannot be trusted and is probably deliberately dishonest. Is there more to the story? Yes, thanks for asking.

From Weiland's article:
In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years. This is the only description of how secular scientists (should those two words be in quotes?) determine the age of segments of the ice core. There is no attempt to show why varying isotope ratios should be incorrect either. Left out of Weiland's work is how ice cores can be calibrated by looking for volcanic ash from known eruptions.

To summarize, not only are Weiland's conclusions wrong, they show a strange combination of in-depth research on certain areas and no research on others. The highest quality of research is on matters that do not relate to the controversy being discussed. For example, we learn what device is used, and what it's parameters are, for melting the ice to reach the planes, but no details on where the planes were found compared to the location of ice core drilling site. Further, they the two locations are suggested to be near one another -note the quote about 3000 metres of ice equalling 2000 years accumulation as if those 3000 metres were in the same climate zone.​

already seen this, and all it shows is that ice layers are subjective and unreliable for accurate dating on both sides

Wrong. It shows that the thickness of ice layers varies depending on the amount of snow the place where they are measured receives.

Your "Glacier Girl P38" example does not prove ice layers are invalid as a means of dating.

Now explain how the the earth is only 6000 years old when we have physical evidence in some places of 700,000 annual layers of ice

I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
how do you explain both human and dino footprints to be in rock dating 500 million yrs old

 

[bripat9643]

Do you have a link to any article the explains how "Glacier Girl" was discovered to be 268 feet under the ice?

do you??

The answer is that is snows more near the coast of Greenland where the plane crashed than were the ice cores were drilled, which is near the center of the continent. Near the coast Greenland gets about 1.5 meters of snow per year. 75 x 1.5 x 3.28 = 369 feet. Some compression undoubtedly occurred.

plucking creationism's low-hanging fruit: Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron

Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron


This is my first post here and I want to get into the meat of an argument I've had with a creationist here in Busan. Still, some background is probably necessary.

My creationist coworker sent me a long (20 page) discussion of why secular science is wrong about the age of the Earth. That was the first article he gave me. He has now sent me four or five and all of a similar length and breadth. There are two problems with much of the stuff he sends me. Well, two problems that affect my ability to respond.

First, although he gives an enormous number of references and links, he has admitted that he has not read all of them. To my uncertain knowledge, of the 39 bullet point examples he gives showing that modern science's aging techniques are wrong, he has read fewer than 10% himself. I believe this to true for all the references and mined quotes he offers. I feel that with his name on the article, all errors affect his credibility.
Second, he occasionally covers material that I don't understand well enough to critique and I don't think he understands well enough to use as a defense. For example, I know the absolute basics of radiocarbon dating and nothing of the practicalities. How does one collect a sample and ensure it is not contaminated? I don't know. For me, this is reason enough to read the articles with interest but not to post them with my stamp of approval. I'm not asking for expertise - that would be hypocritical- but when I offer a link, I do so only if I understand the concepts.
I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
The article I'm starting on today covered many aspects of how to date the Earth or what is wrong with dating methods that give answers greater than 6-10,000 years. This article had many different articles and links in it and I am looking at one of these titled, "Ice Core Sample Dating/ The Lost Squadron". The original was by Carl Wieland and my coworker appears to have copied it in its entirety from creation.com/the-lost-squadron although the article contains a hyperlink to Answers in Genesis. I don't think there are copyright issues as he has given links and this means I can share a link the original article.

In brief, the Wieland's article attempts to show why ice cores taken from Greenland glaciers cannot show ages of tens of thousands of years. That material would be rather dry, and is in fact untrue, so he uses the dramatic true story of a fleet of US fighters and bombers that crash landed on the island as a disguise or hook. Indeed, of the fifteen or so paragraphs, ten describe the fate of the aircraft and only a few actually discuss ice cores. One of the key excerpts:
...the 3000-metre-long ice core [brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992] would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation.
The article is amazing as a tutorial in how to lie by omission. One would imagine that the ice cores were taken very near the crash-site. but the two are in fact hundreds of kilometres apart and in what I would describe as different climatic areas. The planes are near the coast where they receive ocean-effect precipitation (Wikipedia - short version: lots), while the ice core site is more than a hundred kilometres inland. Here is all the location information given:
Regarding the planes: "Realising that their only hope was to crash-land on the icy wastes of Greenland’s east coast, they desperately searched till they found a break in the cloud cover."
And here is everything the article has to say about the location of the ice cores: " "

On maps, the two locations are clearly distant. Further, one is quite distant inland, while the other is on the coast. Maps (Glacier Girl, Eismitte):







A possibly more accurate map of the ice core site is here.

Why is it important that one site is on the coast and the other more than a hundred kilometres inland? Because of something called Ocean Effect Snow. This is also known as Lake effect snow and simply describes the phenomenon of greater snowfall occurring close to unfrozen bodies of water than distant from water. Greenland's coast around the crash site received about 1.5 metres of snow per year but that does not mean that inland site would get a similar amount.

How much snow does the Eismitte get?
Between 1910 and '28, it received less than half a metre a year.



More recently (and from a different, but nearby location):






Both show average snowfalls of less than half a metre - the average in the image is 0.24- metres.
---
Added later: True Size Map shows the size of countries without distortion brought on by using a Mercator projection map. Because Greenland is so far north, it looks huge. In True Size Map, I pulled it down to the continental USA and it is a lot narrower there - but still longer North-South than the USA so clearly saying the two events are in Greenland cannot mean they must have similar weather conditions


---

I believe I have shown why Weiland's article cannot be trusted and is probably deliberately dishonest. Is there more to the story? Yes, thanks for asking.

From Weiland's article:
In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years. This is the only description of how secular scientists (should those two words be in quotes?) determine the age of segments of the ice core. There is no attempt to show why varying isotope ratios should be incorrect either. Left out of Weiland's work is how ice cores can be calibrated by looking for volcanic ash from known eruptions.

To summarize, not only are Weiland's conclusions wrong, they show a strange combination of in-depth research on certain areas and no research on others. The highest quality of research is on matters that do not relate to the controversy being discussed. For example, we learn what device is used, and what it's parameters are, for melting the ice to reach the planes, but no details on where the planes were found compared to the location of ice core drilling site. Further, they the two locations are suggested to be near one another -note the quote about 3000 metres of ice equalling 2000 years accumulation as if those 3000 metres were in the same climate zone.​

already seen this, and all it shows is that ice layers are subjective and unreliable for accurate dating on both sides

Wrong. It shows that the thickness of ice layers varies depending on the amount of snow the place where they are measured receives.

Your "Glacier Girl P38" example does not prove ice layers are invalid as a means of dating.

Now explain how the the earth is only 6000 years old when we have physical evidence in some places of 700,000 annual layers of ice

I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
how do you explain both human and dino footprints to be in rock dating 500 million yrs old

How old do you imagine the Earth is?

First: there were no dinosaurs 500 millions years ago. There weren't even land animals at that time.

Second: They aren't human foot prints.

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.

The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).

A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.

This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio. Thanks, and enjoy your visit!​