My Lost Squadron Challenge

[Justatruthseeker]

Did they find 8000 year old ash in 8000 layers of ice? What is a layer?
Why use several different dating methods if you say just one matches
"perfectly" with the others? What is the appropriate context? That the
earth is old so the results that show that are the ones to be accepted?

You are putting your faith in the wrong person.

As an aside, ever read the book of Job? Give it a chance sometime.

They just claim the dates that don't agree are contaminated, even though they can't tell a single difference between the samples..... except most don't agree with theory, so are discarded as contaminated.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The simple, obvious answer (that was already given in this thread) is that the lost squadron and the ice cores are located in different climates. Even the article abstract you quoted talked about CENTIMETERS per year being HIGH accumulation at ice core sites. Ice cores are done at relatively dry locations.

I mean, c'mon. Why isn't this obvious? Even different ice core locations with comparable thicknesses yield very different results due to high or low accumulation of precipitation:

1. The Byrd ice core in West Antarctica was drilled to the bedrock at about 3400 meters deep. It produced 62,000 annual layers. About 2.1 INCHES per year on average (ignoring compression).

2. The Dome C ice core site in East Antarctica reached the bedrock at about 3250 meters, and produced about 800,000 annual layers. About ONE SIXTH of an inch per year.

https://www.clim-past.net/9/2525/2013/cp-9-2525-2013.pdf

Notice that the TOTAL accumulation for either site (since both were drilled to the bedrock) shows that the areas were accumulating for very different lengths of time.

So, IF the 9,000 feet at the site of the lost squadron were to be cored and counted, it would show that this particular area has been accumulating for FAR fewer years than even the Byrd ice core...not hundreds of thousands of years that you falsely claim science states.



No...we can't. For several reasons:

1. That area has not been cored and counted, so any conclusion about how long it has been accumulating is wild speculation.

2. Floods don't form glaciers.

3. Science doesn't conclude things by arbitrarily adding a bunch of years "for compression" to fit an a priori assumption like the earth being 6000 years old, and the flood happening 4400 years ago. They actually count the layers....then compare them with results from other independent (and often unrelated; radiometric dating of volcanic eruptions, for example) tests to confirm it.

You ASSUME they are annual layers, instead of just periods of warmth and cold during the same year........

1) The people actually digging the hole observed hundreds of layers. Shouldn't there be only 50 if they are annual layers?????

2) Floods provide the water for evaporation that is required for heavy snowfall to form those glaciers. The volcanic eruptions as the continents slid (which covers most of the ocean floor, heated the waters which caused large evaporation which led to snowfall. You know, why glaciers are retreating today because there is less snowfall...... because the undersea volcanoes are no longer erupting as they did during the flood.....

3) tests confirm 530 BC as the oldest they can calibrate to........ and then ignore that we are in a period of increasing global warming in which the glaciers are retreating (not growing) and so snowfall now is less than before.......

So here we go with the claims of uniformatarianism once again, while understanding vast changes have occurred just within the last century with snowfall rates........ Your claims of being able to assume ages based upon today's rate is not supported....... Today's rate is not the same even as it was 100 years ago. Let alone 4,000 years ago......

Let alone your claim of centimeters, which would mean at the rate it slides towards the sea, in a hundred thousand years the ice that first started at the center would have long since slid into the sea. So those ANNUAL layers can not be annual, even under your own belief system....... the data falsifies your assumed age....

Not to mention your claim of precipitation rates....

Greenland climate: average weather, temperature, precipitation, best time

And of course they haven't drilled an ice core near the lost squadron, and never will..... because all those hundreds of ice layers in a confirmed span of time would falsify their belief, so it will NEVER be done.....

 

[46AND2]

You ASSUME they are annual layers, instead of just periods of warmth and cold during the same year........

False. I assume no such thing. Why would I? That would be stupid. It would be like...um...assuming the layers of rock surrounding fossil trees span millions of years. Dumb. They better have a dang good reason to regard them as annual layers, and they do. More on that later.

1) The people actually digging the hole observed hundreds of layers. Shouldn't there be only 50 if they are annual layers?????

50? No. Who are these people? Are they people who actually understand what does and does not constitute an annual layer? Some layers have SEASONAL layers within them. Could your mysterious observers identify those seasonal layers? Could you? Do you even know how they determine whether it is an annual layer or not? Based on your responses so far, I'm quite certain you could not. Be honest, you thought they just counted every single layer as one year, right?

2) Floods provide the water for evaporation that is required for heavy snowfall to form those glaciers. The volcanic eruptions as the continents slid (which covers most of the ocean floor, heated the waters which caused large evaporation which led to snowfall. You know, why glaciers are retreating today because there is less snowfall...... because the undersea volcanoes are no longer erupting as they did during the flood.....

Um...wut? You realize, don't you, that you are arguing about planes which are buried many feet deep in ice because of heavy snowfall...without the aid of a flood, right?

But that's ok, let's go with your hypothesis...how does the flood cause the layers? It's not enough to just claim that scientists' dating is wrong and the flood did it, somehow. You have to explain the layering. How does the flood account for the fact that some ice cores are 62k layers thick while others are 800k layers thick? How does the flood account for the fact that within each of those stacks of layers, volcanic ash from the same eruption (they have their own signatures) is present at the same layer? How does the flood account for the fact that at, say, 50k layers, each of those two stacks show common atmospheric conditions (which differ from current conditions, btw)?

3) tests confirm 530 BC as the oldest they can calibrate to........ and then ignore that we are in a period of increasing global warming in which the glaciers are retreating (not growing) and so snowfall now is less than before.......

This I will have to save until the weekend. It is so epic in it's wrongness, it will take a couple hours to utterly dismantle it with citations and real data. But I have next week off from work, so I will put in the time.

So here we go with the claims of uniformatarianism once again,

Oh man, this is funny. I'll ignore the fact that you totally misrepresent what is meant by "uniformitarianism," and simply point out your double standard. In the last two conversations I have had with you, you have:

1. Compared 12 feet of rock in Wisconsin which spans 1 million years, to 12 feet of rock in Germany through which stands a tree fossil, and stated that therefore, the tree fossil must span through a million years of rock. Because, obviously, Wisconsin and Germany must have always been uniform.

2. Compared 5 ft/year of snow in one location to another location where they drill ice cores, and divide 9000 feet of ice by that 5ft/year as if it snows that much everywhere in Greenland.

Do you not see the irony?

while understanding vast changes have occurred just within the last century with snowfall rates........ Your claims of being able to assume ages based upon today's rate is not supported.......

I never based the ages on today's rate...or any rate, for that matter. Because thickness of the ice (or thickness of layers) has nothing to do with how they count layers.

I'm sure the rates did change, perhaps drastically sometimes. Irrelevant.

Today's rate is not the same even as it was 100 years ago. Let alone 4,000 years ago......

Agreed. So what?

Let alone your claim of centimeters,

It was YOUR claim. It was in the abstract that YOU posted.

Regardless, it isn't just a "claim." It is observable fact that the layers in many ice cores are centimeters thick.

which would mean at the rate it slides towards the sea, in a hundred thousand years the ice that first started at the center would have long since slid into the sea.

Got a calculation for that? You know that would entirely depend on how sloped the land is, right?

So those ANNUAL layers can not be annual, even under your own belief system....... the data falsifies your assumed age....

I don't assume any age, and nothing about my "belief system" contradicts the data.

Not to mention your claim of precipitation rates....

Greenland climate: average weather, temperature, precipitation, best time

Not sure why you posted that source. Did you even study it? I could have posted it as support for MY position.

And of course they haven't drilled an ice core near the lost squadron, and never will..... because all those hundreds of ice layers in a confirmed span of time would falsify their belief, so it will NEVER be done.....

Why not? If you're so sure, why don't creationists core it? Why didn't the R.A.T.E. team do it? Why spend your money on a friggin model Ark, instead of using it for some actual learning?

 

[46AND2]

3) tests confirm 530 BC as the oldest they can calibrate to........ and then ignore that we are in a period of increasing global warming in which the glaciers are retreating (not growing) and so snowfall now is less than before.......

Before I begin on my response to this portion over the weekend, I'd like to know why you accept that number? What method did they use to confirm it?

Want to know what I suspect? I suspect that you only read the abstract of that paper instead of the whole thing, and were only ok with the date because it's later than when you think the flood happened.

Am I close?

I think I'm spot on.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

False. I assume no such thing. Why would I? That would be stupid. It would be like...um...assuming the layers of rock surrounding fossil trees span millions of years. Dumb. They better have a dang good reason to regard them as annual layers, and they do. More on that later.

It would be dumb, since those layers were laid down by the flood in a matter of months..... It is simply their incorrect belief system which leads them to interpret other features exactly the same as having taken millions of years.

50? No. Who are these people? Are they people who actually understand what does and does not constitute an annual layer? Some layers have SEASONAL layers within them. Could your mysterious observers identify those seasonal layers? Could you? Do you even know how they determine whether it is an annual layer or not? Based on your responses so far, I'm quite certain you could not. Be honest, you thought they just counted every single layer as one year, right?

No, actually they count one dark as winter and one light as summer, so two each year......

Ice core - Wikipedia

"19 cm long section of GISP 2 ice core from 1855 m showing annual layer structure illuminated from below by a fibre optic source. Section contains 11 annual layers with summer layers (arrowed) sandwiched between darker winter layers."

When in reality it is just periods of snow and then warmth, followed by more snow, etc....

Perhaps you should do some studying first before trying to teach????

Um...wut? You realize, don't you, that you are arguing about planes which are buried many feet deep in ice because of heavy snowfall...without the aid of a flood, right?

Sure, it just falsifies your belief of age......

But that's ok, let's go with your hypothesis...how does the flood cause the layers? It's not enough to just claim that scientists' dating is wrong and the flood did it, somehow. You have to explain the layering. How does the flood account for the fact that some ice cores are 62k layers thick while others are 800k layers thick? How does the flood account for the fact that within each of those stacks of layers, volcanic ash from the same eruption (they have their own signatures) is present at the same layer? How does the flood account for the fact that at, say, 50k layers, each of those two stacks show common atmospheric conditions (which differ from current conditions, btw)?

Strawman. I said the flood led to glaciers because of increased snowfall.... Layers are formed simply by one snowfall, followed by a period of no snowfall, followed by more snowfall. Several winter storms happen every year. The glacier thickness is due to the flood because snowfall was increased dramatically in the years AFTER the flood. But your incorrect world view does not allow you to comprehend the truth.....

This I will have to save until the weekend. It is so epic in it's wrongness, it will take a couple hours to utterly dismantle it with citations and real data. But I have next week off from work, so I will put in the time.

If you say so, I'll be here waiting and will of course refute everything with ACTUAL science.....

Oh man, this is funny. I'll ignore the fact that you totally misrepresent what is meant by "uniformitarianism," and simply point out your double standard. In the last two conversations I have had with you, you have:

1. Compared 12 feet of rock in Wisconsin which spans 1 million years, to 12 feet of rock in Germany through which stands a tree fossil, and stated that therefore, the tree fossil must span through a million years of rock. Because, obviously, Wisconsin and Germany must have always been uniform.

You apparently failed to understand my argument there as well. Have you forgotten already I don't believe in millions of years? It is you all that claim 12 feet in one place means millions of years, until trees stick up through the layers, then it is only a decade or so. So when confronted with evidence which falsifies your claims of age, you immediately claim it is just that one area, but everywhere else the layers are exactly the same except without trees......

2. Compared 5 ft/year of snow in one location to another location where they drill ice cores, and divide 9000 feet of ice by that 5ft/year as if it snows that much everywhere in Greenland.

Do you not see the irony?

I do indeed, since I provided you with the actual scientific documents to show the northern areas get 10 inches per year NOW. During global warming....

Which would equate with the current rate (not even factoring in increased snowfall before global warming) to 10,800 years to form the entire ice sheet.....

Ohh, did you want to discuss this instead?????

I never based the ages on today's rate...or any rate, for that matter. Because thickness of the ice (or thickness of layers) has nothing to do with how they count layers.

I know, they count repeated storms in one year making multiple layers as one year for each layer....

I'm sure the rates did change, perhaps drastically sometimes. Irrelevant.

It wasn't irrelevant when you suddenly needed to explain trees protruding through multiple layers, then suddenly the layers were laid down rapidly, except where there are not trees......

Agreed. So what?

If you can't see that past rates would have been higher and therefore more storms deposited layers each year....... There is no hope....

It was YOUR claim. It was in the abstract that YOU posted.

Regardless, it isn't just a "claim." It is observable fact that the layers in many ice cores are centimeters thick.

because each snowfall deposits snow, which is compacted under weight.....

You don't expect 2 feet of snow to form a 2 foot layer do you?????

Got a calculation for that? You know that would entirely depend on how sloped the land is, right?

Are you claiming the entire glacier is interconnected but moves drastically different in various parts without fracturing large sections off from the rest????

I don't assume any age, and nothing about my "belief system" contradicts the data.

Whatever makes you feel better....

Not sure why you posted that source. Did you even study it? I could have posted it as support for MY position.

Not really, since as shown above even assuming today's snowfall rate the entire 9,000 feet could have formed in as little as 10,800 years. Add to that the increased snowfall in past colder periods....... But since you don't see how that applies as stated earlier..... it's really a lost cause.....

Why not? If you're so sure, why don't creationists core it? Why didn't the R.A.T.E. team do it? Why spend your money on a friggin model Ark, instead of using it for some actual learning?

We don't need to. Buried in 250 feet of ice when those that went to look for it only expected it to be covered by a few feet due to scientific models, is all the proof one really needs.....

But then that's why they brought shovels and ice picks the first go-around and found they had to use a machine to actually bore to it......

But all your responses have been expected.....

2 Peter 3:3 "First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4“Where is the promise of His coming?” they will ask. “Ever since our fathers fell asleep, everything continues as it has from the beginning of creation. 5But they deliberately overlook the fact that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6through which the world of that time perished in the flood.…

 

[46AND2]

It would be dumb, since those layers were laid down by the flood in a matter of months..... It is simply their incorrect belief system which leads them to interpret other features exactly the same as having taken millions of years.

What the heck are you talking about? The rock around the tree, or the ice layers?

No, actually they count one dark as winter and one light as summer, so two each year......

Ice core - Wikipedia

View attachment 245235
"19 cm long section of GISP 2 ice core from 1855 m showing annual layer structure illuminated from below by a fibre optic source. Section contains 11 annual layers with summer layers (arrowed) sandwiched between darker winter layers."

When in reality it is just periods of snow and then warmth, followed by more snow, etc....

Perhaps you should do some studying first before trying to teach????

1. If there are two each year, then why did you say: "Shouldn't there be only 50 if they are annual layers?????"

2. Do you know how they CONFIRM that the light/dark sequence is annual? Or why they are not fooled by seasonal layers mixed in? Sorry, rhetorical questions. Of course you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't have said it's just warm and cold events.

3. I should do some studying? You clearly have no clue about the topic. You can't even keep your arguments straight (see #1). You think a cursory glance at the ice core Wikipedia page is sufficient, apparently.

Sure, it just falsifies your belief of age......

How? You have utterly failed to show HOW. Yes...there are thick layers in wet climates. SO WHAT? Am I supposed to believe that Hawaii falsifies old age cause it rains a lot in certain parts there? I mean, seriously, how is it relevant?

Strawman. I said the flood led to glaciers because of increased snowfall.... Layers are formed simply by one snowfall, followed by a period of no snowfall, followed by more snowfall. Several winter storms happen every year. The glacier thickness is due to the flood because snowfall was increased dramatically in the years AFTER the flood. But your incorrect world view does not allow you to comprehend the truth.....

It's not a strawman. I didn't ask how the flood FORMED the layers, I asked how it ACCOUNTS for the layers. I then went on to ask questions which refute the assertion you made here that layers are formed by solitary snowfalls.

So answer those relevant questions, and quit evading.

If you say so, I'll be here waiting and will of course refute everything with ACTUAL science.....

Once again, why do you accept the age of the 1981 paper? How did they confirm those layers? I understand your reticence to answer; it's probably clear to you by now that no matter what you answer, it's not going to turn out well for you. So why not be honest, and see where it leads?

You apparently failed to understand my argument there as well. Have you forgotten already I don't believe in millions of years? It is you all that claim 12 feet in one place means millions of years, until trees stick up through the layers, then it is only a decade or so. So when confronted with evidence which falsifies your claims of age, you immediately claim it is just that one area, but everywhere else the layers are exactly the same except without trees......

You are the one who is failing to understand an argument. It doesn't matter what the ages actually are in Wisconsin and Germany...you assume a uniform age, and made an argument to that affect. Not only do you ACTUALLY believe they are uniform (young) age, you conflated the two to try to show a tree that spans a million years according to scientists. In doing so, you constructed a uniformitarian strawman because scientists are not stupid enough to hold such a position.

Do you get the irony, yet?

I do indeed, since I provided you with the actual scientific documents to show the northern areas get 10 inches per year NOW. During global warming....

Which would equate with the current rate (not even factoring in increased snowfall before global warming) to 10,800 years to form the entire ice sheet.....



Ohh, did you want to discuss this instead?????

Clearly the irony is lost on you, because you just can't stop.

I know, they count repeated storms in one year making multiple layers as one year for each layer....

Nah. They really don't. BTW, I thought it was 2 per year? Would you like to learn how they really do it?

It wasn't irrelevant when you suddenly needed to explain trees protruding through multiple layers, then suddenly the layers were laid down rapidly, except where there are not trees......

Please pay attention...Rapid or not, thick layer or not, doesn't matter. It doesn't matter with the ice, it doesn't matter with the fossil trees. THICKNESS has NOTHING to do with absolute age confirmation. Ever.

If you can't see that past rates would have been higher and therefore more storms deposited layers each year....... There is no hope....

Oh, I can see that. And it's still irrelevant. Because scientists aren't stupid enough to count on Greenland only having one storm per year.

You have no idea how the layers are formed, and are making yourself look ridiculous.

because each snowfall deposits snow, which is compacted under weight.....

You don't expect 2 feet of snow to form a 2 foot layer do you?????


Are you claiming the entire glacier is interconnected but moves drastically different in various parts without fracturing large sections off from the rest????

Are you claiming that slope has no affect on glacier movement?

Whatever makes you feel better....



Not really, since as shown above even assuming today's snowfall rate the entire 9,000 feet could have formed in as little as 10,800 years. Add to that the increased snowfall in past colder periods....... But since you don't see how that applies as stated earlier..... it's really a lost cause.....

Uniformitarianism, much?

We don't need to. Buried in 250 feet of ice when those that went to look for it only expected it to be covered by a few feet due to scientific models, is all the proof one really needs.....

But then that's why they brought shovels and ice picks the first go-around and found they had to use a machine to actually bore to it......

But all your responses have been expected.....

2 Peter 3:3 "First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4“Where is the promise of His coming?” they will ask. “Ever since our fathers fell asleep, everything continues as it has from the beginning of creation. 5But they deliberately overlook the fact that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6through which the world of that time perished in the flood.…

Oh, of course not. You COULD prove once and for all that ice core dating is bunk, by drilling a core at the lost squadron site. But you don't...because, you "don't need to."

Why chance the humiliation of a failed experiment when you can just claim victory because...reasons..., right?

Got it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What the heck are you talking about? The rock around the tree, or the ice layers?

Take your pick, both are fast occurring. You just claim everywhere there isn't a tree sticking up through it the layers comprise millions of years... because the evidence tells you it happened quickly everywhere, being no differences between the layers exist.....

You just claim it happened quickly over Glacier Girl, but everywhere else Glacier Girl wasn't found, it of course happens slowly over hundreds of thousands of years..... because the evidence tells you it happened quickly everywhere, being no differences between the layers exist.

One is the same as the other.......

1. If there are two each year, then why did you say: "Shouldn't there be only 50 if they are annual layers?????"

My bad, would 50 dark layers (winter snowfalls) make you feel better?

2. Do you know how they CONFIRM that the light/dark sequence is annual? Or why they are not fooled by seasonal layers mixed in? Sorry, rhetorical questions. Of course you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't have said it's just warm and cold events.

Sure by claiming volcanic ash when volcanoes errupt all the time around the world, but of course they can tell you just which one it was, cough, cough....

3. I should do some studying? You clearly have no clue about the topic. You can't even keep your arguments straight (see #1). You think a cursory glance at the ice core Wikipedia page is sufficient, apparently.

#1 proves my point, it is only the dark bands that they count as the winter snowfall, the end of the year......

How? You have utterly failed to show HOW. Yes...there are thick layers in wet climates. SO WHAT? Am I supposed to believe that Hawaii falsifies old age cause it rains a lot in certain parts there? I mean, seriously, how is it relevant?

Yah I know, but only where the trees protrude through sedimentary layers are the layers young..... everywhere else they are old..... only where glacier Girl was buried are they young, everywhere else they are old......

Only where the evidence falsifies your age beliefs do they ignore their arguments for age they made everywhere else......

It's not a strawman. I didn't ask how the flood FORMED the layers, I asked how it ACCOUNTS for the layers. I then went on to ask questions which refute the assertion you made here that layers are formed by solitary snowfalls.

Except Glacier Girl showed your idea of layers is in error, where we can date with accuracy the exact date. And so cores will never be taken.

So answer those relevant questions, and quit evading.

I answered them. You just didn't like the answer of many snowfalls per year making many layers per year. The flood causing a hundred or more layers within the first few years.....

Once again, why do you accept the age of the 1981 paper? How did they confirm those layers? I understand your reticence to answer; it's probably clear to you by now that no matter what you answer, it's not going to turn out well for you. So why not be honest, and see where it leads?

Oh you misunderstand. I do not accept it, mainstream does. And the oldest they can confirm by their own pseudoscience is 530. This is assuming the volcanic ash is from the volcano they think it is from.... at the time they think it is from.....

You are the one who is failing to understand an argument. It doesn't matter what the ages actually are in Wisconsin and Germany...you assume a uniform age, and made an argument to that affect. Not only do you ACTUALLY believe they are uniform (young) age, you conflated the two to try to show a tree that spans a million years according to scientists. In doing so, you constructed a uniformitarian strawman because scientists are not stupid enough to hold such a position.

Do you get the irony, yet?

I wholly get the irony, which is why I make the comment that only when the trees protrude through many layers is it young, while everywhere else it is old. Only when they protrude through coal, is it young, while everywhere else it is old....
Oh they are stupid enough, and will argue against the very thing proving catastrophic events and pointing to a flood.

J Harlen Bretz - Wikipedia

"Bretz published a paper in 1923, arguing that the channeled scablands in Eastern Washington were caused by massive flooding in the distant past. This was seen as arguing for a catastrophic explanation of the geology, against the prevailing view of uniformitarianism, and Bretz's views were initially discredited. However, as the nature of the Ice Age was better understood, Bretz's original research was vindicated, and by the 1950s his conclusions were also vindicated. Bretz encountered resistance to his theories from the geology establishment of the day. The geology establishment was resistant to such a sweeping theory for the origin of a broad landscape for a variety of reasons, including lack of familiarity with the remote areas of the interior Pacific Northwest where the research was based, and the lack of status and reputation of Bretz in the eyes of the largely Ivy League-based geology elites. Furthermore, his theory implied the potential possibilities of a Biblical flood, which the scientific community strongly rejected."

We could talk about the catastrophic formation of the Grand Canyon, but that would upset your uniformatarianism view, wouldn't it......

Do you see the irony yet?????

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Here's an interesting article - Record-shattering 2.7-million-year-old ice core reveals start of the ice ages.

 

[46AND2]

Oh you misunderstand. I do not accept it, mainstream does. And the oldest they can confirm by their own pseudoscience is 530. This is assuming the volcanic ash is from the volcano they think it is from.... at the time they think it is from.....

So then you agree that for your statement to be wrong, all I have to do is show that "mainstream" accepts confirmation for ages much older than that, correct?

 

[USincognito]

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EGO STROKING THREAD RESURRECTION. THE OP HAS NOT BEEN HERE IN A YEAR AND THE EGO DRIVEN BUMP WAS TO SOMEONE WHO HASN'T BEEN HERE IN THREE YEARS.

Sigh...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So then you agree that for your statement to be wrong, all I have to do is show that "mainstream" accepts confirmation for ages much older than that, correct?

Mainstream accepts finches mating right in front of their noses as separate species.....

Mainstream thinks bacteria remaining bacteria and fruit flies remaining fruit flies confirms evolution.....

Mainstream thinks fossils creatures remaining the same across millions of years confirms evolution by adding "missing" common ancestors....

Mainstream couldn't get a single model correct of the suns heliosphere (right next door cosmologically) but thinks it can tell you all about things billions of light years away....

Mainstream thought they had the mantle all figured out until a hole was drilled and showed all their models to be wrong there too......

Mainstream says it has confirmations about a lot of things which never pan out in the end......



But don't you want to discuss the Grand Canyons recent and fast formation and Mt Saint Helen's which formed those separate layers in weeks which hardened to rock in months as supporting evidence?

I mean, theory should follow the data, not the data the theory?????

 

[46AND2]

Mainstream accepts finches mating right in front of their noses as separate species.....

Mainstream thinks bacteria remaining bacteria and fruit flies remaining fruit flies confirms evolution.....

Mainstream thinks fossils creatures remaining the same across millions of years confirms evolution by adding "missing" common ancestors....

Mainstream couldn't get a single model correct of the suns heliosphere (right next door cosmologically) but thinks it can tell you all about things billions of light years away....

Mainstream thought they had the mantle all figured out until a hole was drilled and showed all their models to be wrong there too......

Mainstream says it has confirmations about a lot of things which never pan out in the end......



But don't you want to discuss the Grand Canyons recent and fast formation and Mt Saint Helen's which formed those separate layers in weeks which hardened to rock in months as supporting evidence?

I mean, theory should follow the data, not the data the theory?????

Quit obfuscating, and answer the question.