Replies

The evolutionists note the problem with much of science today, but do not see it for what it could mean to their theories.

Using this as an example, they note the ice builds up faster where the P-38s were found. Why is it assumed the ice has always accumulated faster at that location or anywhere else without observation?

The land was named Greenland for a reason. For example, how do we know that from 600 AD to 900 AD the ice did not buildup faster or disappear for a time. No one was there recording the existence of glaciers and their sizes. If it had disappeared or greatly thinned for a time, it would have to have formed faster for a time to reach today's levels.

Science is supposed to be 'observable' and 'repeatable' and yet people use what they did not observe and cannot repeat as evidence for other science, and treat a supposition as fact. Using ice cores for measuring time is a fool's errand unless you can benchmark an event to a point in time. Mount St. Helens left a thin mark we can see today, but guess what; the alternating bands in ice cores do not create annual, countable "years" with an event so recent. Since the 1942 landing of the P38s, there is an average of almost 7 'bands per year, and yet we cannot tell even when these bands were laid down by year.

How/Why do scientists assume the core they are looking at shows 160,000 years when they cannot benchmark events with certainty more than small number of years in the past. All they can do is suppose and assume, and that is not science. They may guess correctly, but they could be as wrong as Al Gore. They must take much of their 'proofs' on faith, and when you attack their religion they lash out and call a Christian ignorant, a liar, or mount some other personal attack.