Originally posted by twhiteheadwhitey, honesty, oh pleeeaaasssse! you evaded the very simple question of the probability of life having arisen by chance, a very simple mathematical calculation for someone with a degree in mathematics, because it did not fit in with your world view, you evaded telling the forum why the words of Christ are not to be taken literally, you evaded giving even an interpretation of Christs words and here you are pontificating to others about the virtues of honesty!
Some of us are reasonably honest. For those that are not, I am curious as to why. Why is it that some Christians feel such a strong need to disprove evolution? What is so wrong with just going with the 'its a miracle' claim and stop trying to show that creationism is in some way scientific or supported by science? But most importantly, why go to the exten ...[text shortened]... t to try and show evolution is flawed? Especially when you know that you will be called on it.
Originally posted by galveston75According to Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland, the ice core data is not only contaminated by procedural problems, it is also manipulated in order to fit popular theories of the day. well theres a surprise!
Contaminated and Biased Data:
According to Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland, the ice core data is not only contaminated by procedural problems, it is also manipulated in order to fit popular theories of the day.
Jaworowski first argues ...[text shortened]... ans of time, supposedly recording in the layers of large ice sheets. (Back to Top)
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieClassic creationist propoganda!!!!
According to Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland, the ice core data is not only contaminated by procedural problems,[b] it is also manipulated in order to fit popular theories of the day. well theres a surprise![/b]
If you actually looked up Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski, you will see that his views are on CLIMATE CHANGE and not regarding the age of the ice caps!!!!
He's a global warming skeptic, and certainly doesn't beleive that the ice caps are only 5,000yrs old as you're trying to suggest.
Stephen Schneider said of him that "Jaworowski is perhaps even more contrarian than most, claiming that he can prove the climate is going to get colder through his work excavating glaciers on six different continents, which he says indicates what we should really be worrying about is 'The approaching new Ice Age...'."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Jaworowski
So i'm afraid your still whistling in the wind with your pants round your ankles with your knackers on display to the world on this one still.
500+ posts in and still no evidence the ice caps are only 5,000yrs old. Keep trying guys. Although i feel you may keep trying until the day you die, the ice caps aren't 5,000yrs old, simple as that.
Originally posted by Proper Knobi doubt you really can date something without isotope dating(which they dismiss as fairy tales). can you think of another mean of dating other than the object in question having written on it's forehead "i was born in the year X BC"?
Classic creationist propoganda!!!!
If you actually looked up Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski, you will see that his views are on [b]CLIMATE CHANGE and not regarding the age of the ice caps!!!!
He's a global warming skeptic, and certainly doesn't beleive that the ice caps are only 5,000yrs old as you're trying to suggest.
Stephen Schneider said of ...[text shortened]... ay keep trying until the day you die, the ice caps aren't 5,000yrs old, simple as that.[/b]
Originally posted by Proper KnobWell the way I see it is that there is no proof they are over 5000 years old as there is now way to test with any accurate results to there ages... So I guess its a draw. So far neither of us knows so that does not rule out the flood being a real event.
Classic creationist propoganda!!!!
If you actually looked up Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski, you will see that his views are on [b]CLIMATE CHANGE and not regarding the age of the ice caps!!!!
He's a global warming skeptic, and certainly doesn't beleive that the ice caps are only 5,000yrs old as you're trying to suggest.
Stephen Schneider said of ...[text shortened]... ay keep trying until the day you die, the ice caps aren't 5,000yrs old, simple as that.[/b]
Here is some more info for you....
Cyclic Dust Deposits
So, if volcanic markers are generally unreliable and completely useless beyond a few thousand years, how are scientists so sure that their ice core dating methods are meaningful? Well, one of the most popular methods used to distinguish annual layers is one that measures the fluctuations in ice core dust. Dust is alkaline and shows up as a low ECM reading. During the dry northern summer, dust particles from Arctic Canada and the coastal regions of Greenland are carried by wind currents and are deposited on the Greenland ice sheet. During the winter, this area is not so dusty, so less dust is deposited during the winter as compared to the summer. This annual fluctuation of dust is thought to be the most reliable of all the methods for the marking of the annual cycle - especially as the layers start to get thinner and thinner as one moves down the column of ice.27 And, it certainly would be one of the most reliable methods if it were not for one little problem known as “post-depositional particle migration”.
Zdanowicz et al., from the University of New Hampshire, did real time studies of modern atmospheric dust deposition in the 1990’s on the Penny Ice Cap, Baffin Island, Arctic Canada. Their findings are most interesting indeed:
“After the snow deposition on polar ice sheets, not all the chemical species preserve the original concentration values in the ice. In order to obtain reliable past-environmental information by firn and ice cores, it is important to understand how post-depositional effects can alter the chemical composition of the ice. These effects can happen both in the most superficial layers and in the deep ice. In the snow surface, post-depositional effects are mainly due to re-emission in the atmosphere and we show here that chloride, nitrate, methane-sulphonic acid (MSA) and H2O2 [hydrogen peroxide] are greatly affected by this process; moreover, we show how the mean annual snow accumulation rate influences the re-emission extent. In the deep ice, post-depositional effects are mainly due to movement of acidic species and it is interesting to note the behavior of some substances (e.g. chloride and nitrate) in acidic (high concentrations of volcanic acid gases) and alkaline (high dust content) ice layers . . . We failed to identify any consistent relationship between dust concentration or size distribution, and ionic chemistry or snowpack stratigraphy.” 28
This study goes on to reveal that each yearly cycle is marked not by one distinct annual dust concentration as is normally assumed when counting ice core layers, but by two distinct dust concentration peaks – one in late winter-spring and another one in the late summer-fall. So, each year is initially marked by “two seasonal maxima of dust deposition.” By itself, this finding cuts in half those ice core dates that assume that each year is marked by only one distinct deposition of dust. This would still be a salvageable problem if the dust actually stayed put once it was deposited in the snow. But, it does not stay put – it moves!
“While some dust peaks are found to be associated with ice layers or Na [sodium] enhancements, others are not. Similarly, variations of the NMD [number mean diameter – a parameter for quantifying relative changes in particle size] and beta cannot be systematically correlated to stratigraphic features of the snowpack. This lack of consistency indicates that microparticles are remobilized by meltwater in such a way that seasonal (and stratigraphic) differences are obscured.” 28
This remobilization of the microparticles of dust in the snow was found to affect both fine and coarse particles in an uneven way. The resulting “dust profiles” displayed “considerable structure and variability with multiple well-defined peaks” for any given yearly deposit of snow. The authors hypothesized that this variability was most likely caused by a combination of factors to include “variations of snow accumulation or summer melt and numerous ice layers acting as physical obstacles against particle migration in the snow.” The authors suggest that this migration of dust and other elements limits the resolution of these methods to “multiannual to decadal averages”.28
Another interesting thing about the dust found in the layers of ice is that those layers representing the last “ice age” contain a whole lot of dust – up to 100 times more dust than is deposited on average today.19 The question is, how does one explain a hundred times as much Ice Age dust in the Greenland icecap with gradualistic, wet conditions? There simply are no unique dust sources on Earth to account for 100 times more dust during the 100,000 years of the Ice Age, particularly when this Ice Age was thought to be associated with a large amount of precipitation/rain – which would only cleanse the atmosphere more effectively. How can high levels of precipitation be associated with an extremely dusty atmosphere for such a long period of time? Isn’t this a contradiction from a uniformitarian perspective? Perhaps a more recent catastrophic model has greater explanatory value?
Other dating methods, such as 14C, 36Cl and other radiometric dating methods are subject to this same problem of post-depositional diffusion as well as contamination – especially when the summer melt sends water percolating through the tens and hundreds of layers found in the snowy firn before the snow turns to ice. Then, even after the snow turns to ice, diffusion is still a big problem for these molecules. They simply do not stay put.
More recent publications by Rempel et al., in Nature (May, 2001),32 also quoted by J.W. Wettlaufer (University of Washington) in a paper entitled, "Premelting and anomalous diffusion in ancient ice",31 suggest that chemicals that have been trapped in ancient glacial or polar ice can move substantial distances within the ice (up to 50cm even in deeper ice where layers get as thin as 3 or 4 millimeters). Such mobility is felt by these scientists to be "large enough to offset the resolution at which the core was examined and alter the interpretation of the ice-core record." What happens is that, "Substances that are climate signatures - from sea salt to sulfuric acid - travel through the frozen mass along microscopic channels of liquid water between individual ice crystals, away from the ice on which they were deposited. The movement becomes more pronounced over time as the flow of ice carries the substances deeper within the ice sheet, where it is warmer and there is more liquid water between ice crystals. . . The Vostok core from Antarctica, which goes back 450,000 years, contains even greater displacement [as compared to the Greenland ice cores] because of the greater depth." That means that past analyses of historic climate changes gleaned from ice core samples might not be all that accurate. Wettlaufer specifically notes that, "The point of the paper is to suggest that the ice core community go back and redo the chemistry."31,32 Of course these scientists do not think that such problems are significant enough to destroy the usefulness of ice cores as a fairly reliable means of determining historical climate changes. But, it does make one start to wonder how much confidence one can actually have in the popular interpretations of what ancient ice really means. (Back to Top)
Originally posted by galveston75All this infromation you are providing has nothing to do with how old the ice caps are, it's all about evidence contained within the ice caps with regard to global warming.
Well the way I see it is that there is no proof they are over 5000 years old as there is now way to test with any accurate results to there ages... So I guess its a draw. So far neither of us knows so that does not rule out the flood being a real event.
Here is some more info for you....
Cyclic Dust Deposits ...[text shortened]... ally have in the popular interpretations of what ancient ice really means. (Back to Top)
Take this sentence for example, taken from the text you posted.
The Vostok core from Antarctica, which goes back 450,000 years
How is that evidence supporting your belief that the ice caps are only 5,000yrs old. It completely contradicts what you are trying to prove. I suggest you read the text before you post it next time.
It can't be a draw, because you have yet to provide any evidence to support your view. And i don't need to find any because you've just done it for me.
Cheers.