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.
Okay, but it's rolling to mock your idiocy, Campbell.
Quote:
. I no you hate to hear about those world war II planes that landed in Greenland back in 1942. Especially when those crew members went back to recover them 40 years later. Yet what they found is hard evidence. And they discovered those planes left there from 40 years past, were now 268 feet below the ice.
What utter crap. Where those planes landed NEAR THE COASTLINE in Greenland, it is well-documented that the average annual snowfall is about 2 meters a year. Allow for some compaction due to weight, and VOILA OMG there we have the amount of snow under which they were buried.
Furthermore, they are on an ACTIVE GLACIER, which is MOVING, which is NOT where ice cores are taken. Ice cores are taken from stable ice fields. In the area of Antarctica where those cores were taken, the annual snowfall is well-documented to be only a tiny fraction of ALONG THE COASTLINE IN GREENLAND.
Your ostrich-like abilities confound and amaze me C34. How can you continue in your moronic ways?
I believe the very first mistake you make, is you date everything based on rates of flow, or the speeds of formations we only see today. You must (ASSUME) that nothing in the past occured, that change those rates. You talk about the Antarctic, and the annual precipitation of snow being less than 2 inches a year. Well that's Good, but what was the rate of snow fall 5,000 years ago.
It does not matter what the rate of snow fall was 5000 years ago. We have 750 THOUSAND years of layers so even IF there were higher rates of snow way back when, they are still recorded as a LAYER, one of many many layers
Quote:
I no you hate to hear about those world war II planes that landed in Greenland back in 1942. Especially when those crew members went back to recover them 40 years later. Yet what they found is hard evidence. And they discovered those planes left there from 40 years past, were now 268 feet below the ice. Now given another 1700 years, that same ice would be about two miles thick.
Err, Greenland snowfall and glaciers where the planes landed <> Antarctic ice cores.
Quote:
And if not for the existance of those places. I,m sure science would be claiming that ice was 100,000 years old or older. Mount St. Helens shows us, that major earth changes can occur in just hours.
Mount St Helens has been debunked thoroughly by Rifleman
Quote:
And if you can ignore those facts, then you can continue to measure everything based on only the flow rates you see today.
Nope varves are supportive of the flow rates estimates - more irritating geology facts
Quote:
You see, I believe everything you believe is based on assumptions.
Not assumptions, calculations, aka hypothesis that has been PROVEN unlike your subjective eye witness accounts where pics are all grainy and "evidence" miraculously disappears as if there were some huge global conspiracy.
Quote:
You don't know what the flow rates were in the past.
So what, a season is a season and a layer is a layer irrespective of flow rates or precipitation rates.
Quote:
You don't know the different dynamics that have occured in ancient times.
Neither do you, yet you assert your ridiculous "evidence" as proof incontrovertible
Quote:
You only assume you know. And based on those assumptions, you claim science has given their stamp of approval. Just like they did with all those supposed missing links.
Lets stick to the ice cores. I told you earlier, my evidence does not prove evolution so why deflect to missing links? Go post that crap on the other thread where you have been thoroughly debunked already.
Quote:
The reason I usually do not adress such arguements, is because they can only be debated if all believe in those unfounded assumptions. I don't believe you assumptions are facts.
No the reason you do not debate them is because you have a South African putting evidence in your face that AiG has no counter claim for as they have not been to Africa or have any substantial counter arguments. Hence your WWII areyplanse in Greenland, only a dunce or homeskooled person will fall for that crap.
Quote:
Now, when I speak of the Ark of Noah landing on Mt. Ararat. I can state that the Bible confirms this.
Nope you have been debunked by Aeriquipa already
Quote:
I can give numerous eyewitiness accounts that have given details of seeing the Ark on Mt. Ararat. And I can give accounts from satellite photo interpreters, who can confirm those eyewitiness accounts, based on what their photographs show them.
All subjective speculation. This is why I bring up the ice cores as the real evidence far out-dates your global fludd myth and you keep hiding behind a veil of ice as to why we have no solid proof of the YEC claims. Thusly, until you can convince us as to WHY there are 750 THOUSAND years of LAYERS in the Antarctic Ice Cores then maybe we can listen to your offerings with more open mindedness.
Did gawd make the Ice at Mt. Ararat anti gravity? Does that ice NOT flow at all, even a few inches a year?
Quote:
My physical evidence is not based on assumption, but accounts that come from real people, and real photographs. And I have more reasons to believe these people are speaking the truth, then I have to believe in your assumptions.
Reason to believe is equal to speculation. We have Ice Cores aka HARD evidence that purely on the whole ice debacle of Mt Ararat, proves your fludd NEVER happened or else we would NOT have 750 THOUSAND years of layers, aka annual seasons which BTW have all been matched to recent historical volcanic activity such as that one in Java in the 19th century. Krakatoa IIRC? ETA: Link Yup "thar she blows"
There was no ark and there was NO global fludd.
Still waiting for you to address Rifleman's arithmetic challenge, hell it is NOT even mathematics and you do not even need a scientific calculator. A $2 basic one will give you the answer, it may however return an error if it only has eight digits. Hint, Click Start - Run - Type "CALC" + Enter and wallah you will have a calculator right there on yawr desktop (computer screen so keep your eyes on teh monitor)
Okay, but it's rolling to mock your idiocy, Campbell.
What utter crap. Where those planes landed NEAR THE COASTLINE in Greenland, it is well-documented that the average annual snowfall is about 2 meters a year. Allow for some compaction due to weight, and VOILA OMG there we have the amount of snow under which they were buried.
Furthermore, they are on an ACTIVE GLACIER, which is MOVING, which is NOT where ice cores are taken. Ice cores are taken from stable ice fields. In the area of Antarctica where those cores were taken, the annual snowfall is well-documented to be only a tiny fraction of ALONG THE COASTLINE IN GREENLAND.
Your ostrich-like abilities confound and amaze me C34. How can you continue in your moronic ways?
Thats correct, we know what the snow fall rate is today over Greenland, and over the last 40 years. And we know that, because we have historical records to prove it. Yet, (WE DO NOT KNOW) what the rate of snowfall was over Antarctica 5,000 years ago. So we have to start making assumptions about things we don't know, and that is where story telling begins, and science ends. And Antarctica's well-documented snowfall, is at best, well documented only for the last 150 years. Anything beyond that, is just more assumptions. And only one, with ostrich-like thinking would ignore that fact.
Thats correct, we know what the snow fall rate is today over Greenland, and over the last 40 years. And we know that, because we have historical records to prove it. Yet, (WE DO NOT KNOW) what the rate of snowfall was over Antarctica 5,000 years ago. So we have to start making assumptions about things we don't know, and that is where story telling begins, and science ends. And Antarctica's well-documented snowfall, is at best, well documented only for the last 150 years. Anything beyond that, is just more assumptions. And only one, with ostrich-like thinking would ignore that fact.
Isn't also making assumptions to say that it wasn't the same 5,000 years ago?
Thats correct, we know what the snow fall rate is today over Greenland, and over the last 40 years. And we know that, because we have historical records to prove it. Yet, (WE DO NOT KNOW) what the rate of snowfall was over Antarctica 5,000 years ago. So we have to start making assumptions about things we don't know, and that is where story telling begins, and science ends. And Antarctica's well-documented snowfall, is at best, well documented only for the last 150 years. Anything beyond that, is just more assumptions. And only one, with ostrich-like thinking would ignore that fact.
Yes we do know what the rate of snowfall was over Antarctica, not only 5000 years ago, but for hundreds of thousands of years. The records of annual snow fall are perfectly recorded in the ice cores in much the same way as annual rainfall is recorded in tree rings, but much more accurately. They are records, not assumptions.
I really thought you were smart enough to know that.
Here is a sample of ice core. Each arrow indicates an annual ring, recording snow fall, composition of the atmosphere etc.
Isn't also making assumptions to say that it wasn't the same 5,000 years ago?
Yes it would be, because none of us really know what weather conditions occured thousands of years ago. So I don't pretend to know. And I don't buy into theories that would force us to believe in unfounded assumptions.
Yes we do know what the rate of snowfall was over Antarctica, not only 5000 years ago, but for hundreds of thousands of years. The records of annual snow fall are perfectly recorded in the ice cores in much the same way as annual rainfall is recorded in tree rings, but much more accurately. They are records, not assumptions.
I really thought you were smart enough to know that.
Here is a sample of ice core. Each arrow indicates an annual ring, recording snow fall, composition of the atmosphere etc.
Oh please, the airplane removed from the depth of 268 feet of ice had numerous layers of defined ice over it. Just like your ice cores. And if it were not for those planes being there. Science would be telling us the ice was thousands of years old. Bob Cardin, who was involoved in the planes removal, was asked how many layers of ice was over the plane. Bob stated, there were (MANY HUNDREDS OF LAYERS OF ICE).
Many hundreds of layers of ice, yet the plane was only under the ice for 46 years. Your belief that each layer of ice equals one annual year, does not square with the facts.
It does not matter what the rate of snow fall was 5000 years ago. We have 750 THOUSAND years of layers so even IF there were higher rates of snow way back when, they are still recorded as a LAYER, one of many many layers
Err, Greenland snowfall and glaciers where the planes landed <> Antarctic ice cores.
Mount St Helens has been debunked thoroughly by Rifleman
Nope varves are supportive of the flow rates estimates - more irritating geology facts
Not assumptions, calculations, aka hypothesis that has been PROVEN unlike your subjective eye witness accounts where pics are all grainy and "evidence" miraculously disappears as if there were some huge global conspiracy.
So what, a season is a season and a layer is a layer irrespective of flow rates or precipitation rates.
Neither do you, yet you assert your ridiculous "evidence" as proof incontrovertible
Lets stick to the ice cores. I told you earlier, my evidence does not prove evolution so why deflect to missing links? Go post that crap on the other thread where you have been thoroughly debunked already.
No the reason you do not debate them is because you have a South African putting evidence in your face that AiG has no counter claim for as they have not been to Africa or have any substantial counter arguments. Hence your WWII areyplanse in Greenland, only a dunce or homeskooled person will fall for that crap.
Nope you have been debunked by Aeriquipa already
All subjective speculation. This is why I bring up the ice cores as the real evidence far out-dates your global fludd myth and you keep hiding behind a veil of ice as to why we have no solid proof of the YEC claims. Thusly, until you can convince us as to WHY there are 750 THOUSAND years of LAYERS in the Antarctic Ice Cores then maybe we can listen to your offerings with more open mindedness.
Did gawd make the Ice at Mt. Ararat anti gravity? Does that ice NOT flow at all, even a few inches a year?
Reason to believe is equal to speculation. We have Ice Cores aka HARD evidence that purely on the whole ice debacle of Mt Ararat, proves your fludd NEVER happened or else we would NOT have 750 THOUSAND years of layers, aka annual seasons which BTW have all been matched to recent historical volcanic activity such as that one in Java in the 19th century. Krakatoa IIRC? ETA: Link Yup "thar she blows"
There was no ark and there was NO global fludd.
Still waiting for you to address Rifleman's arithmetic challenge, hell it is NOT even mathematics and you do not even need a scientific calculator. A $2 basic one will give you the answer, it may however return an error if it only has eight digits. Hint, Click Start - Run - Type "CALC" + Enter and wallah you will have a calculator right there on yawr desktop (computer screen so keep your eyes on teh monitor)
Waiting
Your belief that many layers of ice show us yearly accumulation, is also false. The plane recovered from the 268 feet of ice had many hundreds of well defined layers of ice over it. Yet the plane was only under the ice for 46 years. Clearly, layers of ice occur, and do not represent only yearly accumulations. Here again, such a belief is based on unfound assumptions.
Your belief that yearly layers of ice can be identified, would require us to believe the plane recovered, was really many hundreds of years old. And based on the accounts of that recovered airplane, the only thing you have put in my face, is nonsense.
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.
)
