Creationist how can you explain Antarctica's ice core data that goes back 420000 years?

Answer 1

Ice doesn't melt in Antarctica because the temperature never approaches zero degrees centigrade and most of the rings are based on differing summer and winter snowfalls so each year is easily detectable.

Annual Climate Summary for 2001

South Pole Station, Antarctica

Temperature:

Average temp............. -49.8C/-57.6F


Departure from average... -0.3C/-0.5F

Maximum temp............. -22.2C/-8.0F on December 24th

Minimum temp............. -77.1C/-106.8F on August 4th

Shallow cores, or the upper parts of cores in high-accumulation areas, can be dated exactly by counting individual layers, each representing a year. These layers may be visible, related to the nature of the ice; or they may be chemical, related to differential transport in different seasons; or they may be isotopic, reflecting the annual temperature signal (for example, snow from colder periods has less of the heavier isotopes of H and O).

Isotopes are atoms with a different isotopic value (i.e. less heavy means less neutrons) so the layers are always detectable even if not visible. Usually it snows more in a certain period of the year and the fast deposit of snow can be seen in the annual layers. It is an absolute fact that the earth is much older than suggested by creationists because the same isotope dating techniques can be used to measure time according to radioactive half-life of many materials.

This technique has been used to measure the age of known items with high accuracy as well as many other materials.

Because the half-life of Uranium-238 is 4.5 billion years this is how we know that the earth is at leased 4 billion years old because rocks of this age have been found. The thing is the loss of neutrons is constant so there is minimal margin for error.

This is also how the place fossils in a time series to show that older organisms such as trilobites had less radial ribs and the newer or evolved forms had progressively more ribs. This shows evolution.

Evolution is real
The Earth is very old
And it’s not right to teach people creation because it has no logic, scientific testing or data to support it. Although evolution is not definitively proven to be exactly as it is theorized, through fossil records and known changes or morphs of animals it is shown to be very real.

Answer 2

They will tell you that the ice core rings are just periods of warm and cold , not annual rings.

There is a little bit of truth to this , I can imagine the ice melting in a warm February and re-freezing in a cold April maybe , then Freezing in a cold September and melting in a warm November .

Where is your source for 420000 years ? do they mean 420000 rings ?

The Super Fuddies might say that the waters often froze and melted during the Flood of Noah ( times were different back then ) .

The creationists will always find some way to explain things, even if you had a Time Machine and took them back and showed them .

Answer 3

Conflict between science and religion is an old story. Up till the 16th century the accepted religious dogma was that the sun and the planets all revolved around the earth. In 1543 Copernicus proposed a new system with the earth and the planets moving around the sun. This aroused strong religious antagonism at first. It took the better part of a hundred years and the support of Galileo’s telescopic observations and Kepler’s mathematical analysis of the planets’ movements to win general recognition.

Until the 18th century, Western religions held that the earth had been created a mere 6,000 years ago. Hutton in 1785 proposed the theory of uniformitarianism, which demanded far longer periods of time for geological changes. Again religious controversy was raised for some 50 years, but Lyell’s field work and systematization of geologic strata finally won common agreement to the idea of a much older earth.

Up till the mid-19th century the Biblical account of divine creation of man was commonly believed. Darwin’s theory of the origin of species by evolution was published in 1859, and quickly stirred intense religious objection. Evolutionists, well over a century later, might like to think that their doctrine had by now won universal acceptance. True, many church leaders have capitulated, but there yet remains vigorous and determined opposition to the theory of evolution. Darwin’s supporters are still awaiting their Galileo or Lyell. Meanwhile, many well-informed people are beginning to believe that evolution is not inevitably destined to repeat the triumphs of earlier revolutions in scientific thought.

An organized crusade is currently seen in efforts to downgrade the teaching of evolution in the public schools through laws requiring that creation be given equal time. In the most recent legal skirmish, a federal judge decided that “creation science” as defined in an Arkansas law did not qualify on an equal basis with evolution. This setback was disappointing to many who hold that evolution does not satisfactorily explain life’s origin. What went wrong?

From the testimony given in the trial, it is manifest that the scientific evidence for creation was not really presented in clear confrontation with evolution. Instead, it was lost to sight in clashes over side issues, particularly two tenets of creationism that had been written into the law:

1. That creation took place only a few thousand years ago.

2. That all geologic strata were formed by the Biblical Deluge.

Neither of these dogmas is really crucial to the central question of whether living things were created or not. They are merely doctrines held by the members of a few churches, notably the Seventh-Day Adventists, who form the core of the group that sponsored the law. When these sectarian beliefs were written into the law as something that must be taught in public schools, that law was foredoomed to be declared unconstitutional.

But does the legal defeat of scientific creationism, as this movement is known, reflect unfavorably on the Bible? Are the doctrines of recent creation and a diluvial origin of geologic strata found in God’s Word?

An informed Bible student would answer, No. While the Bible clearly states that the heavens and the earth and everything in them were created by God, it does not say when those things were created. Most of the defense witnesses were shackled by the religious dogma that the six creative days in Genesis were all encompassed in a period of 144 hours. This harks back to an erroneous fundamentalist teaching that was not challenged by the science of the 17th century, but that is no longer tenable in the light of present knowledge. The Bible itself does not set any such time limit on the days of creation.

The first verse of Genesis simply says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” If we take this to mean the creation of the starry heavens, the galaxies, and the solar system of which the earth is a part, we are talking about events that preceded the first creative day. The description of the earth’s condition in verse 2 also precedes the first day. Not until verses 3 to 5 do we enter upon the activity of the first day of creation.

So no matter how long the days might prove to be, verses 1 and 2 describe things already accomplished, and they fall outside any time frame encompassing the creative days. If geologists want to say that the earth is 4 billion years old, or astronomers want to make the universe 20 billion years old, the Bible student has no quarrel with them. The Bible simply does not indicate the time of those events.

Answer 4

God was having margaritas far before he created earth. That is what he did with the left over ice. A lot of people don't know this, but earth was created on a dare after several weeks of hard drinking.

To answer Cuchlain: that is all the core they have to date. there is still more that they haven't accessed yet. Also, the earth has got through periods of varying temperatures, some without ice caps. lastly, there is a thing called plate tectonics, which says Antarctica hasn't always been at the south pole.

Answer 5

Better still, how do they explain the Antarctic Ice at all? If Noah's flood was 4000 years ago, it means that all the ice had to be deposited in the last 4000 years. There is no evidence of a flood in the ice so it all has to be post flood.

When you cut down through the layers you can date them by known events. Volcanic eruptions leave identifiable traces. You can see the layer which was deposited when Krakatoa blew its top in 1883. You can see the layer when Vesuvius erupted in 79 AD. We are now back halfway to Noah's flood and haven't scratched the top 5% of the ice yet. We can count all the layers between Krakatoa and Vesuvius and find there are annual layers of just the right number. And there are thousands and thousands more layers under the Vesuvius layer.

How did it all get there, kilometres deep, in hundreds of thousands of annual layers, in 2000 years. Please explain.

Answer 6

How can an evolutionist explain that it does not go on before that?

Answer 7

Would you believe the devil and the dinos.?

Answer 8

we dont believe everything men say..