| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 52:25:28 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| D/L today: |
179 files (27,921K bytes) |
| Messages: | 111,611 |
I have just started re-reading a New Scientist dated 22/29 December
2001, an issue which was still commenting with bated breath on the
attack on the Twin Towers! However it also contained an article that partially answered something I have long wondered about.
Scientists have drilled down and taken ice cores from the Greenland ice sheet. In these cores they have observed alternating layers of snow or
ice particles that are large or small. They have interpreted these as
annual layers, a bit like tree rings. In summer you get small grains, in winter you get larger (or is it the other way round?) On this basis they have claimed to be able to trace the climate back tens of thousands of
years and have pontificated about how they can detect historical events
in these ice layers.
For example, counting back 2,000 layers they find an increase in
atmospheric lead, which they attribute to Roman metalworking. Counting
back other layers they find evidence for volcanic eruptions which they
claim to have dated by other means. And so on.
It all sounds very scientific and precise and persuasive but, of course,
it doesn't fit in with my creationist views. So what I have wondered is whether there is any way of confirming their claims.
According to the New Scientist (p. 58 ff) in July 1942 a group of
American planes flying to Britain were caught in bad weather, got lost
and eventually low fuel forced them to land on the ice sheet. In 1992 an American plane enthusiast decided to dig one of them up and restore it. After considerable searching he eventually located the planes and
retrieved one - but it was 80 metres down under the present level of the
ice sheet.
Unfortunately his interest was concentrated on the plane, but I do wish
that he had somehow observed the number of layers (rings?) between the present surface and the surface on which the plane had landed back in
1942. However note that in 50 years, 80 metres of snow and ice had accumulated.
Now let us suppose that the Greenland ice sheet is one mile deep and
we'll ignore the difference between yards and metres. That is 1,760
yards down. Divide by 80 and that gives you 22. Multiply by 50, the
number of years for each 80 metres of depth, and that gives you 1,100 -
a long way short of the tens of thousands the boffins claim!
Now obviously this is so rough a calculation that you may be reduced to tears. Metres are longer than yards, ice at the bottom of this mile thickness will be compressed, was there any global warming back in 2001
to have stripped away some of the top surface of the ice sheet? And so on.
But even so, even if we double or triple our result, it is still far
short of what the evolutionists claim.
Is it possible that these alternating layers of big and small do not represent years but simply the interval between storms? Or possibly even between cloudy days and cloudless days? No one, so far as I know, has
done an experiment to lay down a sheet of plastic, leave it for a decade
and then go back to count the layers that have accumulated. The story of
the buried planes is, I think, an indication that reality may not be the same as the claims of theory!
Is the alleged presence of atmospheric lead confirmation of the
scientists' claims? Were the Romans the only ones to smelt lead and
release it into the atmosphere? And even if the fine ash can be linked
to a particular volcano, can we be sure that it is linked to that
particular eruption rather than an earlier or later one?
In short, as I have often remarked, Creationists have no quarrel with
the *facts* of science; it is the interpretation of those facts that we challenge and here, at least, the interpretation does not appear to
properly explain the facts.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
I wonder if that is true? Digging a plane-sized hole 80 metres down
would be a truly major mining operation. I must admit that I am
sceptical. It may be in a copy of NS, but can you give us an internet reference, please? The name of the enthusiast who spent all this money
would help.
However, if you are right, then the annual ice layers, at least near the surface, are roughly 1.5m thick. It should be easy for you to find some details of core drilling that gives the thickness of the differentThat's the annoying thing; I have not been able to find any indication
layers observed.
People study this sort of thing all their lives, and I think the chances
are low that you have thought of something obvious like that, but they haven't.
If you're right, though, and these layers are based on short intervals
of a few days, there's no need to wait a decade. It would be obvious
after a year. Why not simply do the experiment?
I wonder if that is true? Digging a plane-sized hole 80 metres downI've just done a search on Shoffner P-38 Glacier Girl, which in turn
would be a truly major mining operation. I must admit that I am
sceptical. It may be in a copy of NS, but can you give us an internet reference, please? The name of the enthusiast who spent all this money
would help.
On 24/08/2025 19:47, GB wrote:
I wonder if that is true? Digging a plane-sized hole 80 metres downI've just done a search on Shoffner P-38 Glacier Girl, which in turn suggested a search for "Glacier Girl Recovery". You might care to do the same and cure your scepticism.
would be a truly major mining operation. I must admit that I am
sceptical. It may be in a copy of NS, but can you give us an internet
reference, please? The name of the enthusiast who spent all this money
would help.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 24/08/2025 19:47, GB wrote:
I wonder if that is true? Digging a plane-sized hole 80 metres down
would be a truly major mining operation. I must admit that I am
sceptical. It may be in a copy of NS, but can you give us an internet
reference, please? The name of the enthusiast who spent all this money
would help.
I'm sorry, I don't have an internet reference. According to the article, they used a specially made device to melt the ice to form a large hole,
but then had to dismantle the plane and remove it in large pieces. The chap's name was J. Roy Shoffner from Kentucky and it took four months to find and retrieve the plane, a P-38 which they dubbed "Glacier Girl".
However, if you are right, then the annual ice layers, at least nearThat's the annoying thing; I have not been able to find any indication
the surface, are roughly 1.5m thick. It should be easy for you to find
some details of core drilling that gives the thickness of the
different layers observed.
of how thick these layers are.
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/planet-earth/what-causes- climate-and-climate-change/what-ice-cores-record/the-greenland-ice-record
https://byrd.osu.edu/educator/lessons/icecore
These lead me to think that we are talking about thicknesses of an inch
or two per year.
People study this sort of thing all their lives, and I think the
chances are low that you have thought of something obvious like that,
but they haven't.
They have bought into the evolutionary "long ages for earth" and
interpret things in that light. Varves used to be interpreted in the
same way until the experiments you urge below revealed that interpreting them as annual was unsafe.
If you're right, though, and these layers are based on short intervals
of a few days, there's no need to wait a decade. It would be obvious
after a year. Why not simply do the experiment?
Why should I bother when the work has already been done by that chap
digging for a plane?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
"Wind-driven snow drifts and *glacial movement* gradually buried the aircraft.
Indeed, it's a fascinating read, thanks.
On 25/08/2025 11:11, GB wrote:
"Wind-driven snow drifts and *glacial movement* gradually buried the
aircraft.
Unless you are claiming that the aircraft moved sideways to underneath a huge snow drift, I think you are talking nonsense. Whether a snow flake falls here or twenty feet over there makes no difference to the rate at which something is buried.
So come on, explain why you think drifting as the glacier moved made a substantial difference to the rate of burial? What mechanisms were
involved? Trolls holding umbrellas, perhaps?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 25/08/2025 11:04, GB wrote:
Indeed, it's a fascinating read, thanks.
Thank you. So next time just accept that when I make statements backed
up by references, I am not inventing "cleverly devised fables".
And I am waiting with bated breath for your explanation of how
snowflakes followed the planes as the glacier moved and buried them more deeply than anything else anywhere else on the glacier.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
You've snipped what I actually did say. It was buried underneath an advancing glacier.
I was right to be sceptical, though, as the planes were buried under an advancing glacier, whereas you treated them as though they were on a completely stable ice sheet.
There are also other factors in play, such as geothermal energy, which
tends to melt ice, and which you have not taken into account. Unless you know what factors to take into account and then do the calculations, you simply don't know how all this interacts.
On 25/08/2025 16:31, GB wrote:
You've snipped what I actually did say. It was buried underneath an
advancing glacier.
Do you understand what "ice cap" means?
Iceland has geothermal energy. This is the first time I've heard that Greenland has any. Can you provide references?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Everywhere has it.
My neighbour has installed a geothermal heat pump in her garden!