Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have to confess that, while I have seen explanations that the layers where the planes were found (note that there are other WWII aircraft found on the surface in the Arctic - it depends on the local conditions) do represent build -up of layers representing snowstorms, there has been no checking of the layers where the aircraft in question was found. I watched the documentary of the discovery of the aircraft and I saw no layers, but rather a continual layer, but it can be hard to tell I suppose.
There are local conditions in Greenland. Near the coast (10 miles inland, it says) is the place where one tends to get heavier precipitation. There can be many reasons why the aircraft was buried deep.
It is invalid to suggest that the rate of snow/ice deposition has to be the same everywhere. And you people are the ones who moan about Uniformism.
It's a pity, in you eagerness to discredit any Science that undermines your Genesis -literalist Young (2nd) Earthism, you just cut an' paste with out bothering to check your facts.
You are still doing a great job for us, old China.
There are local conditions in Greenland. Near the coast (10 miles inland, it says) is the place where one tends to get heavier precipitation. There can be many reasons why the aircraft was buried deep.
It is invalid to suggest that the rate of snow/ice deposition has to be the same everywhere. And you people are the ones who moan about Uniformism.
It's a pity, in you eagerness to discredit any Science that undermines your Genesis -literalist Young (2nd) Earthism, you just cut an' paste with out bothering to check your facts.
You are still doing a great job for us, old China.
I hope you weren't aiming your caustic words at me.
I am not a believer in a Young Earth.
I checked my facts.
As for the ice cores, the Vostok ice-core indicates that the minimum age of the earth is 160,000 years +/- 15,000 years. Something tells me that 160,000 years is a little longer than 6,000 years. Interesting stuff on the various means by which they date ice cores: Methods for Dating Ice Cores | Melanie Goral - Academia.edu
That ice core can only tell you the minimum age of the Antarctic ice sheet. If you want to know the age of the Earth, you can conduct radioisotopic analysis of the oldest known rocks (uranium/lead method). Unfortunately, because the Earth has always been such a dynamic planet, the oldest rocks have likely been destroyed. Such analyses have been conducted on many meteorites though, and on Moon rocks, giving us a date of 4.57 billion years. Having said that, we have analyzed the oldest known terrestrial rock fragment, which consist of grain of zircon found in the Jack Hills, Australia. That grain has been determined to be at least 4.4 billion years old.
Just as far as Creation ministries. You have been told about radiometric dating in Antarcic ice cores and you attempt to discredit that by referring to planes that have sunk to a roughly comparable depth (but not necessarily a comparable type of ice deposit) on the coast of Greenland.
Don't you see that that you cannot do that any more than you can discredit achaeology by pointing out that a dozen historical culture -layers may be found in a twenty foot deposit but at Çatalhöyük (Turkey), a twenty foot deposit is all neolithic. Or that a hundred foot rock strata containing everything from Cambrian to Miocene enables Geological eep time to be discredited because of a 100 foot limestone or chalk layer somewhere else.
Now, if the snow/ice deposit in which the plane was found is exactly the same type of layered deposit from which Ice cores are taken and the layers of which are considered to represent season, rather than individual changes in weather many times during a year (remember that the seasonal rate is supported by radiometric dating, and that the two coincide is a bit of a coincidence - unless they really are related) then you might have a case, but it is not known whether the layers which are referred to really are comparable with glacial ice cores from the other end of the earth.
p.s
Claim CD410: Ice cores are claimed to have as many as 135,000 annual layers. Yet airplanes of the Lost Squadron were buried under 263 feet of ice in forty-eight years, or about 5.5 feet per year. This contradicts the presumption that the wafer-thin layers in the ice cores could be annual layers.
Source:
Vardiman, Larry. 1992. Ice cores and the age of the earth. Impact 226 (Apr.). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...on=view&ID=355
Response:
Ice layers are counted by different methods (mainly, visible layers of hoar frost, visible dust layers, and layers of differing electrical conductivity) which have nothing to do with thickness. These methods corroborate each other and match with other independently determined dates (Seely 2003).
The airplanes landed near the shore of Greenland, where snow accumulation is rapid, at about 2 m per year. Allowing for some compaction due to the weight of the snow, that accounts for the depth of snow under which they are buried. The planes are also on an active glacier and have moved about 2 km since landing. Ice core dating takes place on stable ice fields, not active glaciers. The interior of Greenland, where ice cores were taken, receives much less snow. In Antarctica, where ice cores dating back more than 100,000 years have been collected, the rate of snow accumulation is much less still.
A report of "many hundreds" of layers in the ice above the Lost Squadron may also be explained by the airplanes' location on Greenland. That location is relatively warm because it is low and more southerly; its surface gets repeatedly melted during the summer, creating multiple melt layers per year. At the site of the GISP2 ice core, melting occurs only about once every couple centuries. Melt layers are easily distinguished in ice cores. The more than 100,000 layers in ice cores are definitely not melt layers (Seely 2003).
Oh wow, a link to the Institute for Creation Research. Now there's an unbiased source (*wink*).
For instance, this, taken from their webpage:
All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false.
Hehe ... this organization should be called the Institute for Confirmation Bias Research.
I wouldn't trust anything they said without corrobrating it with a dozen other scientific agencies.
The only real reason to work this hard at proving evolution false is if you believe that the Bible is literally true. And if you believe that, then you have to believe that the earth was created around 6,000 years ago since the genealogy of the Bible proves it.
Oh wow, a link to the Institute for Creation Research. Now there's an unbiased source (*wink*).
For instance, this, taken from their webpage:
All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false.
Hehe ... this organization should be called the Institute for Confirmation Bias Research.
I wouldn't trust anything they said without corrobrating it with a dozen other scientific agencies.
Those people are obviously undergoing a serious clinical psychotic break, because they apparently believe that the Flintstones is a documentary.
That ice core can only tell you the minimum age of the Antarctic ice sheet. If you want to know the age of the Earth, you can conduct radioisotopic analysis of the oldest known rocks (uranium/lead method). Unfortunately, because the Earth has always been such a dynamic planet, the oldest rocks have likely been destroyed. Such analyses have been conducted on many meteorites though, and on Moon rocks, giving us a date of 4.57 billion years. Having said that, we have analyzed the oldest known terrestrial rock fragment, which consist of grain of zircon found in the Jack Hills, Australia. That grain has been determined to be at least 4.4 billion years old.
Thank you. I believe that some Archaean rock have been identified, but that is as far back so far. In any case, the rocks are pretty damn' old.
However, Eusebius gets around this by assigning these old rocks to a pre -earth earth, and the second one (which I must say I find it hard to tell from the 1st in my Bible, but Eusebius apparently uses a Bible that translated 'pitch' as 'tapers'.) is the one where everything from Blob to Bob happened in a few thousand years. Thus the Ice core deposits have to explained away as around ten thousand ice depositing events per year (if my math is correct) and which isn't unfeasible - except for the corroboration of radiometric dating - which then has to be discredited by reference to some rather dodgy tests carried out by card -carrying Creationists.
It is a debatable area and I am still finding out - I am a lot more sure of my ground on evolution and Archaeology. But it is certainly the case that the queries raised about Ice cores and Radiometric dating and indeed the dates of rocks do have answers and it is very dodgy procedure indeed for Y.E believers to ignore them and just link to one side of the argument sites.
I'm a biblical believer myself, but would concur that almost anyone trying to claim creation in the 6000 year, even 20,000 year, time-frame is going to get creamed in a debate.
It boils-down to a a mistranslation in Genesis Chapter 1.
Many version read the in the beginning, God created the heaven and the Earth, and that the Earth WAS without form and void.
There was not a Hebrew or Aramaic word WAS, but there is the word BECAME ...
Acurately, the scripture without man meddling or muddling translation, teaches that God created the heaven and Earth, and it then became withou out form and void. (Tohu va Bohu / a figure of speech Paranomasia or Rhyming words for emphasis) . No specific number of years is mentioned, so it's open to being thousands, millions or billions of years.
I find that concurs with the scientific minds I listen too, because they often talk about catastrophic things happening to the Earth such as comet, meteorites, volcanic eruptions, ice age, etc., that devasted great amounts of life on the planet.
Genesis chapter 1 gives room for that science within two verses. The goes on about how life replenished the Earth again. Basically what I hear from the scientific minds ... that certain life has vanished from the face of the Earth, giving way to new and different and abundant life forms.
The confusion seems to stem from religious people who get hell-bent on their misinterpretations and mistranslations. They they end up getting egg in the face.
..
This is inserting science between two verses and is a very lame and self defeating apologetic. You can insert whatever you want and would be as valid as the next person's insertion
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdvaden
Scripture / Spritual vs. a pure Science mind debate is often a bad fit.
I think science is good, but I'm not sure if scientists honestly ever can approach creation as if it were possible, or IF God could exist ... and IF he existed, what IS his potential.
In other words ...
Suppose there was a God, and that God had the power to create an Earth, solar system, many solar systems, and the universe, with amazing details and precision.
If HE had that power, why could he not create even 10 days ago, a solar system that had the molecular composition and characteristics that man would classify as 20 million years old?
It's all atoms and molecules right? So if a God could create them in one arrangement, why not ANY arrangement?
Then we still have the problem, instapoof god is unable or unwilling to deal with starvation in Somalia and this is the self same question posed by Epicurus ~300 years before jesus apparently arrived on the scene.
Lots of what ifs in that post and yeah, we can explore that to the ultimate futility. It is the classic prime mover argument and inserts magic to allow god to still be a part of the equation. It is called special pleading. The best outcome would be for a deist sortofgod.
The ancients had no idea of how we got here and they made up stories to answer the "ultimate question" what is the purpose of life.
Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy "42" is as valid as any other answer offered.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
