Posted on 06/04/2015 7:53:23 AM PDT by fishtank
Thick Ice Sheets: How Old Are They Really?
by Jake Hebert, Ph.D. *
Secular scientists claim that ice in deep cores extracted from the thick Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets is hundreds of thousands of years old. Do these ice cores prove an old earth?
Although these scientists believe the ice sheets to be millions of years old, vast amounts of time are not necessarily required for their formation. “Back of the envelope” calculations show that if current average snowfall rates have always been the norm, then the Greenland ice sheet could form in about 5,000 years and the Antarctic ice sheets in a little more than 10,000 years, ignoring factors such as melting.1 Of course, melting would increase the ice sheet formation time, but higher snowfall rates would decrease the time. Therefore, the 4,500 years since the Flood provide ample time for the growth of the thick ice sheets we see today, considering the much greater snowfall during the post-Flood Ice Age.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
So you think the flood was local?
Yeah, maybe that whole resurrection thing is allegorical as well.
/sarc
That’s the people part, NOT the Earth part.
More importantly, why would God create a Universe with evidence contradicting the Official Story ?
Frankly, setting things up so that the original “Bank Shot” that set off the Big Bang is FAR more impressive than the “Poof, and it’s there” school of theology. . .
Reminds me of how fossils and rocks are dated. Rock layers are dated by what fossils are found there. Fossils are dated by the rock layer it’s found in.
News Flash!
I don’t buy the “Big Bang” nonsense either.
In fact there are many recent “scientific” articles that also dismiss it.
If it were a global event it creates some problems. There are plants and animals that are indigenous to certain areas of the world that would have been inaccessible to them at that time. They would not have survived the flood. Additionally know his family were the only ones supposedly to survive. The racial diversity of the earth’s population makes this extremely unlikely.
One cannot be true without the other being true.
To try and defend the bible with something that NOT in the bible is silly ...in fact i would say that border on biblical heresy!
This 6000 years in earth time is all from some approx count from the time of Adam the first man...and that is not the start of the earth ....
Adam was the the first flesh and blood being on earth with a sole, the self aware man.... he came after all the rest was created
Even evolution has to have a day of the first self aware man ....the point man became a thinking man ...aware he as naked..and no longer a dumb unaware animal .. and both would have as relatively recent... both the bible and evolution and ever other theory has to have a "day the light went on" and man became a self aware being...so that the day you need to count from..self aware is the point of the debate...because the debate is a self aware "mind of God" being the creator of all that self aware mind is the image of God we are created in..Not the flesh
Adam is the point you can ever began to try to use using years lived and generation to count years
If it was a local flood, why didn’t God just tell Noah to walk out of the floodplain?
P.S. The other issues you mention have been addressed, or at least discussed, in creationist literature.
Why would God, being who He is, need to appear to Ezekiel in a ‘chariot’ that was ‘a wheel in a wheel’....? Does The Old Testament make you believe in UFOs?
Also very interesting, the actual driest place on the surface of the earth is found in Antarctica. This means that for some interior locations no precipitation has ever been recorded.
(http://www.livescience.com/30627-10-driest-places-on-earth.html)
As well, it is curious that the ice shelf of Antarctica often more than double’s in size around it’s periphery during the winter months, due largely to ice formation. Obviously the cycle goes both ways.
Antarctic ice has been the source of a lot of trouble for the modern “global warming” myth as well. With ice reaching down further than 15,600 feet, it is a decent place to go for the study of all things well preserved, or trapped in ice.
Some ice core samples from down to over 10,000 feet deep have shown multiple layers of ice strata containing CO2 levels many times current levels.
Obviously, CO2 levels have been much higher at various points in the past, and long predated the Industrial Revolution. As well, higher CO2 levels in the past did not result in the end of the polar ice either.
It is a crazy place.
won’t the world flat back then?
“Reminds me of how fossils and rocks are dated. Rock layers are dated by what fossils are found there. Fossils are dated by the rock layer it’s found in.”
This is actually true. This is exactly how we did it.
No circular reasoning here.
Guffaw!
It looks more square or rectangular to me!
Actually, in reference to a modern ice buildup, here are a few titles and links to an interesting story of WWII planes being found under 260 feet of ice in Greenland, and efforts to bring them up. While cycles are certainly real, this effort was taking place 50 years after they went missing. (Third link has some cool pics).
New York Times -
World War II Planes Found in Greenland In Ice 260 Feet Deep
Atlanta, Georgia : Team Reaches WWII Plane Buried in Ice
http://articles.latimes.com/print/1992-06-01/news/mn-406_1_fighter-planes
http://airman.dodlive.mil/2011/09/heritage-glacier-girl/
By the way, I like your tagline -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
Based on the above wiki entry, the Greenland ice sheet is between 1.2 (6,336 ft.) and 1.9 (10,032 ft.) miles thick.
If the WWII aircraft was 260 feet below the surface of the sheet 50 years after it had landed, then the bottom of the ice sheet might be only at most 1,929.2 years old.
THanks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.