Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What does the hollowness of a plane have to do with the mass and density of it? Your argument assumes that the aircraft in question has enough air inside it to make it float. Not to mention that the cabin has to be vaccuum tight to ensure no air is leaked. You will find in fact that an aircraft is denser than water and will sink. How can you make assumptions of science without providing proof to backup your claims? The mere reasoning behind science is that it is skeptical and strives to provide evidence to prove or disprove claims.
An aircraft will sink when it is filled with water, and is in water. And these planes were forced to land because their fuel tanks were empty. Also, as the story goes Bob Cardin one of those involoved in the salvage of the plane was asked how many layers of ice were over them. His responce was many hundreds of layers. He was then told that each layer was supposed to represent one year of time. His responce. "That is impossible!" And also as the story goes, the planes density was less than the ice or snow since they WERE NOT FILLED WITH THE SNOW, BUT REMAINED HOLLOW. They were buried by annual snowfall over a period of 46 years. The problem with your responce is you are trying to ASSUME things in the story that do not exist, and you have ignored what was already stated. And this is the problem with all believers in Evolution, they assume way to much, and do not consider the facts. They just claim they have science on their side, while they ignore the facts in front of them. I am not the one making assumptions here, I have follow the storyline, it appears to me you have not.
I see that your fundie site says polished granite, but they are misrepresenting what she said. She did not say it was polished granite....She said it could be granite...Big difference.
She also said.... "It looks like when you fly over an urban development in a plane and you see highways, tunnels and buildings.
We don't know what it is, and we don't have the videotaped evidence of this yet.
In 2007 she said this...."However, it would be totally irresponsible to say what it was before we have evidence."
Her above statement sure doesn't stop the fundie sites lying and misrepresenting the entire thing does it.
WRONG AGAIN SANSPEUR- They did not misrepresent anyone. The same account was authored by Linda Moulton Howe, who is a national Emmy nominee and regional Emmy-award winning American investigative journalist and documentary producer-writer-director-editor. You can read Linda Moulton Howe's account in the link below. Sanspeur, I don't know why you keep trying to suggest that Christians are making this stuff up, when you can read the interview from a secular source that states the samething reported in a Christian source.
Where do you live Campbell? I'm assuming that snow and wind is not common there....Do you know that snow is often driven by the wind and that creates drifts that can be very deep? That is the reason I left Ontario, as I was fed up with 6 inches or less of snow completely burying my car. One morning both doors of our house were blocked by drifts, and I had to climb out the window only to find nothing but the tip of my radio antenna to show where my car was...That happened with less than 8 inches of snow.
Look at the great sand dunes in deserts...How do you think they form?
You have to stop trusting those fundy sites that always leave out information like this. In 46 years of blowing snow they were lucky the planes were not much deeper. Think, Campbell...Use your own mind instead of allowing these sites to do it for you....They are making you look rather foolish.
WRONG AGAIN SANSPEUR- They did not misrepresent anyone. The same account was authored by Linda Moulton Howe, who is a national Emmy nominee and regional Emmy-award winning American investigative journalist and documentary producer-writer-director-editor. You can read Linda Moulton Howe's account in the link below. Sanspeur, I don't know why you keep trying to suggest that Christians are making this stuff up, when you can read the interview from a secular source that states the samething reported in a Christian source.
Where do you live Campbell? I'm assuming that snow and wind is not common there....Do you know that snow is often driven by the wind and that creates drifts that can be very deep? That is the reason I left Ontario, as I was fed up with 6 inches or less of snow completely burying my car. One morning both doors of our house were blocked by drifts, and I had to climb out the window only to find nothing but the tip of my radio antenna to show where my car was...That happened with less than 8 inches of snow.
Look at the great sand dunes in deserts...How do you think they form?
You have to stop trusting those fundy sites that always leave out information like this. In 46 years of blowing snow they were lucky the planes were not much deeper. Think, Campbell...Use your own mind instead of allowing these sites to do it for you....They are making you look rather foolish.
sanspeur, to my knowledge the person who recovered the planes was not a Christian, and he was the one who made the statement. So I have no idea what you are even talking about. This is kind of like you trying to say that Christians misrepresented what Paulina Zelitsky said about polished granite, when in fact, that report came to us from Linda Moulton Howe who has nothing to do with Christian sites. The only one who is looking foolish here sanspeur, is the one who does not have his facts right. And next time your car is buried in snow, maybe you should have them do one of those ice core samples. You might find out that your car has actually been out in the snow for 500 years. LOL
Your planes landed on a glacier. We have had this discussion before and know that glaciers move rapidly and that we are not talking pack ice. There is a difference between ice cores of pack ice and glaciers. From your link:
What is most interesting about this story, at least for the purposes of this discussion, is the depth at which the planes were found (as well as the speed which the glacier moved). It took only 46 years to bury the planes in over 260 feet (~80 meters) of ice and move then some 3 miles from their original location.
Thus your proof has erroneously led the gullible to assume all ice is glacier ice and that all glaciers move at the same speed. The cores are 4km deep that is 4000m.
In a linear sense, your planes are 2% deep - 46 years = 46 x 50 = 2300 years. But that is not how ice compacts, even your idiot doktor admits that. By his logic, the age of the ice in Greenland wold be about the same time at Jesus. We all know that that is impossible. Guess in his book, it did not start snowing after the flood till 300 BCE?
The speed of glaciers in Greenland are of the fastest moving and moving ice is not as dense as pack ice.
Your expert is an MD (Medical doctor) and is not an expert (as usual) in the relevant science he is commenting on.
Greenland Glaciers Read all the news articles and yes it is about global warming something you lot also deny.
The massive weight of the ice has depressed the central area of Greenland; the bedrock surface is near sea level over most of the interior of Greenland, but mountains occur around the periphery, confining the sheet along its margins. If the ice were to disappear, Greenland would most probably appear as an archipelago, at least until isostasy would lift the land surface above sea level once again.
The ice sheet as a record of past climates
See also: Ice core, Greenland ice core project, and Greenland Ice Sheet Project
The ice sheet, consisting of layers of compressed snow from more than a hundred thousand years, contains in its ice today's most valuable record of past climates. In the past decades, scientists have drilled ice cores up to four kilometres deep. Scientists have, using those ice cores, obtained information on (proxies for) temperature, ocean volume, precipitation, chemistry and gas composition of the lower atmosphere, volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sea-surface productivity, desert extent and forest fires. This variety of climatic proxies is greater than in any other natural recorder of climate, such as tree rings or sediment layers.
Increased Precipitation
Warmer temperatures in the region have brought increased precipitation to Greenland, and part of the lost mass has been offset by increased snowfall. However, there are only a small number of weather stations on the island, and though Satellite data can examine the entire island, it has only been available since the early 1990s, making trending difficult. It has been observed that there is more precipitation where it is warmer, up to 1.5 ma-1 on the SE flank, and where cooler less or nil (25-80% of the island depending on the time of year).[22] Actual figures for precipitation are available in "New precipitation and accumulation maps for Greenland", A. Ohmura and N. Reeh, Journal of Glaciology, 1991.
Data from NASA's Polar program confirms that the average elevation change above 2000m "was not significant".[23]
Even your idiot doktor maintains the same illogic that metal is less dense than ice. Well I am afraid that science and gravity proves him wrong. Nonetheless, the antarctic ice cores are waaaay down thus his rebuttal is moot.
The ice cores taken all over the world prove that the planet is older than your YEC POV and all he has is this lame deflection of misinformation. Especially the antarctic ice cores, the oldest 750,000 years disputes your flood as everyone in their right mind knows that ice floats and your flood would have floated and likely melted all cap ice and thus this is the nail in the coffin you folk ignore or attempt to debunk with sunken aircraft.
Everything you do to prove the flood comes back and bites your ankles because your apologists are just that apologists and not scientists.
Grasping at straws, that's all it is.
Should we go back and discuss cave formations again, you never had an answer to our SA oldest caves in the world. They are older than even the ice cores.
Flexi-preferential variable flow rates does not work with cave formations just as flexi-preferential precipitation snowfall rates affect ice cores 4km below the surface.
Do you really think scientists do not take into consideration the upper level cores, their compaction etc. to identify anual layers?
Their findings are confirmed by known historical events like volcanic eruptions in recent history.
Ice cores contain an abundance of climate information. Inclusions in the snow of each year remain in the ice, such as wind-blown dust, ash, bubbles of atmospheric gas and radioactive substances. The variety of climatic proxies is greater than in any other natural recorder of climate, such as tree rings or sediment layers. These include (proxies for) temperature, ocean volume, precipitation, chemistry and gas composition of the lower atmosphere, volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sea-surface productivity, desert extent and forest fires.
Typical ice cores are removed from an ice sheet, most commonly from the polar ice caps of Antarctica, Greenland or from high mountain glaciers elsewhere. As the ice forms from the incremental buildup of annual layers of snow, lower layers are older than upper, and an ice core contains ice formed over a range of years. The properties of the ice or inclusions within the ice can then be used to reconstruct a climatic record over the age range of the core.
The length of the record depends on the depth of the ice core and varies from a few years up to 800 kyr for the EPICA core. The time resolution (i.e. the shortest time period which can be accurately distinguished) depends on the amount of annual snowfall, and reduces with depth as the ice compacts under the weight of layers accumulating on top of it. Upper layers of ice in a core correspond to a single year or sometimes a single season. Deeper into the ice the layers thin and annual layers become indistinguishable.
ETA:
Ice core sites
Ice cores have been taken from many locations around the world. Major efforts have taken place on Greenland and Antarctica. Sites on Greenland are more susceptible to snow melt than those in Antarctica. In the Antarctic, areas around the Antarctic Peninsula and seas to the west have been found to be affected by ENSO effects. Both of these characteristics have been used to study such variations over long spans of time.[26]
I don't care if he was a Martian...The likelihood of drifting snow was completely ignored by him, and now by you. As for Linda Moulton Howe, Xfile city!
Just for your information, I have intended to get in contact with Advance Digital Communications which is supposed to be here in Victoria....Either it does not exist or they are keeping it a secret....No phone....no web site. No listings for Zelitsky either.
Your planes landed on a glacier. We have had this discussion before and know that glaciers move rapidly and that we are not talking pack ice. There is a difference between ice cores of pack ice and glaciers. From your link:
What is most interesting about this story, at least for the purposes of this discussion, is the depth at which the planes were found (as well as the speed which the glacier moved). It took only 46 years to bury the planes in over 260 feet (~80 meters) of ice and move then some 3 miles from their original location.
Thus your proof has erroneously led the gullible to assume all ice is glacier ice and that all glaciers move at the same speed. The cores are 4km deep that is 4000m.
In a linear sense, your planes are 2% deep - 46 years = 46 x 50 = 2300 years. But that is not how ice compacts, even your idiot doktor admits that. By his logic, the age of the ice in Greenland wold be about the same time at Jesus. We all know that that is impossible. Guess in his book, it did not start snowing after the flood till 300 BCE?
The speed of glaciers in Greenland are of the fastest moving and moving ice is not as dense as pack ice.
Your expert is an MD (Medical doctor) and is not an expert (as usual) in the relevant science he is commenting on.
Greenland Glaciers Read all the news articles and yes it is about global warming something you lot also deny.
The massive weight of the ice has depressed the central area of Greenland; the bedrock surface is near sea level over most of the interior of Greenland, but mountains occur around the periphery, confining the sheet along its margins. If the ice were to disappear, Greenland would most probably appear as an archipelago, at least until isostasy would lift the land surface above sea level once again.
The ice sheet as a record of past climates
See also: Ice core, Greenland ice core project, and Greenland Ice Sheet Project
The ice sheet, consisting of layers of compressed snow from more than a hundred thousand years, contains in its ice today's most valuable record of past climates. In the past decades, scientists have drilled ice cores up to four kilometres deep. Scientists have, using those ice cores, obtained information on (proxies for) temperature, ocean volume, precipitation, chemistry and gas composition of the lower atmosphere, volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sea-surface productivity, desert extent and forest fires. This variety of climatic proxies is greater than in any other natural recorder of climate, such as tree rings or sediment layers.
Increased Precipitation
Warmer temperatures in the region have brought increased precipitation to Greenland, and part of the lost mass has been offset by increased snowfall. However, there are only a small number of weather stations on the island, and though Satellite data can examine the entire island, it has only been available since the early 1990s, making trending difficult. It has been observed that there is more precipitation where it is warmer, up to 1.5 ma-1 on the SE flank, and where cooler less or nil (25-80% of the island depending on the time of year).[22] Actual figures for precipitation are available in "New precipitation and accumulation maps for Greenland", A. Ohmura and N. Reeh, Journal of Glaciology, 1991.
Data from NASA's Polar program confirms that the average elevation change above 2000m "was not significant".[23]
Even your idiot doktor maintains the same illogic that metal is less dense than ice. Well I am afraid that science and gravity proves him wrong. Nonetheless, the antarctic ice cores are waaaay down thus his rebuttal is moot.
The ice cores taken all over the world prove that the planet is older than your YEC POV and all he has is this lame deflection of misinformation. Especially the antarctic ice cores, the oldest 750,000 years disputes your flood as everyone in their right mind knows that ice floats and your flood would have floated and likely melted all cap ice and thus this is the nail in the coffin you folk ignore or attempt to debunk with sunken aircraft.
Everything you do to prove the flood comes back and bites your ankles because your apologists are just that apologists and not scientists.
Grasping at straws, that's all it is.
Should we go back and discuss cave formations again, you never had an answer to our SA oldest caves in the world. They are older than even the ice cores.
Flexi-preferential variable flow rates does not work with cave formations just as flexi-preferential precipitation snowfall rates affect ice cores 4km below the surface.
Do you really think scientists do not take into consideration the upper level cores, their compaction etc. to identify anual layers?
Their findings are confirmed by known historical events like volcanic eruptions in recent history.
Ice cores contain an abundance of climate information. Inclusions in the snow of each year remain in the ice, such as wind-blown dust, ash, bubbles of atmospheric gas and radioactive substances. The variety of climatic proxies is greater than in any other natural recorder of climate, such as tree rings or sediment layers. These include (proxies for) temperature, ocean volume, precipitation, chemistry and gas composition of the lower atmosphere, volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sea-surface productivity, desert extent and forest fires.
Typical ice cores are removed from an ice sheet, most commonly from the polar ice caps of Antarctica, Greenland or from high mountain glaciers elsewhere. As the ice forms from the incremental buildup of annual layers of snow, lower layers are older than upper, and an ice core contains ice formed over a range of years. The properties of the ice or inclusions within the ice can then be used to reconstruct a climatic record over the age range of the core.
The length of the record depends on the depth of the ice core and varies from a few years up to 800 kyr for the EPICA core. The time resolution (i.e. the shortest time period which can be accurately distinguished) depends on the amount of annual snowfall, and reduces with depth as the ice compacts under the weight of layers accumulating on top of it. Upper layers of ice in a core correspond to a single year or sometimes a single season. Deeper into the ice the layers thin and annual layers become indistinguishable.
ETA:
Ice core sites
Ice cores have been taken from many locations around the world. Major efforts have taken place on Greenland and Antarctica. Sites on Greenland are more susceptible to snow melt than those in Antarctica. In the Antarctic, areas around the Antarctic Peninsula and seas to the west have been found to be affected by ENSO effects. Both of these characteristics have been used to study such variations over long spans of time.[26]
Pack ice, or glacier ice, your group uses ice cores from either to try an push their belief on age, or global warming. Only when your time frame is exposed do we hear them make the distinction between the two. GIVE ME A BREAK. And when it snows, it does not care if it's on a glaicer, or packed ice. And glaicers do have packed ice on them, and that is why they take ice core sample from packed ice on glaciers.
Do I really think scientist do not take into consideration the upper level cores?
When I see what science does not take into consideration, why would you believe I would trust anything from that group. We have 10 pyramids at the bottom of ROCK LAKE WISCONSIN, we have a submerged city found one half mile below the sea off western Cuba, and we have the El Toro Figurines from Mexico. WHERE IS THE SCIENTIFIC CONSIDERATION HERE? And that is just the beginning of my list. I see to many things science does not take into consideration to assume they are look correctly at everything else.
These people are not intrested in the truth, they are interested in their scientific method, and ignore anything else that does not agree with their method. I mean really, after a while, even you have to start wondering why all these discoveries continue to be ignored.
Pack ice, or glacier ice, your group uses ice cores from either to try an push their belief on age, or global warming. Only when your time frame is exposed do we hear them make the distinction between the two. GIVE ME A BREAK. And when it snows, it does not care if it's on a glaicer, or packed ice. And glaicers do have packed ice on them, and that is why they take ice core sample from packed ice on glaciers
Ignoring the facts I see, IOW PIOYA again?
Yeah I am sure rapidly moving glaciers are the best place to get long term ice cores.
Admit it you have been soundly debunked AGAIN - it is sooo easy with someone that does no research before posting like *cough* Campbell34.
Quote:
.Do I really think scientist do not take into consideration the upper level cores?
When I see what science does not take into consideration, why would you believe I would trust anything from that group. We have 10 pyramids at the bottom of ROCK LAKE WISCONSIN, we have a submerged city found one half mile below the sea off western Cuba, and we have the El Toro Figurines from Mexico. WHERE IS THE SCIENTIFIC CONSIDERATION HERE? And that is just the beginning of my list. I see to many things science does not take into consideration to assume they are look correctly at everything else.
Aah, cannot answer the question thus deflection.
Quote:
These people are not intrested in the truth, they are interested in their scientific method, and ignore anything else that does not agree with their method. I mean really, after a while, even you have to start wondering why all these discoveries continue to be ignored.
Go on then - bring it. I love debunking you.
Seeing we are in deflect mode, how about those cave formations in South Africa? Oh wait you cannot answer that as AiG does not have a branch here.
YEC is for the uneducated or intellectually challenged folk only.
Whatever you do, there is always a way to connect the dots in evolution but that requires an open mind.
YEC fails in biology
YEC fails in geology
YEC fails in paleontology
YEC fails in paleoclimatology
YEC fails in every single discipline of science
There is in fact no valid scientific discipline that the YEC can disprove w/o quote mining and fabrication of of their own preferred "facts".
Now we are onto pyramids - yup I google your deflections and they are all woo woo sites - why? They all mostly use black backgrounds like this one: Rock Lake Pyramids
Posting the Paranormal Since 1997
Later in the page
Looking forParanormal Investigating Equipment? Find it all at GetGhostGear.com
And you wonder why scientists are not interested?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
