Make these ads go away.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 395 of 409 FirstFirst ... 295 345 385 393 394 395 396 397 405 ... LastLast
Results 3,941 to 3,950 of 4085

Thread: Science Disproves Evolution

  1. #3941
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    07-17-2018
    Local Time
    03:35 AM
    Points
    6,792

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    Enough to know that nearly every post about "Evolution" is false, and misleading information from someone who knows little about the subject
    The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:


    Ice Age Glaciers at Yosemite National Park


    Glaciers once filled Yosemite Valley almost to the top of Half Dome, stretching over Tuolumne Meadows and to Tioga Pass near the top of the Sierra Nevada. Large fields of granite that are now exposed were planed down by the movement of the glaciers as they ground downhill, leaving behind evidence of their presence and direction of travel. But if glaciers occurred after the Genesis Flood, how did they form and why have they disappeared?

    One scenario is that the Genesis Flood--which ended about 4,500 years ago--left the oceans as warm as 120°F in places, causing a large amount of evaporation. This moisture would have been gathered by winds and blown across the continents, producing heavy precipitation. In California, the Sierra Nevada mountains form a long north-south barrier perpendicular to the flow of air off the Pacific Ocean. Here, the warm, moist air would have been lifted to higher, colder elevations, resulting in large quantities of snow. Precipitation would have been enhanced by a strong jet stream that is believed to have tracked across the southwestern United States during the Ice Age, below its current position along the northern tier of states. These strong winds moving moist air over the area of Yosemite National Park would have produced glaciers. When the oceans cooled two to three thousand years ago, the precipitation would have decreased, permitting the glaciers to melt.

    Today, Yosemite National Park generally sees snow only in winter, which then completely melts during summer. Because the sea-surface temperature of the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California dropped after the Flood from an estimated 120°F to a current average winter temperature of about 60°F, the Ice Age ended. Occasionally the sea-surface temperature along the California coast will warm by 1-3°F during what is called an El Niño event. Although these warmer temperatures lead to an increase in storminess and precipitation, the unsettled weather during these periods typically lasts only a year or two and doesn't produce enough snow to form permanent glaciers.

    To facilitate the study of the Flood's meteorological impact, a weather and climate model called MM5 has been installed on ICR's Epiphany research computer. Numerical simulations will be conducted of conditions that would lead to more precipitation and glaciers in Yosemite National Park. Variations of the sea-surface temperature of the Pacific Ocean off California will be introduced to see what effects they have on the magnitude and distribution of snow, with a particular focus on short-term cold periods during generally warm sea-surface conditions.

    One goal is to find an explanation for some of the short-period fluctuations in the distribution of glaciers at the end of the Ice Age. As the glaciers melted, cold water likely flowed into the ocean and chilled the surface water. This cold sea-surface temperature would have reduced the evaporation and may explain fluctuations in glacial coverage in Yosemite, like those of the Younger Dryas event on the east coast of the United States and Europe. The results of this research effort are scheduled to be presented at the upcoming International Conference on Creationism in August 2008, with a completion of the study over the next few years. Through science, we continue to learn of the works of our Creator, who "casteth forth his ice like morsels: who can stand before his cold? He sendeth out his word, and melteth them: he causeth his wind to blow, and the waters flow" (Psalm 147:17-18).

    Ice Age Glaciers at Yosemite National Park | The Institute for Creation Research
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  2. #3942
    Ted
    Currently Online Now
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Gabriola Island BC
    Posts
    5,440
    Local Date
    07-17-2018
    Local Time
    12:35 AM
    Points
    6,352

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    More BS.

  3. #3943
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    07-17-2018
    Local Time
    03:35 AM
    Points
    6,792

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Ted View Post
    More BS.
    Evidence free assertion! The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

    Out of Whose Womb Came the Ice?


    Introduction

    Recent reports of ice-core drilling in Greenland have raised anew the question for young-earth creationists—How could so much ice accumulate in polar regions in only a few thousand years? Corings through the ice in central Greenland have reached depths of almost two miles, and ice at the bottom has been estimated to be as old as 250 thousand years.[1][2]

    In a previous Impact article, [3] I suggested that thick ice sheets could be explained if high precipitation rates occurred immediately following the Flood. The "annual" layers of ice near the bottom of the ice sheet should be thicker than that expected by the uniformitarian model and contain unusual excursions of ð18O, acidity, and particulates. I further suggested that the "annual" layers deep in the Greenland ice sheet may be related to individual storms rather than seasonal accumulation.

    Since my earlier article, two major advances in creationist research have led to greater confidence in the young-earth model of ice-sheet formation. First, the suggestion by Oard[4] that the oceans may have been warmer at the end of the Flood seems to have been strengthened by an analysis of sea-floor sediment data. Second, numerical modeling studies at the Institute for Creation Research show that warmer oceans would produce very high precipitation rates in polar regions in patterns required for the formation of ice sheets.

    Warm Oceans After the Flood

    Evidence for warm oceans in the past, cooling to the temperatures observed today, has been found in the chemical analysis of sea-floor sediments. Corings of sea-floor sediments have been made at almost 1000 sites on the bottom of the oceans, from the equator to the poles. Analysis of the ratio of the concentration of 18O to 16O in the skeletal remains of various ocean organisms in sea-floor sediments has allowed estimates to be made of the temperature of the ocean in the past. If a particular organism lived near the upper surface of the ocean, the measurement of its ratio allows an estimate to be made of the surface temperature during its lifetime. If a particular organism lived on the bottom, the ratio estimates the bottom temperature.



    Figure 1 shows estimated temperature as a function of time for polar-bottom water, derived from the 18O/16O ratio of benthic foraminifera. Benthic foraminifera are marine microorganisms which live on the ocean bottom and deposit calcium shells on the ocean floor when they die. The time scale is shown according to the Ussher Chronology, in which the Flood is calculated to have occurred about 4,500 years ago. A major assumption in constructing this plot from the original data[5][6] was the location of the appropriate level in the sea-floor sediment for the end of the Genesis Flood. It has been assumed that the Flood ended at the interface between the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods. According to the long-age, evolutionary time model, this so-called K/T boundary occurred about 65 million years ago.

    The standard long-age view holds that the oceans were warmer than 20° C some 65 million years ago and have cooled slowly since then to the temperatures we observe today. According to this view the dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures lived in a much warmer climate. As the oceans cooled, a series of "Ice Ages" occurred, modulated by the orbital cycles of the earth's orbit around the sun. We are currently in an interglacial period, according to this model.

    The young-earth, creationist view suggested by Figure 1 is that the oceans were warmer at the end of the Flood and cooled over the past 4,500 years to the temperature we observe today. Only one "Ice Age" has occurred and was, in fact, caused by the residual heat in the oceans left over from the Flood. The compression of the data from some 65 million years to only 4,500 years results in a plot which has the appearance of a standard Kelvin cooling curve, i.e., rapid cooling at first when the temperature gradient is the greatest, to slower cooling later when the gradient is less.

    High Precipitation Rates in Polar Regions

    In an attempt to show that warm ocean temperatures will result in heavy precipitation rates in polar regions a numerical simulation of the atmosphere was conducted on the Community Climate Model developed at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The model, which had previously only been run on a mainframe computer like the CRAY-YMP, was adapted to a 486 personal computer and validated with a standard simulation run for a perpetual January condition in today's atmosphere. The standard simulation run was found to match today's atmospheric conditions well.

    Uniform 30° C sea-surface temperatures were then entered into the model, oceanic ice shelves removed, and the model started again with all other initial conditions the same. A short simulation run was completed. The conditions seem to force the model so strongly that equilibrium appears to have been achieved rapidly. However, the model will continue to be run in order to be certain. The model behaved significantly differently for the warm ocean than for today's conditions.



    Figure 2 shows the precipitation rates over the entire globe for 100 days of simulated time, assuming seasoned conditions remain uniform. The precipitation rates are extreme in the polar regions and along the continental boundaries of the northern hemisphere. Rates exceed 8 inches/hr over Greenland, Antarctica, southeastern Asia, northeastern North America, northwestern Europe, and western Africa. The center of Asia and North America appear relatively dry. Of special interest is the relatively dry region from the eastern end of the Mediterranean eastward across the continent of Asia. This pattern may have been of particular value to Noah and his descendants as they left the Ark on Mt. Ararat and emigrated south and east.

    Conclusions and Recommendations

    The estimates of paleotemperatures from benthic foraminifera seem to strengthen the suggestion by Oard[4] that the oceans were originally warm at the end of the Flood and gradually cooled to the temperature observed today. Although this result is encouraging, more indicators of oceanic temperature change should be explored.

    The numerical simulation of a global climate with warm oceans produces high precipitation rates in polar regions and along continental boundaries. High precipitation rates in these locations would probably have produced the necessary conditions for the rapid formation of ice sheets in Greenland, Antarctica, and North America. Numerous additional computer simulations and comparisons with historic data should be conducted to ensure that these findings are valid.

    These two results, if confirmed, will go a long way toward bolstering the creationist model of the "Ice Age." The ice in the polar regions can then be considered a residual effect of the Flood, which was a judgment by God on the earth for the sins of man. Out of whose womb came the ice? It can be attributed to God, not to some impersonal natural process which occurred by chance over millions of years.

    Acknowledgments

    The Climate and Global Dynamics Division of the National Center for Atmospheric Research is gratefully acknowledged for providing a copy of the Community Climate Model used in this study. Mr. Steve Low and his colleagues at Hewlett- Packard donated the personal computer. Mr. Herman Daily donated his time and expertise to modify the model, designed to run on a CRAY.

    Out of Whose Womb Came the Ice? | The Institute for Creation Research
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  4. #3944
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    07-17-2018
    Local Time
    03:35 AM
    Points
    6,792

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution


    Fossil Man


    Bones of modern-looking humans have been found deep in undisturbed rocks that, according to evolution, were formed long before man began to evolve. Examples include the Castenedolo skeletons (a), Reck’s skeleton (b), and possibly others (c). Remains such as the Swanscombe skull, the Steinheim fossil, and the Vertesszöllos fossil present similar problems (d). Evolutionists almost always ignore these remains.

    a. Bowden, pp. 78–79.

    Frank W. Cousins, Fossil Man (Imsworth, England: A. E. Norris & Sons Ltd., 1971), pp. 50–52, 82, 83.

    W. H. B., “Alleged Discovery of An Ancient Human Skull in California,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 2, 1866, p. 424.

    Edward C. Lain and Robert E. Gentet, “The Case for the Calaveras Skull,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 33, March 1997, pp. 248–256.

    For many years, a story circulated that the Calaveras skull, buried 130 feet below ground, was a practical joke. This tidy explanation conveniently overlooks the hundreds of human bones and artifacts (such as spearheads, mortars and pestles, and dozens of bowls made of stone) found in that part of California. These artifacts have been found over the years under undisturbed strata and a layer of basaltic lava that evolutionists would date at 25 million years old—too old to be human. See, for example:
    Whitney, pp. 262–264, 266, 274–276.
    G. Frederick Wright, Man and the Glacial Period (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1897), pp. 294–301.
    George F. Becker, “Antiquities from under Tuolumne Table Mountain in California,” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. 2, 20 February 1891, pp. 189–200.

    b. Bowden, pp. 78–79.

    Cousins and Whitney state that the Calaveras was fossilized. This does not mean that it was pre-flood. Fossilization depends on chemistry much more than time. Cousins, pp. 48-50, 81.

    Sir Arthur Keith correctly stated the dilemma evolutionists face with the Castenedolo skeletons:

    “As the student of prehistoric man reads and studies the records of the ‘Castenedolo’ find, a feeling of incredulity rises within him. He cannot reject the discovery as false without doing an injury to his sense of truth, and he cannot accept it as a fact without shattering his accepted beliefs.” Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man (London: Williams and Norgate, Ltd., 1925), p. 334.

    However, after examining the strata above and below the Castenedolo skeletons, and after finding no indication that they were intrusively buried, Keith surprisingly concluded that the enigma must be resolved by an intrusive burial. He justified this by citing the unfossilized condition of the bones. However, these bones were encased in a clay layer. Clay would prevent water from transporting large amounts of dissolved minerals into the bone cells and explain the lack of fossilization. Again, fossilization depends much more on chemistry than age.

    c. Bowden, pp. 183–193.

    d. Ibid., pp. 79–88.

    e. Fix, pp. 98–105.

    J.*B. Birdsell, Human Evolution (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972), pp.*316–318.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  5. #3945
    Proudly humble
    is Lost in the Ozone, again.
     
    I am:
    Cool
     
    LarsMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    usually on the road to somewhere.
    Posts
    10,084
    Local Date
    07-17-2018
    Local Time
    01:35 AM
    Points
    38,883
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post

    Fossil Man


    Bones of modern-looking humans have been found deep in undisturbed rocks that, according to evolution, were formed long before man began to evolve. Examples include the Castenedolo skeletons (a), Reck’s skeleton (b), and possibly others (c). Remains such as the Swanscombe skull, the Steinheim fossil, and the Vertesszöllos fossil present similar problems (d). Evolutionists almost always ignore these remains.

    a. Bowden, pp. 78–79.

    Frank W. Cousins, Fossil Man (Imsworth, England: A. E. Norris & Sons Ltd., 1971), pp. 50–52, 82, 83.

    W. H. B., “Alleged Discovery of An Ancient Human Skull in California,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 2, 1866, p. 424.

    Edward C. Lain and Robert E. Gentet, “The Case for the Calaveras Skull,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 33, March 1997, pp. 248–256.

    For many years, a story circulated that the Calaveras skull, buried 130 feet below ground, was a practical joke. This tidy explanation conveniently overlooks the hundreds of human bones and artifacts (such as spearheads, mortars and pestles, and dozens of bowls made of stone) found in that part of California. These artifacts have been found over the years under undisturbed strata and a layer of basaltic lava that evolutionists would date at 25 million years old—too old to be human. See, for example:
    Whitney, pp. 262–264, 266, 274–276.
    G. Frederick Wright, Man and the Glacial Period (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1897), pp. 294–301.
    George F. Becker, “Antiquities from under Tuolumne Table Mountain in California,” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. 2, 20 February 1891, pp. 189–200.

    b. Bowden, pp. 78–79.

    Cousins and Whitney state that the Calaveras was fossilized. This does not mean that it was pre-flood. Fossilization depends on chemistry much more than time. Cousins, pp. 48-50, 81.

    Sir Arthur Keith correctly stated the dilemma evolutionists face with the Castenedolo skeletons:

    “As the student of prehistoric man reads and studies the records of the ‘Castenedolo’ find, a feeling of incredulity rises within him. He cannot reject the discovery as false without doing an injury to his sense of truth, and he cannot accept it as a fact without shattering his accepted beliefs.” Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man (London: Williams and Norgate, Ltd., 1925), p. 334.

    However, after examining the strata above and below the Castenedolo skeletons, and after finding no indication that they were intrusively buried, Keith surprisingly concluded that the enigma must be resolved by an intrusive burial. He justified this by citing the unfossilized condition of the bones. However, these bones were encased in a clay layer. Clay would prevent water from transporting large amounts of dissolved minerals into the bone cells and explain the lack of fossilization. Again, fossilization depends much more on chemistry than age.

    c. Bowden, pp. 183–193.

    d. Ibid., pp. 79–88.

    e. Fix, pp. 98–105.

    J.�*B. Birdsell, Human Evolution (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972), pp.�*316–318.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Well, actually real science long ago proved that the Castenedolo skeletons were in fact, modern humans buried far more recently, by quite normal means into a clay and gravel bed far later than the dating of the clay and gravel.

    just another straw dog creationists propped up to shoot down.
    It may not be so much that I've conceded your point as that you just can't hear me rolling my eyes.

  6. #3946
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    07-17-2018
    Local Time
    03:35 AM
    Points
    6,792

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    Well, actually real science long ago proved that the Castenedolo skeletons were in fact, modern humans buried far more recently, by quite normal means into a clay and gravel bed far later than the dating of the clay and gravel.

    just another straw dog creationists propped up to shoot down.
    The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

    The Castenedolo skull


    In the late summer of 1860, Professor Giuseppe Ragazzoni (1824-1898), a prominent geologist from the Istituto Techniche di Brescia (Brescia Technical Institute), was collecting fossil shells from Pliocene deposits at the base of a low hill called Colle di Vento at Castenedolo, about 10 km south-east of Brescia. There, he found an anatomically modern human skull, supposedly in a formation dating from the Astian stage of the Middle Pliocene, about three to four million years old. It had coral cemented onto it with blue clay. Nearby, he found bones belonging to the thorax and limbs.


    The Castenedolo skull

    Like so many of these nineteenth-century discoveries, the exact circumstances of the find are unclear; the most likely explanation is that the skull belonged to a relatively recent (and probably post-glacial) burial cut through this deposit. The archaeological applications of stratigraphy were not understood at this time, so a geologist working on Pliocene deposits would naturally assume that all bones and fossils from this stratum were contemporary with its formation. Although the anatomist Giuseppe Sergi (1841-1936) visited the site in 1883 and was unable to identify a grave cut, a skeleton was found at the site in 1889, when Sergi was able to confirm that it did indeed lie in a grave. A radiocarbon date obtained on the ribs in 1969 confirmed the recent date of the skull, with a determination of 958±116 bp (847-1271 Cal AD; BM-496); the presence of a second skeleton in a grave makes it likely that Ragazzoni had unknowingly stumbled upon a forgotten medieval cemetery.

    The Castenedolo skull - Bad Archaeology
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  7. #3947
    Proudly humble
    is Lost in the Ozone, again.
     
    I am:
    Cool
     
    LarsMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    usually on the road to somewhere.
    Posts
    10,084
    Local Date
    07-17-2018
    Local Time
    01:35 AM
    Points
    38,883
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    Well, actually real science long ago proved that the Castenedolo skeletons were in fact, modern humans buried far more recently, by quite normal means into a clay and gravel bed far later than the dating of the clay and gravel.

    just another straw dog creationists propped up to shoot down.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
    The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

    The Castenedolo skull


    In the late summer of 1860, Professor Giuseppe Ragazzoni (1824-1898), a prominent geologist from the Istituto Techniche di Brescia (Brescia Technical Institute), was collecting fossil shells from Pliocene deposits at the base of a low hill called Colle di Vento at Castenedolo, about 10 km south-east of Brescia. There, he found an anatomically modern human skull, supposedly in a formation dating from the Astian stage of the Middle Pliocene, about three to four million years old. It had coral cemented onto it with blue clay. Nearby, he found bones belonging to the thorax and limbs.


    The Castenedolo skull

    Like so many of these nineteenth-century discoveries, the exact circumstances of the find are unclear; the most likely explanation is that the skull belonged to a relatively recent (and probably post-glacial) burial cut through this deposit. The archaeological applications of stratigraphy were not understood at this time, so a geologist working on Pliocene deposits would naturally assume that all bones and fossils from this stratum were contemporary with its formation. Although the anatomist Giuseppe Sergi (1841-1936) visited the site in 1883 and was unable to identify a grave cut, a skeleton was found at the site in 1889, when Sergi was able to confirm that it did indeed lie in a grave. A radiocarbon date obtained on the ribs in 1969 confirmed the recent date of the skull, with a determination of 958±116 bp (847-1271 Cal AD; BM-496); the presence of a second skeleton in a grave makes it likely that Ragazzoni had unknowingly stumbled upon a forgotten medieval cemetery.

    The Castenedolo skull - Bad Archaeology
    So how is this anything to do with "discipline of science", and how does it "prove creation and disprove evolution" ?
    It may not be so much that I've conceded your point as that you just can't hear me rolling my eyes.

  8. #3948
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    07-17-2018
    Local Time
    03:35 AM
    Points
    6,792

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Science is involved with the research and the fact that the modern skeletons are found in strata dated by evolutionists as 3 to 4 million years old disproves evolution.
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  9. #3949
    Proudly humble
    is Lost in the Ozone, again.
     
    I am:
    Cool
     
    LarsMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    usually on the road to somewhere.
    Posts
    10,084
    Local Date
    07-17-2018
    Local Time
    01:35 AM
    Points
    38,883
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
    Science is involved with the research and the fact that the modern skeletons are found in strata dated by evolutionists as 3 to 4 million years old disproves evolution.
    Or of course the more logical explanation that it was a simple graveyard, dug by modern humans into clay and sand deposit that dated back to the pliocene.
    It may not be so much that I've conceded your point as that you just can't hear me rolling my eyes.

  10. #3950
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    07-17-2018
    Local Time
    03:35 AM
    Points
    6,792

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Register to remove this ad.
    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    Or of course the more logical explanation that it was a simple graveyard, dug by modern humans into clay and sand deposit that dated back to the pliocene.
    The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

    Cold Comfort for Long-Agers


    The well known proponent of “progressive creation” and “millions of years,” Hugh Ross, claims that the “old age” of the earth derived from ice cores is a scientific argument that “…may be simple enough for everyone to understand, regardless of science background—as simple as counting tree rings.”1 He goes on to state:

    The ice cores reveal hundreds of thousands of ice layers laid down on top of one another year by year, just as a tree adds one new growth ring per year.1

    He lists the three new deep ice cores from on top of the Greenland Ice Sheet—the NorthGRIP, GISP2 and GRIP cores—and the three deep ice cores from the top of the Antarctic Ice Sheet—Dome Fuji, Vostok, and Dome C. The Dome C core is said to have reached 740,000 years (740 kyr), but just recently it has been drilled down to the 900 kyr age level. You can read more about the issue of ice cores in the new book The Frozen Record: Examining the Ice Core History of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.2

    Ross makes it seem that annual layers were counted to many hundreds of thousands of years in these ice cores. It is actually the GISP2 core, only, where annual layers have been “counted,” and they were counted to only “110,000” years, near the bottom of the core. It is very important to understand that most of these alleged annual layers are concentrated in the bottom several hundred meters of the core, and that their interpretation as “annual” is very questionable. Glaciologists expected to see several glacial/interglacial 100,000-year cycles in the Greenland core, but the evidence points to one ice age. (Antarctic ice cores are a different situation, as explained below.)

    Ross goes on to point out that glaciologists “know” that the layers are annual because of volcanic ash signatures, climatic cycles, radiometric dating of minerals embedded in the ice, and a 3.9 million year deep-sea core off New Zealand’s Southern Alps. He emphasizes that the Milankovitch climatic cycles, as well as the deep-sea core off New Zealand, “match perfectly” with the dates from the ice cores. Ross summarizes with what he thinks is irrefutable, simple evidence that anyone can understand:

    Such a calibration builds confidence that these cores yield a continuous climatic, geological, and astronomical record for the past few million years at least.1
    Problems


    There are a host of problems with Ross’s simplistic understanding of ice cores. First, volcanic ash signatures beyond about 200 years are equivocal for a number of reasons, especially because the historical record older than 200 years becomes more sketchy the older the eruption. 2,000 years seems to be the maximum for which any volcanic ash signal and the historical record can be correlated.3 Hammer, who was the first scientist to use volcanic signatures, states:

    The use of volcanic reference horizons in ice cores, however, has not been widely used. The reason is twofold: First, before volcanic horizons could be used for dating purposes it was necessary to establish a time scale independent of any subjective interpretations of the volcanic signals (by seasonal variables). Second, the information on past volcanic eruptions is limited and the dating of the eruptions is not very precise, apart from certain well-documented historical eruptions.4

    Second, the use of climatic cycles from the astronomical or Milankovitch theory of the ice age (Ross’s second and fourth indicator above) is an exercise in circular reasoning.5 Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores are tuned to the deep-sea cores, which are dated assuming the astronomical or Milankovitch theory of the ice age:

    Taking advantage of the fact that the Vostok deuterium (δD) record now covers almost two entire climate cycles, we have applied the orbital tuning approach to derive an age-depth relation for the Vostok ice core, which is consistent with the SPECMAP marine time scale [from deep-sea cores]…The deep-sea core chronology developed using the concept of “orbital tuning” or SPECMAP chronology…is now generally accepted in the ocean sediment scientific community.6

    “Orbital tuning” refers to the cycles in the astronomical theory. This quote is referring to the first two cycles in the Vostok core, but since then, glaciologists have drilled deeper at Vostok and added more cycles from Dome Fuji and Dome C—clear to the ninth cycle in Dome C. This is how the Antarctic ice cores are dated—simply by curve matching with deep-sea cores! Annual layers cannot be derived from ice cores drilled on top of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, as implied by Ross, since the snowfall rate (less than 5 cm of water equivalent per year) is too light for annual layer dating. As far as the strong oscillations in δD, presumably correlated to temperature, in these Antarctic cores are concerned, Oard suggests that they are similar to the large oscillations in the Greenland Ice Age portion of the cores but with higher amplitude.7

    Further evidence of circular reasoning, via tuning the ice core chronology to the astronomical theory of the ice age, is shown in the Greenland ice cores. This was demonstrated when Deborah Meese and colleagues first dated the GISP2 core by “annual layers” down to the 2,800 meter level at 85,000 years BP (before present).8 However, the date at this level disagreed with the deep-sea cores and the astronomical theory, so the layer between 2,300 and 2,800 meters was ‘remeasured’ to a finer resolution. They found 25,000 more annual layers in that 500-meter interval to arrive at 110,000 years at 2,800 meters, just as expected from the chronology from deep-sea cores!9

    Glaciologists do measure annual layers near the top of the Greenland ice cores, but deeper down the cores, they are picking up subannual layers (storm layers and other variations). The uniformitarian scientists are simply assuming the ice sheets are old, and so “old age” is what they find. Creationists have an alternative interpretation in which the post-Flood rapid Ice Age causes very thick annual layers during the Ice Age followed by a decrease to the current annual snowfall of today.2,10-14

    The third indicator according to Ross is radiometric dating of minerals embedded in the ice. Ross does not provide a reference, and we do not know to what he is referring. Since Ross mentions that the dating is on radioactive minerals in the ice, in situ carbon-14 measurements on gas bubbles in the ice and beryllium-10 measurements on ice are eliminated. The minerals in the ice are likely from dust blown onto the ice sheet after erosion from some other area. There is no theoretical reason why the dates of the dust particles should agree with the age of the ice determined by other uniformitarian methods. But Ross, always exaggerating, says that in each case when they compare dates, the dates “agree”!

    He goes on to chastise young-earth creationists who have written on the subject by citing only a sample of the creationist literature,15-17 claiming that we have done an incomplete analysis on the ice cores. He claims that Vardiman and Oard have shown problems at the top and bottom of the cores that we claim invalidate the whole dating analysis. Vardiman presented another variable, besides temperature change, to account for the general trend of the oxygen isotope ratios in the ice age portion of the Greenland cores. This work was based on the well-known continental effect applied to gradually increasing sea ice.18 Oard presented problems of simply assuming that uniformitarian scientists have counted 110,000 annual layer down the GISP2 ice core. These two studies relate to more than the top and bottom of the Greenland ice cores. Ross never analyzed the merits of the two studies nor refuted any of the conclusion or suggestions. Furthermore, he has not included several of Oard’s latest challenges to the conventional ice core interpretation.19-21 Ross’s challenge is a very incomplete analysis of the literature available before he wrote his article. Furthermore, he misinterprets the little he has read.

    Ross also mentions the possible disturbance at the bottom of the GISP2 core, which was not even mentioned by Vardiman or myself. The disturbance in the bottom 200 meters of the GISP2 cores was used to invalidate an interpretation from the nearby GRIP core of huge abrupt climate changes during the last supposed interglacial. This disturbance does not look too significant to me, and previous conclusions of wild fluctuations at the bottom of the GRIP core seem more correct.22

    Ross then claims that Wieland’s analysis of the lost squadron of planes buried below 250 feet of ice in 50 years was offered as proof against the uniformitarian dating of the Greenland ice cores.23 Wieland was using this example to show that it does not take a vast amount of time to lay down thick layers of ice.24 Ross correctly points out that the southeast corner of the Greenland Ice Sheet is a relatively warm area with very high snowfall. However, this situation shows that with a different climate regime during the Ice Age with no sea ice and a warm ocean, the rapid development of the Greenland Ice Sheet can occur.25 Of course, the snowfall rate is much less at the top of the high ice sheet today. However, even at the current average snowfall for the whole Greenland Ice Sheet, it still would take only 5,000 years to deposit all the ice.26
    Such superficial research and interpretation seems to be typical of Ross’s style: just go to the journals and believe all the uniformitarians say—hook, line, and sinker. Based on his demonstrated total reliance on uniformitarian interpretations and speculations (his so-called 67th book of the Bible), he shows that he has read little of both the uniformitarian and creationist literature on the subject of ice cores.

    Ross makes a case at the end that God also speaks to us from nature and that both special and general revelation should agree. We do believe that God indeed does speak to us through general revelation, but nature is subservient to God’s Word; the Bible comes first. And besides, Ross believes more in the speculations of sinful men that were not there and who are antagonistic towards God’s Word (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003
    /0529charisma.asp#book67). He also downgrades God’s clear word in Genesis 1 when he says such things as:

    The ice and sediment cores provide compelling extrabiblical evidence that the earth is indeed ancient. This evidence supports the literal interpretation of creation days in Genesis 1 as six long epochs [emphasis mine].27

    We believe that the raw data of nature agrees with the Bible and young earth creationism—i.e. with a straightforward reading of Genesis as history, just as the Lord Jesus Christ took it to be (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation
    /v23/i1/howold.asp#jesus_age; http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004
    /1101ankerberg_response.asp). Furthermore, both the Bible and the data of science refute Ross’s ideas.28-31

    Cold Comfort for Long-Agers | The Institute for Creation Research
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 395 of 409 FirstFirst ... 295 345 385 393 394 395 396 397 405 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution
    By spot in forum Science
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-11-2008, 05:12 PM
  2. Normal Science is Lamp-Post Science
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-12-2008, 01:43 PM
  3. Evolution
    By SnoozeControl in forum People
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-14-2006, 03:48 PM
  4. Evolution
    By SnoozeControl in forum Just For The Fun Of It
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-26-2006, 09:39 PM
  5. Did you know that evolution....
    By metalstorm in forum Did You Know?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-28-2004, 06:28 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.5.2