"debunk this".
His response to a statement made because of what he's posted earlier on leads him to repost the material in which he posted earlier on.
Classic
Kinda like the Evolutionist repeating the same lies over and over?
His response to a statement made because of what he's posted earlier on leads him to repost the material in which he posted earlier on.
Classic
still waiting for someone to debunk moue's post.
I think I'll wait for mouse to debunk my posts.Kinda like the Evolutionist repeating the same lies over and over?
still waiting for someone to debunk moue's post.
"Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."Debunk this.....
The lies Evolutionist's spread everyday!
Ancient Ice
Most scientists today believe that various places on this planet, such as Greenland, the Antarctic, and many other places, have some very old ice. The ice in these areas appears to be layered in a very distinctive annual pattern.
Tell me how this has anything to do with the changes in organisms.
So in this sense, an "evolutionist" is anybody who thinks the universe is older than 10,000 years?
Is that correct?
In what universe do you live?
You could go to that dreaded center of disinformation known as PBS' horripilating NOVA:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/
or watch Flock of Dodos, another do entary with more emphasis on the Discovery Ins ute.
II. The Vostok Ice-Core
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.
III. Conclusions
In this section I will provide a brief review of how the ice-core data effects both the age of the earth question and the Velikovskian catastrophism.
NOTE: This original post was written at a time when both Bob Bales and Ted Holden were frequent posters to talk.origins. Bob Bales has argued that the age of the Earth is about 50,000 years, and you are probably aware that Ted Holden is a proponent of the Velikovskian Catastrophism. Thus, these conclusions are reader specific.
Minimum Age of the Earth
From the data gathered from the Vostok ice-core indicates that the minimum age of the earth is 160,000 +- 15,000 years. Furthermore there exists approximately 33% of additional ice below the core sample which would hold a disproportionate number of years due to thinning of the ice layers under the tremendous pressure of the ice above it.
To maintain an age for the earth of 50,000 years, one would need to describe a mechanism that allows more than 2 false ice layers to form per year. It should be noted that one also needs to describe why this mechanism has ceased to function in historic times since the Vostok ice-core demonstrates a number of the historically recorded volcanism at the correct periods of time.
ADDITION: "To the list of things excluded, you can add miles-high tides or floods. (Velikovsky and the Noachian deluge). Such a mass of water would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds. No way to drop them exactly back onto their original location, or to regrow them. (In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.)" --Bob Grumbine [email protected]
Worlds in Collision
The Vostok ice-core shows no effects of catastrophic geological changes. By this I mean no petroleum, no vermin, no weird Venus gasses, no red snow, no manna in amongst the layers. Also no evidence for rapid rotational changes in the earth, no floods, no major asteroid bombardments. Finally, there is absolutely positively fur-darn-tootin no evidence of the earth ever having occupied any position in the solar system other than that which it holds now.
IV. References
When I went to look for references on the dating of ice-cores, I decided to follow a simple philosophy...as simple as scientifically possible. I chose to do this to demonstrate that there is no excuse for someone to make the blatantly ignorant attack that Ted made when answering Sue Bishop's original post on ice-core data.
NOTE: Ted originally claimed that the Antarctic ice cores resulted from lots of snow, not lots of years.
The above sections on the Vostok ice-core was taken from references 1-4. The general information on dating methods comes from references 5-8. The last two references are about Greenland ice-cores, and are included for further reading pleasure. Reference [8], if you can find it, is an exceptionally lucid piece of scientific writing (even though it was a dissertation).
[1] C. Lorius et al., NATURE 316 (1985) 591-596.
[2] F. Yiou et al., NATURE 316 (1985) 616-617.
[3] J. Jouzel et al., NATURE 329 (1987) 403-408.
[4] J.M. Barnola et al., NATURE 329 (1987) 408-414.
[5] van Nostrands' SCIENTIFIC DICTIONARY
[6] THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
[7] E. Wolff, GEOGRAPHICAL MAGAZINE 59 (1987) 73-77.
[8] Julie M. Palais OCEANUS 29 (Winter 86/87) 55-60.
[9] W. Dansgaard et al., SCIENCE 218 (1982) 1273-1277.
[10] C.U. Hammer et al., NATURE 288 (1980) 230-235.
wheeeeee copy, paste. I have now "debunked" mouses' post.
How can that be true if you and your very well educated scientist pals lie to people everyday? How can you support lies?
Your bias if you can't admit when your wrong on at least one level. And bias people make for poor debating if they will never see the other person's view.
You miss the point of the post it shows how the scientist lie everyday and if they lied about the rings in the ice then they are lying about the earth being 4 billion years old. You can't say a dollar is not four quarters and then admit it's 20 nickels it's contradiction.So in this sense, an "evolutionist" is anybody who thinks the universe is older than 10,000 years?
here is an easy one debunk this.....
Slowing Earth
Another factor. The earth is spinning - we are turning around. How many knew [sic] that already? We are turning around. You know the earth is going a little over 1,000 miles an hour at the equator, but the earth is slowing down. It is actually slowing down 1000th of a second everyday. Pensacola News Journal, 1990, said on December 6, “Earth’s rotation is slowing down, June will be one second longer than normal. The earth is slowing down 1000th of a second every day.” Astronomy magazine announced, 1992 in the June edition, “Earth’s rotation is slowing down, June is going to be one second longer than normal.” We will have to have a “leap second.” A leap second? Most people have heard of leap year, but lots of folks have never heard of leap second. Did you know we have a leap second about every year and a half now because the earth is slowing down? .....
You have no room to talk on that regard. I have NEVER, EVER seen you admit you were wrong about ANY- ING-THING, even when I point out explicitly and simply how you were wrong. You just change the subject by posting some new bull that you came across 2 minutes ago, and didn't bother reading critically.
How can you support lies, mouse?How can that be true if you and your very well educated scientist pals lie to people everyday? How can you support lies?
Everything you post here that I see is pretty much lies. Your posts lie about what the theory of evolution is, they lie about what scientists say, they lie about everything even halfway important. There are overt lies and lies of omission. So many that one can ONLY conclude there is a very deliberate attempt to deceive.
You are the one being lied to on the creationist websites. I am sorry for that.
Somebody is taking mouse seriously? egads.
ok RandomLie you want to fog the real issues with lier lier pants on fire style of debating go right ahead here are the facts...
Fact one: Scientist claim the ice rings are summer and winter they say a 20 foot ice core can show 40 or 50 years.
Fact two: a plane that was lost in 1941 was found under 263 feet of ice.
do the math and tell me how there is a lie on my part.
Already have. Not all scientists believe as you stated. Just because it debunks a few, doesn't mean it debunks the science.
You are proposing that thew earth isn't as old as scientists claim because some get the science wrong. Those who promote the propaganda that you repeat know full well that the earth sciences have far advanced in accuracy far better than what you portray.
There is no more need that that. Your few examples are idiotic, especially the one that shows the carbon dating of sea she;;s to be older than the loving mollusk.
You know, carbon dating of any aquatic life will be inaccurate.
Not me. I'm just trying to keep him from going insane.
If this is not the definition of stubborn not willing to admit science got it wrong this time statement, then what is?
I just proved to you ice core dating is flawed and you can't accept it?
is that lack of mental comprehension or Ego?
Did you say "some"? how would you react if one of the bible thumping creationist said..:you can't say the Bible is wrong because a few books were off and not correctYou are proposing that thew earth isn't as old as scientists claim because some get the science wrong.
You would be all over their holy roller ass laughing at them if they told you "we know John, Luke, and Revelation is wrong but Mathew,Genesis, and psalms are right"
You ever heard of double standards?
propaganda? are you typing this with a straight face? Your whole Evolution half baked theories are based on propaganda. I just showed you a plane under 253 feet of ice how is that propaganda?Those who promote the propaganda that you repeat know full well that the earth sciences have far advanced in accuracy far better than what you portray.
You and your misguided Darwin lovers better get your together and start posting some solid evidence of this bull Evolution theories or I may not waste time posting mine.
Then post the evidence of my examples being wrong, don't just say they are and walk away.There is no more need that that. Your few examples are idiotic, especially the one that shows the carbon dating of sea she;;s to be older than the loving mollusk.
let me fix your quote.You know, carbon dating of any aquatic life will be inaccurate.
You know, carbon dating is inaccurate.
The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods
To know if carbon dating is accurate, we would have to know how much carbon was in the atmosphere in the beginning, and also how long it has been increasing, or decreasing. Since no one was there, no one knows for sure. It's like trying to figure out how long a candle has been burning, without knowing the rate at which it burns, or its original size.
"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”
The accuracy of carbon-14 dating relies on faulty assumptions, and is subject to human bias. At best, radiocarbon dating is only accurate for the past few thousand years. As we’ve seen though, even relatively youthful samples are often dated incorrectly. The Biblical record gives us an indication of an earth that is relatively young. The most reliable use of radiocarbon dating supports that position. This method of dating, overall, tends to be as faulty and ill conceived as the evolutionary model that is was designed to support.
prove it.
most likely a lie.
This.
lol.
22 pages later and this thread never evolved.
The rodent is playing the ironic agent-provocateur throughout this entire thread. You're all suckers.
You did no such thing. If you study the dating aspect of the geosciences, you will find they know better than treating such layers as years. They use other methods to accurately determine what the layers are.
Would you stop talking in the mirror, and face me please?
Show me that all scientists using ice core data believe that those layers are years. Bet you can't.
If you have ever read my posts on such related things, I know the English translations are wrong in many ways. Your example is idiotic. Unless you can read the original text, expect incorrect translations.
I'm not saying the plane didn't happen. I'm saying you are using erroneous assumptions of the sciences to make you case for fundamentalism.
Thing is, I do believe in the creation. I also believe in evolution. There is nothing that does not allow them both to be right. I just cannot stand you lying about the sciences. Make your case with facts please, not propaganda.
Why should I have to? Anyone who has half a brain understands that the layers are not always years, but that other things do the same thing like changing wind patters, volcano, meteor strikes, etc. Any scientist who studies such work knows there are more factors than one.
Look at any writeup on the subject. They do say annual layers, but they don't ever say all layers are annual layers.
I don't know what's going to convince you, I'm probably wasting my time. Here is a simple extract from wiki, Ice ore:
They are in no disillusion of how deep is how many years. Your plane at 263 feet is 80 meters, or 1.7 meters per year. The two Dome samples are 72 meters for 40 years, or 1.8 meters per year.In Law Dome ice cores, the trapping depth at DE08 was found to be 72 m where the age of the ice is 40±1 years; at DE08-2 to be 72 m depth and 40 years; and at DSS to be 66 m depth and 68 years.[15]
[edit] Paleoatmospheric firn studies
Ozone-depleting gases in Greenland firn.
At the South Pole, the firn-ice transition depth is at 122 m, with a CO2 age of about 100 years.
Again, scientists know how to determine which layers are annual layers.
Now you cannot take that 1.7 meters per year as a constant. Just a range near the surface. The ice compresses and squeezes horizontally the deeper it gets. Layers become closer together. The ice flow is so great, visible layers no longer work.
Maybe this will conivvince you:
Vostok Ice Core Timescales:
Carbon dating is actually pretty accurate when you have unadulterated samples, and can compare to other indicators to give a starting ration. You see, they once thought starting 14C was all the same ratio. Scientists have since discovered that it varies with solar radiation, so it's more complex than just taking a ratio between 12C and 14C.Different timescales have been used for the interpretation of Vostok ice core records. They are reported in ky BP.
- The Ruddiman and Raymo (2003) Methane-Based Time Scale was developed by tuning the Vostok methane signal to mid-July 30°N insolation.
- The Pe et al. GT4 timescale extends the glaciological timescale of Jouzel et al.
- The Lorius et al. timescale (column 2) has been derived by combining a glaciological model, fully described in Ritz (1992) and an ac ulation model in which past ac ulation is derived from the temperature record reconstructed from the deuterium isotopic profile (see Lorius et al., 1985).
- Sowers et al. correlated the d18O of paleoatmospheric O2 derived from the Vostok 3G and 4G cores, into a record of changes in the d18O of sea water derived from records of the d18O of foraminifera (see Sowers et al., 1993). This timescale is given in column 3.
- The glaciological timescale of Lorius et al. (1985) has been extended accounting for a linear increase of modern ac ulation upstream of Vostok. This Extended Glaciological Timescale (EGT; column 4) is described in Jouzel et al. (1993).
- Jouzel et al. (1996) have used a modified version of EGT (column 4) assuming that this timescale overestimates the increase of age with depth by 12% for gas ages older than 112 ky BP.
Except in the case of most centuries that carbon dating an be used, we have tree ring records to compare them with. We have clear data to proxy our ratios with for a given year. Now I agree radioisotope data gets tricky for other elements. That's why the accuracy decreases as time goes by.
Most the problems with carbon dating, isn't the method, but the samples people try to date. For example, all coral, sea s s, aquatic life, birds, and so many other species will give you older dates than they really are. Carbon dating only is accurate from surface plants, or vegetarians that do not eat plants that extract CO2 from water.
I will address all your quotes but for now this one needs special attention. Do you really know what you are saying here?
They do say annual layers, but they don't ever say all layers are annual layers.
Do you know how you sound? That is like me posting "ok I can admit man did come from ape but not all men came from ape!" WTF?
I made my point if the scientist.... oops sorry (Some scientist) say they are annual layers then that is a lie right there! And the needs to be removed from the text books,
Your logic is like this. "yes Hitler did kill some Jews but he didn't kill all the Jews" WGAF how many Jews he didn't kill he killed enough to be guilty.
come on man think before you post such circular bull .
Mouse, if scientists are wrong about how old the earth is, who do you trust to determine the age of the earth?
It's not who, it's what. The rivers, the trees, the creatures, the seas. I use what I see around me. When I see a colorful earth......
or a beautiful woman......
I can't see it all coming from hot gas and snails do you?
Besides I really don't care how old the earth is just don't try and tell me it's 4 billion years old. Don't tell me you know for a fact Dinosaurs were here 25 million years ago and man evolved from ape if you were not there to witness it.
That is like me telling you Jesus was the first person to dunk a basketball.
So, you don't know how old it is, except you KNOW emphatically it's not billions of years old?
Do you know how old the girl in the pic above is? I bet you know she's not 70 years old don't you? This isn't rocket science brah!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
