Do Ice Cores Disprove Recent Creation?

Naturalis Historia. A cross section of the Toba ash layer found in a valley in India. Helens released only 1 cubic kilometer of ash which covered thousands of square miles. This catastrophic event is thought to have produced global climatic effects possibly even wiping out much of the human population in the northern hemisphere. The challenge to young-earth creationism becomes apparent when we consider the date of the eruption 74 thousand years as we will see below and what the ash layers tell us about human history. Because that eruption has been dated around 74 to 80 thousand years ago it generated a considerable discussion in the literature about how widespread humans were prior to these epic event and what this event might have done to those populations.

The Toba Super Eruption, Polar Ice Cores, and Climate Change

Our current scientific understanding places the age of the Universe since the Big Bang at In addition, scientists can date the age of our Solar System and Earth to about 4. In this series of blog posts, we review the scientific data that underpins these conclusions. However, there are small numbers of scientists who claim that both the Universe and the Earth are in fact more like 6, years old. As we point out, those numbers are based upon an insistence that various numbers and genealogies found in the Bible are literally true.

Also carbon dating isn’t perfect and has some flaws. But what about ice core samples. We can distinguish the different years in an ice core sample due to.

Does ice core dating really prove that the earth is much older than the Biblical creationist timeline as stated by Bill Nye? Watch the short segment on ice core dating and “the lost squadron” from “The Age of the Earth,” part of the hour Creation Seminar series available for streaming at www. Jump to. Sections of this page. Accessibility help. Email or phone Password Forgotten account?

Young Earth Creationism, Part I

The RationalMedia Foundation board of trustees election is completed and the results are posted. Thank you for your interest and participation! The evidence against a recent creation is overwhelming.

When one hears the word “creationism,” it spawns thoughts of a literal six-day creation that has plagued young-earth creationism is the results of radiometric dating, The Frozen Record: Examining the Ice Core History of the Greenland and.

There was a time when glaciers covered large areas of North America and northwestern Europe. Ice caps still remain in Antarctica and Greenland, along with many glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere. There are several lines of evidence that show the presence of ice sheets over much of northern North America in the past. This evidence includes moraines, glacial polish and large boulders known as erratics. Glaciers tend to flow downhill, very slowly.

Glacial movement scrapes up rocks from the ground surface and pushes them to the sides and front of the glacier, forming piles of unsorted rock debris. The rock piles along the sides of the glacier are called lateral moraines , while the one at the tip of the glacier is called a terminal moraine. When glaciers move over solid rock, they leave scars in the form of scratches or glacial polish.

A glacier may carve a U-shaped valley into the mountains as it moves. Large boulders that fall onto the surface of the glacier will be carried downhill, sometimes for many miles. When the glacier melts, the large boulder, known as a glacial erratic , may be deposited far from its source. These and other glacial features are common over large areas of Canada and parts of the northern United States, showing that these areas were once covered with ice. Probably not long after the Flood.

Thermoluminescence dating technique

Greenland is covered by ice sheets that span more than , square miles with an average depth of 5, feet. The deepest known section is estimated at around 11, feet. They insist , years must have made them. Is the dating process really that straightforward?

In the sequence of events in the creation-Flood Ice Age model, at the end R.B., et al., Visual-stratigraphic dating of the GISP2 ice core: Basis.

On Tuesday night, Feb. Ham defended his view of the earth being only about 6, years old. He described how the genealogies in the Bible are added up. That’s how we reach 6, years. He disputed dating methods used to argue that the Earth is 4. But to me, this is just not reasonable. When scientists make assumptions, “they’re making assumptions based on previous experience,” Nye said. So, next time you have a chance to speak, I encourage you to explain to us why we should accept your word for it that natural law changed just 4, years ago — completely — and there’s no record of it.

How are the ages of the Earth and universe calculated?

From this was recovered the deepest ice core record to date. Comparative data between these two deep cores have allowed scientists to develop an ice core-derived paleoenvironmental record dating back greater than , years BP BP means “before present” and “BP” is defined as In other words, the ice has been confirmed to be as old as the collective measurements indicate. These data alone destroy the core doctrine of the theory of Young Earth Creationism that the Earth is only about 6, years old.

In addition to the actual age of the ice at any given depth in the core, scientists can also determine the mean temperature of the Earth’s past climate for different times and ages by measuring the ratio of the isotopes of oxygen O16 and O18 gas present in the CO2.

From this was recovered the deepest ice core record to date. Secular critics of Young Earth Creationism cite the very existence of the Greenland Ice Sheet and​.

Does it damage children to teach them biblical creationism? What are the costs of denying evolution, one of biology’s core tenets? Interest in points raised in the debate has generated spirited responses and criticisms online. You can read about some of those views in a new post from Thursday. The debate saw Nye and Ham discussing natural laws and scientific research, along with astronomy, geology and the number of animal species on Earth — but with markedly different views.

Both of them talked about Mount St. Helens and the Grand Canyon, for instance, without agreeing on those landmarks’ places in history. There isn’t enough time since Mr. Ham’s flood for this limestone, that we’re standing on, to have come into existence. The wide-ranging debate had a format of opening statements followed by minute presentations, then by rebuttals and counter-rebuttals.

We’ll break away from the action now, but the video’s here for you to watch.

Ice core dating creationism evidence

Should the scientific community continue to fight rear-guard skirmishes with creationists, or insist that “young-earthers” defend their model in toto? Donald U. Introduction This manuscript proposes a new approach for science’s battle against the rising influence in America of pseudo-science and the Creationist movement. The framework of Creationist Bible-based earth history, focusing on Genesis and the Noachian flood, can be assembled into a single geologic time scale Figure 1 , enlarged by addition of many geologic facts, difficult for Creationists to explain.

Figure 1 is an abbreviated version of the time scale outlined in the following paragraph which was redrawn and published by the American Scientist. Some of the items are so absurd that all but the most dedicated fundamentalists will see the overall picture as scientific nonsense, even bordering on humor, a most rare commodity in Creationist literature.

ice core dating creationism evidence. dbcr 0. 00 0. 00 75 org. princeton 0. 00 0. ice core dating creationism evidence 1 org.

Roger C. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. First edition ; revised version Radiometric dating–the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements–has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them.

It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent.

Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

Who won the evolution debate? Bill Nye the Science Guy, or creationist Ken Ham? (Video)

The age of the earth is a central issue in creation -evolution discussions, because a young earth would not permit enough time for evolution to occur, and an old earth would contradict a literal reading of the Bible account of creation. The belief in an old earth is based on conventional dates for geological periods, which are in the hundreds of millions of years range, and are obtained by isotopic dating methods. Standard isotopic radiometric dating techniques typically yield such dates on fossil-bearing strata.

There are, however, numerous disagreements between dates produced by different isotopic dating methods, and there are many cases where the dates obtained are very different from the expected ones.

By carefully extracting ice “cores” (like coring an apple) of glaciers, by Young Earth Creationists, and the isotope studies reveal ice that is much much older. Age of the Earth and solar system from radiometric dating.

Past Climate Cycles: Ice Age Speculations To understand climate change, the obvious first step would be to explain the colossal coming and going of ice ages. Scientists devised ingenious techniques to recover evidence from the distant past, first from deposits left on land, then also from sea floor sediments, and then still better by drilling deep into ice.

These paleoclimatologists succeeded brilliantly, discovering a strangely regular pattern of glacial cycles. The pattern pointed to a surprising answer, so precise that some ventured to predict future changes. The timing of the cycles was apparently set by minor changes in sunlight caused by slow variations of the Earth’s orbit. Just how that could regulate the ice ages remained uncertain, for the climate system turned out to be dauntingly complex.

Watch The Creationism Vs. Evolution Debate: Ken Ham And Bill Nye

It is not uncommon to read that ice cores from the polar regions contain records of climatic change from the distant past. Research teams from the United States, the Soviet Union, Denmark, and France have bored holes over a mile deep into the ice near the poles and removed samples for analysis in their laboratories. Based on flow models, the variation of oxygen isotopes, the concentration of carbon dioxide in trapped air bubbles, the presence of oxygen isotopes, acid concentrations, and particulates, they believe the lowest layers of the ice sheets were laid down over , years ago.

Ice core dating takes place on stable ice fields, not active glaciers. The interior of Greenland, where ice cores were taken, receives much less.

The first dating detail exposes circular reasoning, which occurs when one assumes a particular outcome in arguing for that same outcome. In the Greenland ice sheet, clear seasonal layers are found only in the upper parts of the cores, but in central Antarctica less snowfall and blowing snow prevent clear seasonal layering.

Because ice layers become less distinct at greater depths, simply discerning deeper layers becomes more difficult. Counting layers sounds straightforward, but circular reasoning even shows up here. For example, secular scientists dated the Greenland GISP2 ice core by counting what they presumed were annual patterns of, among other features, dust, volcanics, isotopes, and ions in the ice. The second dating detail questions whether or not each layer represents a year.

A single large storm can deposit multiple layers that might look like annual layers, and multiple dust layers may also be deposited within a single year. This would have been especially true during the post-Flood Ice Age, a time of numerous storms and volcanic eruptions. Ironically, the hundreds of thousands of supposedly annual layers are far too few for old-earth expectations. For instance, secular scientists expected the bottom of the GISP2 core to be more than , years old.

These two important details derail the ice-core argument for an old earth: layers are not necessarily annual, and researchers employ circular reasoning to adjust counts to fit the vast ages they expect. The volcanism during the Flood year would have warmed ocean water enough for increased evaporation and precipitation to rapidly build the ice sheets. Cite this article: Various Authors.

How Old is Earth, and How Do We Know?

Earth scientists have devised many complementary and consistent techniques to estimate the ages of geologic events. Annually deposited layers of sediments or ice document hundreds of thousands of years of continuous Earth history. Gradual rates of mountain building, erosion of mountains, and the motions of tectonic plates imply hundreds of millions of years of change. Radiometric dating, which relies on the predictable decay of radioactive isotopes of carbon, uranium, potassium, and other elements, provides accurate age estimates for events back to the formation of Earth more than 4.

“the Science Guy” of children’s TV show fame, debated creationist Ken Ham on evolution at He disputed dating methods used to argue that the Earth is billion years old. Nye ice cores also prove the passage of time.

Should the scientific community continue to fight rear-guard skirmishes with creationists, or insist that “young-earthers” defend their model in toto? Donald U. Introduction This manuscript proposes a new approach for science’s battle against the rising influence in America of pseudo-science and the Creationist movement. The framework of Creationist Bible-based earth history, focusing on Genesis and the Noachian flood, can be assembled into a single geologic time scale Figure 1 , enlarged by addition of many geologic facts, difficult for Creationists to explain.

Figure 1 is an abbreviated version of the time scale outlined in the following paragraph which was redrawn and published by the American Scientist. Some of the items are so absurd that all but the most dedicated fundamentalists will see the overall picture as scientific nonsense, even bordering on humor, a most rare commodity in Creationist literature. Science, rather than using its traditional defensive approach of item-by-item rebuttal of Creationist attacks, needs to take the offensive by challenging Creationists to defend their “scientific” view of earth history as represented by this time scale.

Note that the numbered items in this Time Scale are further expanded in subsequent numbered sections which are keyed to these same numbers. Figure 1. GIF, K Figure 1. Unlike the 4.

Are Ice Cores Evidence for an Old Earth?