22,000 years of arctic ice cores melt, and wash the YHWH/JESUS concept down the sewer
Perry, as usual, has ignored previous replies and continues ahead with this nonsense.
Perry, if you were to learn about ice core dating you would know that answer to that question already. That you are asking such basic questions should give you pause to consider just how advanced your knowledge is of this subject.
There may be many layers in 1 year in areas such as where those planes are buried. However counting layers is not how age is calculated. The area that these planes are buried in are areas of high annual snow fall and is on an active glacier. For many reasons ice cores are not taken at locations such as that. Ice cores are taken from areas of stability and low snow fall such as inland areas.
One more time for emphasis...: Ice cores are NOT taken from active glaciers such as the one you present, areas of high annual snow fall will show wider layering for a given time period, measured depth is NOT an indicator of time passed, a layer is not an indicator that 1 year has passed; in short you are presenting a straw man and you do not possess enough knowledge to realise this.
My previous reply addressed your key issues.
What you need, Perry, is an understanding of this subject.
Are we still debating in 2017 if Adam and Eve existed? ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFL
These are living glaciers. there was a B 29. rare in Europe, (US Air force flew B17 and Liberators), and it was not encased in ice, it was readied, but tragically it burned , during take off, because of fire in a faulty auxiliary generator.
A warm water event the heights of Everest would have lifted the ice off it's base.
Jesus endorsing the flood does not add credence to it, but sinks his credibility, that is the core truth.
PS: come to think of it, that B29 could be from the 1948, not 1944 period.
counting layers is not how age is calculated
I think that assumption is well represented in literature.
Layers In The Ice
If we want to reconstruct past air temperatures, one of the most critical parameters is the age of the ice being analysed. Fortunately, ice cores preserve annual layers, making it simple to date the ice. Seasonal differences in the snow properties create layers – just like rings in trees. Unfortunately, annual layers become harder to see deeper in the ice core. Other ways of dating ice cores include geochemisty, layers of ash (tephra), electrical conductivity, and using numerical flow models to understand age-depth relationships.
This 19 cm long of GISP2 ice core from 1855 m depth shows annual layers in the ice. This section contains 11 annual layers with summer layers (arrowed) sandwiched between darker winter layers. From the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Wikimedia Commons.
Your own link above makes it clear what ANNUAL layers are. Just look at the pictures and you will see many bands (layers) yet the annual count is far less. From a brief look at that poor resolution picture I can make out approximately 30 layers and yet the year count is 12. Why is that Perry? Do you understand what it is I (and the article) am telling you?
Your article also said this just after your highlight:
"Unfortunately, annual layers become harder to see deeper in the ice core."
Given that, how do you think age is calculated? Well, read the rest of your link for a clue!
Perry, ice cores have yearly layers that go all the way back to 880,000 years ago. They are about 2-3 mm thick per layer. Needless to say, it doesn't take much to go over the 6,000 year limit that Young Earth Creationists like to project on the Bible.
Stephen Lett explaining how one ice layer overlaps another ice layer thereby reducing 22,000 ice layers to fit in with the Watchtower timeline of just over 5,000 ice layers counting from the Flood.
Surely you know that even a broken clock is right twice a day.
counting layers is not how age is calculated
Then you say;
Your own link above makes it clear what ANNUAL layers are
You seem confused. So which is it? Are there yearly layers or not?
US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is clear in the caption above. Supposedly reputable sources clearly reference annual layers. And yet when it is demonstrated that many layers per year form, then you change your argument to many rings per year, but only one layer.
Yet, AntarticGlacier.org says:
Fortunately, ice cores preserve annual layers, making it simple to date the ice. Seasonal differences in the snow properties create layers – just like rings in trees.
So again, which is it in this game of word-smithing?
And then, at some point the layers and rings virtually disappear the further down you get?
Regardless, it is obvious that rings and layers are irrelevant when it comes to dating ice cores. They are relative terms that can be made to fit most any desired outcome. Yet, when supposedly "reputable" sources (defined as ones that say they are old) continue to reference ANNUAL rings AND layers, even though one or both is demonstrably false, it calls into serious question other dating methods, and whether or not those additional methods are just as confusing and non-nonsensical.
The axiom idea: "We date the ice layers by the carbon 14 and we calibrate the carbon 14 by the ice layers" is similar to other circular reasoning found in the religion of scientism:
What scriptural justification is there for concluding that the world is six thousand years old anyways? Are Creationists just summing up the recorded lifetimes of everyone from Adam to Jesus? They do know there are huge gaps, don't they?
The Bible is, even at its best, merely a history of God's alleged dealings with Abraham and his descendents. The Adam and Eve story is obviously an allegory: there are and never were talking snakes or trees of knowledge or life. Not even the Jews, who invented the story, take it literally!
I don't understand why this is even an issue. I'm not a Christian, but if I were I wouldn't have any problem reconciling the Bible with an old Earth. There is just no reason to believe it's only been here for six thousand years.
Summary: You initially were told that counting layers is not how age is worked out. You get butt hurt and link to something that shows annual layering. I then explain what annual layering is and you get butt hurt and pretend that the two things are the same therefore I am contradicting myself!
I see you still do not understand what is going on here. Therefore:
“When asked, “Bob, when you dug that airplane out, how many layers of ice were there above the airplane?”, He said, “Oh, there were many hundreds of layers of ice above the airplane.”
The facts are that in only 48 years, these planes were already under 260 feet of ice, and under "many hundreds" of ice layers.” – Perry
This led to my initial response to your lack of understanding as to what a layer is. Your own post speaks for itself; in only 48 years there were many hundreds of layers above the planes. This should encourage you to realise that more than 1 layer can be lain down in a year. Therefore counting layers is not how you work out ages. Would you agree?
An annual layer, on the other hand, are 1 or more layers that have been lain down over the course of a year; hence the term annual layer. Do you know how those boundaries are worked out?
The rest of your latest post is a rambling of ignorance.
The question you need to ask and seek an answer for is this:
How do you work out where 1 year stops and the next year starts when using ice cores?
Pasting silly pictures does nothing to enhance your argument other than to further demonstrate you do not understand what it is you are talking about e.g.
“We date the ice layers by the carbon 14 and we calibrate the carbon 14 by the ice layers” – Perry
Silly... Do you understand what relative dating is and what absolute dating is?
Oh, and ice cores are only like tree rings insofar as an analogy... Perhaps that is where your confusion is arising.