Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWell, I have come up with these two:
If what was claimed there had even the slightest credibility then it would be a world-wide news sensation because it would clearly contradicted well established scientific facts.
So why has it not been a world-wide news sensation?
Was it covered up? Even if the authorities strangely wanted to cover it up (why would they?) it would be virtually im ...[text shortened]... al claim must have no credibility?
Why haven’t we seen anything about this plane on the news?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/23/usa.secondworldwar
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/22/america/NA-GEN-US-Glacier-Plane.php
The Guardian is a respectable, non-creationist British newspaper. I know nothing about the IHT. Neither mention any implications for Ice Core dating and both talk about 100 meters of ice & snow. It's an interesting conundrum. TalkOrigins probably has something on this...
Here we go, from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html:
1. 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).
2. 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.
3. 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).
So that clears that one up then. Next!
--- Penguin.
3 edits
Originally posted by Penguin…. So that clears that one up then. Next! ...
Well, I have come up with these two:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/23/usa.secondworldwar
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/22/america/NA-GEN-US-Glacier-Plane.php
The Guardian is a respectable, non-creationist British newspaper. I know nothing about the IHT. Neither mention any implications for Ice Core dating and both talk about 100 me not melt layers (Seely 2003). [/i]
So that clears that one up then. Next!
--- Penguin.
Yes, I think it does. Thanks for that Penguin.
----------------------------------------------------------
KellyJay
I presume you wouldn’t deny that trees have annual rings?
Sometimes solid objects become encased in tree rings if they are continually pressed against the tree because this makes the rings slowely grow over the object (I have actually observed this myself because I have huge amount of practical experience in horticulture -I have seen old barbed wire going straight through a tree trunk! )
Suppose somebody claims to found a credit card encased in layers of tree growth rings that are 50 years old. Would you suddenly jump to the conclusion that non of the rings in ANY tree are “annual” rings but the whole of science and all intelligent observing people are wrong about the rings in trees being “annual” despite the mountain of evidence that they are annual?
Or would conclude there must be a more mundane explanation such as the person who is making the claim is either mistaken or even lying or, alternatively and just possibly, while the layers of rings in virtually all other trees and branches are annual, in that particular branch abnormal growth has resulted in “seasonal rings” ?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI don't deny they have rings, but I've also been informed that some
[b]…. So that clears that one up then. Next! ...
Yes, I think it does. Thanks for that Penguin.
----------------------------------------------------------
KellyJay
I presume you wouldn’t deny that trees have annual rings?
Sometimes solid objects become encased in tree rings if they are continually pressed against the tree because ...[text shortened]... ranches are annual, in that particular branch abnormal growth has resulted in “seasonal rings” ?[/b]
tree's tree-rings are more acturate than another's which leads me to
think how do you know how acturate they are over long periods of time.
Kelly
Originally posted by PenguinI posted the plane information for just one reason, and your post
Well, I have come up with these two:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/23/usa.secondworldwar
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/22/america/NA-GEN-US-Glacier-Plane.php
The Guardian is a respectable, non-creationist British newspaper. I know nothing about the IHT. Neither mention any implications for Ice Core dating and both talk about 100 me ...[text shortened]... not melt layers (Seely 2003). [/i]
So that clears that one up then. Next!
--- Penguin.
cleared it up nicely. Simply looking at something does not always
give us the correct impression, if there is something out there we are
missing could mean what we think is true, may not be.
Kelly
Originally posted by FabianFnasI do not deny the power of science, I don't always accept the same
To be anti-science is to deny the power of science. But you know, without science we would soon be back to the supersticious ages when we put our faith to supernatural powers.
I'm happy to live in an age when science can explain the universe in a better way than ever. No anti-science people should even attempt to drag us back again.
thing you do as factual or true, but that does not mean science is
flawed, only people.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseYou can belittle the post, it wasn't a pseudo-event it actually happened
But the very act of bringing to the table these pseudo-scientific articles proves you don't want to just look at real evidence, only in bringing down that evidence. Since we have ice core data that we KNOW built up layer by layer, year by year, for at least the last 100 years because they were documented, what is wrong with extrapolating back 200 years or 2 ...[text shortened]... erstand ANYTHING in the world, especially when it comes to refuting biblical stories.
and it was cleared up for my satifaction here later too. It did do one
thing, that was simply show that depending on what we are looking
at the same rules cannot alway be applied the same way and get the
correct results, and sometimes the reason for that would be right in
front of us, other times not so much.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThis quote of yours proves that you are anti-science: "we have ice cores, and we have people dating them to whatever age they think is right."
I do not deny the power of science, I don't always accept the same
thing you do as factual or true, but that does not mean science is
flawed, only people.
Kelly
If you think this, then you deny science. Hence you are anti-science.
Originally posted by FabianFnasWow, you got me there, people date cores and come up with the age
This quote of yours proves that you are anti-science: "we have ice cores, and we have people dating them to whatever age they think is right."
If you think this, then you deny science. Hence you are anti-science.
they think is right.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayKellyJay: "we have ice cores, and we have people dating them to whatever age they think is right."
Wow, you got me there, people date cores and come up with the age
they think is right.
Kelly
As KellyJay thinks scientists reason: "Eh, let's see, this part of the icecore is about 24 thousand years, but the bible tells us it can't be more than 6 thousand years, so I write down, eh, well, let's say 4,500 years, sounds fine."
This is YE Creationist type of science. Real scientists call it anti-science.
Admit it, you don't know much about science... Or do you want me to find another quote of yours?
6 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayProviding they are annual rings, it is just a matter of logic that their “accuracy” is at least within a year. So if you count 101 annual rings though a cross-section then the oldest ring must be 101 years +- one year (actually it would be more accurate than that! But, purely just for the sake of argument, I am using what is by far the most cautious possible assumption about the level of accuracy here so that you cannot say my assumption of the exact level of accuracy is unsafe because it is too high) which means the oldest ring would have to be at least 100 years old.
I don't deny they have rings, but I've also been informed that some
tree's tree-rings are more acturate than another's which leads me to
think how do you know how acturate they are over long periods of time.
Kelly
Do you deny this? If so, explain the flaw in the logic here.
You don’t have to “personally witness” each of those layers grow to logically deduce that the oldest rind must be at least 100 years old.
How on earth can their accuracy vary “over long periods of time” (as you implied) ?
-you just count the number of annual rings and each ring represents one year so, for example, it logically could NOT have an accuracy of, say, +- two years or more over “long periods of time”! -that wouldn’t make any logical sense. Logic dictates that their accuracy cannot possibly be worse than +- one year.
Again, do you deny this? If so, explain the flaw in the logic here.
This, of course, doesn’t only apply to tree rings but also layers in ice cores and also in rock strata.
Originally posted by KellyJayYou have to know any tree goes dormant in the winter which is what leads to tree rings, when springtime comes, buds form, energy is transferred and the tree starts another growth cycle, another ring is added. The interesting thing about tree rings is not only are they annual but the rings vary in width depending on the quality of the spring and summer weather, drought vs wet years, and so forth. So the rings have variable widths depending on how much nutrient input it gets, sunlight, water, CO2, etc. So scientists can use the width of each ring to get a rough measure of what the rain/sun/nutrient levels are in a given year. A period of drought will lead to thinner rings, good years produce thicker rings. What this allows scientists to do is correlate the tree ring width data with weather patterns discerned through other means to validate both lines of research. For instance, Europe went through a terrible period in its history starting around the year 1100 and going for several hundred years, a long long time of really really bad weather, called the little ice age. That is from written accounts gathered through generations of people writing about the famines and diseases, the little ice age was pretty much directly responsible for the black plague that killed about half the population of Europe in the 1200's and thereabouts timewise. Well it turns out that the written accounts were also validated by the width data of the tree ring data of old surviving trees that made it through that terrible time, a time when trees all around Europe had very narrow growth rings due to such short growing times, sometimes there being ice in July for instance. So these trees contain a treasure trove of information for those able to decode the data.
I don't deny they have rings, but I've also been informed that some
tree's tree-rings are more acturate than another's which leads me to
think how do you know how acturate they are over long periods of time.
Kelly
The term for this kind of science is "Dendrochronology". If KellyJay is not too anti-science he can find more information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology and from there go further if he is interested in it.
But if dendrochronology is not supported by the bible, then I don't know if he ever will understand, or even want to understand, what dendrochronology is all about.
Originally posted by FabianFnasTip O the hat to you for finding a decent link.
The term for this kind of science is "Dendrochronology". If KellyJay is not too anti-science he can find more information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology and from there go further if he is interested in it.
But if dendrochronology is not supported by the bible, then I don't know if he ever will understand, or even want to understand, what dendrochronology is all about.
New vocabulary word of the day: Varves. (like tree rings but they are layers of mud and other sediment on riverbeds and lakes)
Originally posted by sonhouseThank you, sonhouse.
Tip O the hat to you for finding a decent link.
New vocabulary word of the day: Varves. (like tree rings but they are layers of mud and other sediment on riverbeds and lakes)
If you think this link is good, then you should examine the links at the bottom of that page. Some of them have further links.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI think this link is quite good. Part of it says:
The term for this kind of science is "Dendrochronology". If KellyJay is not too anti-science he can find more information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology and from there go further if he is interested in it.
But if dendrochronology is not supported by the bible, then I don't know if he ever will understand, or even want to understand, what dendrochronology is all about.
…. A benefit of dendrochronology is that it makes available specimens of once-living material accurately dated to a specific year to be used as a calibration and check of radiocarbon dating, through the estimation of a date range formed through the interception of radiocarbon …
…
…. In some regions dating sequences of more than 10,000 years are available.
…
-Thus this is a good vindication for the assumed level of accuracy of radiocarbon dating over a period of at least 10,000 years.