From source file 940711.evc
==* ANIMALS BRANNAN EVOLUTION EXPLAIN FOSSILS FROZEN GIWER HORN HUNT INCREASE LIFE OLD WINTER
Date: 10 Jul 94 07:10:02
From: Dave Horn
To: Jack Brannan
Subject: Ice Caps
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:117/385.0 2e1fd70a
Hello, Jack. You know, it's sorta amazing. I disappear for a while
(necessity, dontcha know) and you pop in again. What's even more
amazing is that you regurgitate the same old nonsense that's been
falsified again and again in these echos, particularly BIOGENESIS,
but here, as well.
Ah, well. I've seen all the movies that are playing on the premium
channels that are worth seeing. So, while I record "In The Line of
Fire" for my library, I thought I might peruse your message.
=> Jack muttered this to Matt Giwer <=
BB>> I have tried to explain how our ice caps are impossible to
BB>> come by, but virtually everyone here either does not
BB>> understand or wish to understand. That is why I have
BB>> referred people to the experts. The two main attempts to
BB>> refute my assertion are:
BB>>
BB>> 1) The ice caps were *obviously* formed by eons of
BB>> snowfall;
MG> Not in the least. It only requires more to fall in winter
MG> than melts in summer. Better known as global warming.
BB>> 2) The ice caps are *obviously* greater than 10,000
BB>> years old because the ice cores tell us so.
JB> There are immense problems with the ice caps. There is a need
JB> for tremendous evaporation to supply the neccessary snow and
JB> at the same time there is a need for colder weather.
Really! We need "colder weather" for snow. Imagine that!
JB> The colder weather means less precipitation...
Really (again)! Well, this is news to my friends who work weather at
the airport where I am currently employed. Would you care to explain
the whys and wherefores of this so that I can run it past them and see
if you aren't talking out of school again?
JB> ...and the warmer weather needed for the evaporation and
JB> precipitation prevents any buildup.
Lemme see if I can get this straight. The warmer weather needed for
evaporation (which results in precipitation) prevents buildup...of
what? Colder weather? Precipitation?
You see, Jack, you've written yet another nonsensical statement. But,
as you know, I'm on to you. You spew gibberish in the hopes that you
will fool at least some of us into thinking that you are anything but
clueless. Sadly, you fool almost no one.
I think that those of us who have weathered (pun intended) some of the
blizzards in Alaska, Colorado, and the midwest would take issue with
how you define and explain these events.
JB> The Greenland ice cap is part of the determining factor of the
JB> jet stream and without it we would never get the type of weather
JB> needed to maintain the ice cap.
So what you are saying is that without the Greenland ice cap we would not
have a Greenland ice cap? And how does the Greenland ice cap operate as
"the determining factor of the jet stream?"
Here we have yet another tried-and-true Brannan tactic. You make a
statement as the basis for your entire premise and state it as if it
were indisputable. Not only do you seem to understand the issue, but
you represent that you understand it better than any of us.
Don' theen so, Steempy.
JB> In 93 a PBS show concerned the hunt for 5 WWII aircraft that landed on
JB> the ice cap in 43, these planes were found at a depth of 250 feet
JB> below the surface ice. There has been no noticeable or measured
JB> increase in the height of the ice cap so we can assume that for the
JB> additional 250 feet of ice deposited in these 50 years another 250 feet
JB> of ice had to melt. As a fact the treasure hunters said that while they
JB> were below doing salvage work they could hear "rivers" running beneath
JB> them.
You have brought this up at least three other times that I am aware of,
and each time you were reminded of the albedo of metal and the fact that
the planes were found some distance from their original locations. You
were also provided with explanations for the incident that you continue
to maintain is unexplained. No doubt I will find these explanations
again as I peruse this message base.
Just because you refuse to understand something, Jack, doesn't mean that
the rest of us must not understand it, as well. Instead, what we have
here is you once again commenting on a subject as expert when, in fact,
you seem to understand very little about that subject.
JB> Recently fossils of bisons and mammoths have been found in Greenland,
JB> the mammoths in particular require a temperate climate, contrary to
JB> what many think.
You and I have been 'round about this, as well. I demolished your entire
premise along these lines at least twice in BIOGENESIS (and, in fact, it
came up so often that we began to nauseate some of our fellow correspon-
dents). So you sneak it in the middle of this message and hope that two
things happen. You are hoping that you can make this statement unequivocally
even though you know that it has been disproven, and you hope that those of
us who know better don't notice.
Bad news, Jack. At least one of us noticed; and I am willing to debate
you quite thoroughly on this subject.
JB> The two most important characteristics of any animal
JB> that lives in the present climate are sebaceous glands and erector
JB> muscles, the mammoth lacks both, it could not survive.
False claim. First of all, who decided that these were the "two most
important characteristics of any animal that lives in the present
climate?" I suspect that you did.
Fortunately for most of the non-mammalian life in cold climates, you
are wrong.
JB> This alone says that the ice caps were created fairly quick and
JB> that says the cause was catastrophic.
If "this alone" indeed indicates this conclusion, then the conclusion
is wrong because your premise is wrong.
By the way, Jack, you're going to need to make up your mind if these
animals were "quick-frozen" or not.
... A feature is a bug with seniority.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- Squish v1.00
* Origin: Central Neural System (1:117/385)
SEEN-BY: 117/110 385
PATH: 117/385
==!
From source file 940717.evc
==* ANIMALS BRANNAN EARTH ELDRED EVOLUTION FOSSILS HAIR HUNT INCREASE LIFE LOUDER MOON NEAL OLD SPECIES
Date: 10 Jul 94 11:20:00
From: Neal Eldred
To: Jack Brannan
Subject: Re: ICE CAPS
AREA:EVOLUTION
MSGID: 1:105/362 86DC8E68
JB>BB>> 2) The ice caps are *obviously* greater than 10,000
JB>BB>> years old because the ice cores tell us so.
JB>There are immense problems with the ice caps. There is a need for
JB>tremendous evaporation to supply the neccessary snow and at the same
JB>time there is a need for colder weather. The colder weather means less
This explanation seems a bit circular and speculative. There would be
plenty of evaporation from the oceans nearer the equator, even during an
ice age.
JB>precipitation, and the warmer weather needed for the evaporation and
JB>precipitation prevents any buildup. The Greenland ice cap is part of the
JB>determining factor of the jet stream and without it we would never get
JB>the type of weather needed to maintain the ice cap.
And you seem to be assuming that our present global
atmospheric flow patterns would remain the same during the ice ages.
JB>In 93 a PBS show concerned the hunt for 5 WWII aircraft that landed on
JB>the ice cap in 43, these planes were found at a depth of 250 feet below
JB>the surface ice. There has been no noticeable or measured increase in
JB>the height of the ice cap so we can assume that for the additional 250
Since they were hunting for the planes, it is unlikely that they had
precise measurements of the height of the ice cap. So, it can't be
assumed that all 250 ft of ice was new. The planes could have sunk
into the snow and ice during the long summer days.
JB>melt. As a fact the treasure hunters said that while they were below
JB>doing salvage work they could hear "rivers" running beneath them.
Sound isn't a very reliable measure of flow. When my daughter flushes
upstairs, its a lot louder than the Columbia R. flowing by. "Treasure
hunters" are not exactly a solid source for scientific observations.
JB>Recently fossils of bisons and mammoths have been found in Greenland,
Fossils don't indicate if the animals were resident year
round, or only visiting during the summer.
JB>the mammoths in particular require a temperate climate, contrary to what
JB>many think. The two most important characteristics of any animal that
JB>lives in the present climate are sebaceous glands and erector muscles,
JB>the mammoth lacks both, it could not survive. This alone says that the
JB>ice caps were created fairly quick and that says the cause was
JB>catastrophic.
Not really, but it is interesting. Where did you read this about the
mammoth hair follicles? Is it the case in all mammoth species? How
about mastodons? I've read that mammoths were insulated by a blubber
layer, like whales and some other marine mammals, so that fur wasn't so
critical.
JB> MG> A true rather than cursory study shows it is quite rare
JB> MG> indeed.
JB>C'mon Matt, look at any picture of the moon, do all those craters say
JB>"rare event?"
More importantly, look at all those earth craters, eh?
-Neal
* QMPro 1.52 * Life is lived forwards, but understood backwards.
--- WM v3.10/92-0662
* Origin: NWCS Online + 18 Nodes + 13 Gig + (503) 655-3927 + (1:105/362.0)
SEEN-BY: 106/116 117/110 385 170/400 209/209
PATH: 105/362 50 3615/50 396/1 209/209 170/400 117/110
==!
From source file sftt.faq
Article 30183 of talk.origins:
From: malone@alc-ohio.alc.com (Bruce Malone)
Subject: SftT: D-5 Age of the Earth [12/40]
Message-ID: <1994May11.121421.14643@alc-ohio.alc.com>
Organization: SFT - Granville, Ohio
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 12:14:21 GMT
Lines: 80
D-5 SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH The Ice Age
On the morning of July 15, 1942, six brand new P-38 Lightning's
and two B-17 Flying Fortresses took off from a secret airfield in
Greenland, heading for bombing missions in Germany. The squadron
became lost in a blizzard and ran out of fuel before reaching their
destination. They were forced to land on a glacier where one made a
crash landing and the other seven made perfect belly landings. The
crewmen were rescued nine days later, but the planes were abandoned to
the relentless snows and remained on the glacier for the next half
century.
[Beside the following paragraph sits a drawing of
a plane encased in ice with the depth of the plane
labeled "240'". The bottom of the drawing reads:
"ENCASED IN A GLACIER OF SOLID ICE 50 YEARS AFTER
SAFELY LANDING" -CS]
In 1980, Richard Taylor and Patrick Epps, two Atlanta
businessmen, decided to find the airplanes. In the words of Epps, "All
we'd have to do is shovel the snow off the wings, fill them with gas,
crank them up, and fly them off into the sunset. Nothing to it."
After twelve years of obsessive effort, extensive searching, back
breaking labor, and millions of dollars spent; the persistent partners
finally succeeded in locating and retrieving one of the eight
airplanes. Unfortunately, it will be a while before that P-38 is
"flown into the sunset" because it had to be dismantled piece-by-piece
to recover it from underneath... 240 feet of solid ice! A more
comprehensive discussion of this discovery can be found in the Dec. 1992
issue of Life Magazine, "The Lost Squadron," pp 60.
This story is an interesting contrast to the standard
interpretation of ice cores that have been drilled in the ice at the
polar caps. These cores supposedly show millions of years of
accumulation and multiple ice ages on our planet. Although the lost
squadron was located in a different area than the ice cores, the fact
that 240 feet of solid ice can accumulate in only 50 years, clearly
illustrates that millions of years would not have been required for
the formation of the polar ice caps during a global ice age.
Both evolutionists and creationists recognize the ice age as
the last major geologic event to have drastically affected our planet.
Most evolutionists believe there have been dozens of ice ages, but
this belief is based on secondary evidence, such as changes in oxygen
concentrations in ice cores, rather than direct evidence. Most
creationists believe that the earth has experienced only one great ice
age which lasted only a few centuries before the ice receded to
present levels. The evidence for this ice age, and for a dramatically
different climate in the not too distant past, is undeniable. For
instance, tropical plants and animals have been found buried in Arctic
regions; great desert regions of the planet show archaeological
evidence of once having supported lush vegetation; and geological
features, such as the Great Lakes, were obviously formed by large
sheets of ice.
The creation framework of history predicts the ice age was a
natural outcome of the worldwide flood. After the flood, warm
subterranean water, massive volcanism, and heat generation from rapid
continental land movements left the oceans considerably warmer than
they are today. These warmer oceans would have exhibited greatly
increased evaporation rates. Solar radiation also would have been
reduced by the continued volcanism following the flood, resulting in
colder, average terrestrial temperatures. The inevitable result of
increased ocean water evaporation and less solar radiation reaching
the earth's surface would have been massive snow storms in the northern
and southern latitudes. These snow storms would have continued for
many years until the oceans cooled off and the atmosphere cleared up.
Thus, the great ice age is not only explained by the worldwide flood
but would have been a inevitable consequence of this flood.
One more interesting note: Dr. Carl Sagan is one of many
prominent scientists who predicted that the smoke, generated by the
hundreds of oil fires set by Saddam Hussein in 1990 could bring about
another ice age. Now that all of the fires have been put out, it is
obvious that these experts were wrong and that it would take a much
more massive catastrophe to bring about a planetary ice age. Noah's
flood would have been just such a catastrophe.
Copyright (C) 1994, Bruce Malone
--
Bruce Malone [malone@alc-ohio.alc.com] (614) 587-0762
NOTE: For details on responding to the author, ask stassen@alc.com.
DISCLAIMER: This post does not represent the views of ALC or alc-ohio.
From source file sftt.faq
Article 30219 of talk.origins:
From: danwell@iastate.edu (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: SftT: D-5 Age of the Earth [12/40]
Date: 11 May 1994 19:58:17 GMT
Organization: Denver Deathbeams and Stuff
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <2qrdcp$mfo@news.iastate.edu>
References: <1994May11.121421.14643@alc-ohio.alc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pv3439.vincent.iastate.edu
Originator: danwell@pv3439.vincent.iastate.edu
Why is this called the "search for truth"? It is dense with
errors, poor scholarship, unsupported assumptions, and a
pervasive lack of clues.
In article <1994May11.121421.14643@alc-ohio.alc.com>, malone@alc-ohio.alc.com
(Bruce Malone) writes:
[Citation of discover article about lost P-38 lightning fighters in Greenland]
> This story is an interesting contrast to the standard
>interpretation of ice cores that have been drilled in the ice at the
>polar caps. These cores supposedly show millions of years of
>accumulation and multiple ice ages on our planet. Although the lost
>squadron was located in a different area than the ice cores, the fact
>that 240 feet of solid ice can accumulate in only 50 years, clearly
>illustrates that millions of years would not have been required for
>the formation of the polar ice caps during a global ice age.
...and a big huge piece of metal will not behave any differently
than snow when put on top of a glacier? Since you have claimed that
the ice on top of the planes was the result of accumulation could
you please demonstrate that accumulation was the only way for ice
to end up above the plane? This claim seems a bit suspicious and
entirely unproven.
I also recall that the greenland ice cores were not claimed, by
anyone, to go back millions of years. Where did you get that figure?
I also suspect that "multiple ice ages" and "millions of years" represent
inconsistant timescales. Iceages come and go in tens of thousands of
years.
> Both evolutionists and creationists recognize the ice age as
>the last major geologic event to have drastically affected our planet.
>Most evolutionists believe there have been dozens of ice ages, but
>this belief is based on secondary evidence, such as changes in oxygen
>concentrations in ice cores, rather than direct evidence.
What's wrong with indirect evidence? Especially when there are
multiple lines of evidence that agree?
>Most
>creationists believe that the earth has experienced only one great ice
>age which lasted only a few centuries before the ice receded to
>present levels. The evidence for this ice age, and for a dramatically
>different climate in the not too distant past, is undeniable. For
>instance, tropical plants and animals have been found buried in Arctic
>regions; great desert regions of the planet show archaeological
>evidence of once having supported lush vegetation; and geological
>features, such as the Great Lakes, were obviously formed by large
>sheets of ice.
You're mixing several effects here. The desertification of the Sahara,
for example, was anthropogenic and in fact partly Roman, and not really
connected to an ice age. You should be more specific. Also, evidence for one
ice age is not evidence against multiple ice ages. Think it through.
> The creation framework of history predicts the ice age was a
>natural outcome of the worldwide flood.
Nonsense. The creation theory relies on miracles and is hence not
predictive at all.
> After the flood, warm
>subterranean water, massive volcanism, and heat generation from rapid
>continental land movements left the oceans considerably warmer than
>they are today. These warmer oceans would have exhibited greatly
>increased evaporation rates. Solar radiation also would have been
>reduced by the continued volcanism following the flood, resulting in
>colder, average terrestrial temperatures. The inevitable result of
>increased ocean water evaporation and less solar radiation reaching
>the earth's surface would have been massive snow storms in the northern
>and southern latitudes. These snow storms would have continued for
>many years until the oceans cooled off and the atmosphere cleared up.
>Thus, the great ice age is not only explained by the worldwide flood
>but would have been a inevitable consequence of this flood.
And, of course, we would see the signature of this event in plant seed
density, a number of chemical processes in soil cores, in ice cores, etc.
and we don't. This imples the creation theory is substantially incorrect
about the post-flood era. Since the evidence strongly suggest there wasn't a
world wide flood (for example there are still living fresh water species) that
isn't very surprising.
> One more interesting note: Dr. Carl Sagan is one of many
>prominent scientists who predicted that the smoke, generated by the
>hundreds of oil fires set by Saddam Hussein in 1990 could bring about
>another ice age. Now that all of the fires have been put out, it is
>obvious that these experts were wrong and that it would take a much
>more massive catastrophe to bring about a planetary ice age. Noah's
>flood would have been just such a catastrophe.
That's _not_ what Sagan predicted. Can you in fact state his predictions
or even give an original source?
There is not evidence the flood happened (certianly you have produced none).
Sagan's prediction of global cooling was wrong, because the amount
of self-lofting and hence the atmospheric hang-time of the soot were both
grossly overestimated in his model.
What the heck does Sagan's model have to do with putative causes of ice ages
in the past? Certianly there were no events like the Gulf War in prehistory?
>Copyright (C) 1994, Bruce Malone
My use of your copyrighted material is for scholarly reasons :-}
I strongly suggest you exhibit some scholarship yourself.
>Bruce Malone [malone@alc-ohio.alc.com] (614) 587-0762
>
>NOTE: For details on responding to the author, ask stassen@alc.com.
>DISCLAIMER: This post does not represent the views of ALC or alc-ohio.
--
Dan Ashlock (Danwell)
danwell@iastate.edu
From source file sftt.faq
Article 30278 of talk.origins:
From: rmg3@access1.digex.net (Robert Grumbine)
Subject: Re: SftT: D-5 Age of the Earth [12/40]
Date: 12 May 1994 09:49:27 -0400
Organization: Under construction
Lines: 200
Message-ID: <2qtc57$419@access1.digex.net>
References: <1994May11.121421.14643@alc-ohio.alc.com> <2qrdcp$mfo@news.iastate.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
In article <2qrdcp$mfo@news.iastate.edu>,
Daniel A Ashlock wrote:
>
>In article <1994May11.121421.14643@alc-ohio.alc.com>, malone@alc-ohio.alc.com
>(Bruce Malone) writes:
>
>[Citation of discover article about lost P-38 lightning fighters in Greenland]
>
>> This story is an interesting contrast to the standard
>>interpretation of ice cores that have been drilled in the ice at the
>>polar caps. These cores supposedly show millions of years of
>>accumulation and multiple ice ages on our planet. Although the lost
No, they don't supposedly show any such thing. At least they
don't show such a thing to glaciologists (people who study ice,
I'm one of them). The oldest ice in Greenland is estimated to be
about 250,000 years old. The oldest dated (currently) is about
125,000 years. The oldest ice in Antarctica dated is about 160,000
years old, with the estimate for oldest at about 400,000 (bigger
ice cap and lower accumulation rate).
The ice _ages_ are estimated to be order 2.5 Million years for the
Northern Hemisphere (Greenland), and about 25 Million years for
Antarctica. This being the time since significant quantities of
perennial ice formed there. Glaciologists, at least, do not believe
that the ice currently in the ice sheets is anywhere near that old.
>>squadron was located in a different area than the ice cores, the fact
>>that 240 feet of solid ice can accumulate in only 50 years, clearly
>>illustrates that millions of years would not have been required for
>>the formation of the polar ice caps during a global ice age.
Nor do glaciologists believe that millions of years are required.
The Laurentide ice sheet (the big monster that covered all of Canada
and the US down, in places, to the Ohio River to a depth of 2-3 miles)
is believed by glaciologists to have reached its maximum size in
90,000 years, and half that size in about 30,000 years.
But, finding the aircraft at a depth of 240 feet has little to do
with the accumulation rate. The accumulation rate in Greenland
(a point of great concern to glaciologists and sea level) is measured
by field observations to be about 0.4 meters per year ice equivalent.
No way you're putting down 1.6 meters ice equivalent per year
on top of those planes.
> ...and a big huge piece of metal will not behave any differently
>than snow when put on top of a glacier? Since you have claimed that
>the ice on top of the planes was the result of accumulation could
>you please demonstrate that accumulation was the only way for ice
>to end up above the plane? This claim seems a bit suspicious and
>entirely unproven.
And this is the mechanism. It also works, by the way, with other
objects (tools, people, animals, meteors) which fall into the ice.
>> Both evolutionists and creationists recognize the ice age as
>>the last major geologic event to have drastically affected our planet.
>>Most evolutionists believe there have been dozens of ice ages, but
>>this belief is based on secondary evidence, such as changes in oxygen
>>concentrations in ice cores, rather than direct evidence.
>
> What's wrong with indirect evidence? Especially when there are
>multiple lines of evidence that agree?
Oxygen isotopes in ice cores give directly 2 ice ages (so far, possibly
a third or fourth could be reached by Antarctic drilling).
Glacial moraines (deposits of junk shoved around by glaciers) give
four (this is how ice ages were discovered a hundred years ago, by
creationists) easily.
Oceanic oxygen isotopes give 7 in the last 700,000 years, and every
40,000 years for 1.5-2 million years before that.
Ocean core carbon isotopes match the oxygen isotopes in this, even
though their chemistry is dramatically different.
I believe that ocean productivity (deposition rates of critter shells)
also matches the ice age cycles, but for this I can't send you to
the exact paper(s).
>>Most
>>creationists believe that the earth has experienced only one great ice
>>age which lasted only a few centuries before the ice receded to
>>present levels. The evidence for this ice age, and for a dramatically
>>different climate in the not too distant past, is undeniable. For
>>instance, tropical plants and animals have been found buried in Arctic
>>regions; great desert regions of the planet show archaeological
>>evidence of once having supported lush vegetation; and geological
>>features, such as the Great Lakes, were obviously formed by large
>>sheets of ice.
The timing for the tropical plants being in the Arctic is 60+ million
years ago. All together out of range.
In speaking of ice ages, though, you should remember that _now_ is
the warm period. The very warmest was about 6,000 years ago, when
there was more extensive vegetation even in Scandanavia. This was
discovered 100+ years ago, by (again) creationists (though really here
and above this is a modern term being badly misapplied to people
of that time). But, the more extensive vegetation was, basically
more of the same. Not tropical plants in high latitudes, but more
abundant high latitude plants.
>> The creation framework of history predicts the ice age was a
>>natural outcome of the worldwide flood.
>>
>> After the flood, warm
>>subterranean water, massive volcanism, and heat generation from rapid
>>continental land movements left the oceans considerably warmer than
>>they are today.
How much volcanism? And where are the signs (flood basalts, layers
of volcanic ash, ...) How much heat did this release?
How rapid (and in what directions) were these continental land movements?
How did this continents move without putting up new mountain ranges? If
you claim that the present ones were put up by these movements, how did
the mechanism work to produce them with such varied amounts of post-
construction erosion? How did these movements create heat? How
was this heat transferred to the atmosphere and ocean? Are the mechanisms
proposed here, and the amount of heat generated, consistent with
not boiling the oceans?
'Considerably warmer' than today. Please be more precise. Recall
too, that oceanic creatures have little tolerance for increased temperatures.
(This is part of the reason for the great drop in fisheries production
associated with El Nino, and there we're only talking about 2-4 degrees C.)
>> These warmer oceans would have exhibited greatly
>>increased evaporation rates. Solar radiation also would have been
>>reduced by the continued volcanism following the flood, resulting in
>>colder, average terrestrial temperatures. The inevitable result of
>>increased ocean water evaporation and less solar radiation reaching
>>the earth's surface would have been massive snow storms in the northern
>>and southern latitudes. These snow storms would have continued for
>>many years until the oceans cooled off and the atmosphere cleared up.
>>Thus, the great ice age is not only explained by the worldwide flood
>>but would have been a inevitable consequence of this flood.
How were these snow storms arranged so as to produce 3000+ meters of
ice on Greenland, but nothing on Canada? You seem to be trying
to produce the Laurentide ice sheet since the flood, and then melt it
away, again, since the flood. If so, my first question does not hold.
But then you have to explain how you could build up the Laurentide,
_and_ melt it off, in only a few hundred years (we have observations
of civilizations in the Ohio valley) -- while having the earth respond
as if the growth and decay were done over tens of thousands of years
(earth crust motions). This also must be explained for Europe, where
there are historic records of post-glacial rebound.
> And, of course, we would see the signature of this event in plant seed
>density, a number of chemical processes in soil cores, in ice cores, etc.
>and we don't. This imples the creation theory is substantially incorrect
>about the post-flood era. Since the evidence strongly suggest there wasn't a
>world wide flood (for example there are still living fresh water species) that
>isn't very surprising.
And these questions as well.
>> One more interesting note: Dr. Carl Sagan is one of many
>>prominent scientists who predicted that the smoke, generated by the
>>hundreds of oil fires set by Saddam Hussein in 1990 could bring about
>>another ice age. Now that all of the fires have been put out, it is
>>obvious that these experts were wrong and that it would take a much
>>more massive catastrophe to bring about a planetary ice age. Noah's
>>flood would have been just such a catastrophe.
>
> That's _not_ what Sagan predicted. Can you in fact state his predictions
> or even give an original source?
1) Sagan did not predict an ice age, he predicted a 'nuclear winter' effect.
2) He was the only scientist who did so.
I worked for a while with one of the other authors on the TTAPS paper.
This is the one that made nuclear winter a hot topic in the US, though
Paul Crutzen (of Max Planck Institut for Meteorologie, Germany) had
published the idea earlier. It was illuminating. Sagan was a minor
contributor to this paper, and was the most extreme (by far, I gather)
in interpreting the sensitivity of the climate to the 'nuclear winter'
effect. So, while the paper made rather conservative statements regarding
the number of weapons required to kick off a nuclear winter (order the
entire arsenals of the US and USSR), Sagan was big on extrapolating to
higher and higher sensitivities (two orders of magnitude down).
Catastrophes, though, are poor methods to produce ice ages anyhow.
The end of the Cretaceous was accompanied by catastrophic events. There
is no sign of increased glaciation at that time.
My apologies for working from the material that Dan quoted, rather
than the original posting. I have been saving, but not reading, for now,
the sft articles themselves. Rather taking a look at what other people
find worth commenting on. Lazy. If this results in a significant error
of context or content, please inform me, and accept my apologies.
--
Bob Grumbine rmg3@access.digex.net
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
From source file sftt.faq
Article 30250 of talk.origins:
From: rowe@ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Subject: Re: SftT: D-5 Age of the Earth [12/40]
Date: 12 May 1994 03:09:38 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <2qs6li$cll@netnews.upenn.edu>
References: <1994May11.121421.14643@alc-ohio.alc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pender.ee.upenn.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Bruce Malone (malone@alc-ohio.alc.com) wrote:
: D-5 SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH The Ice Age
: On the morning of July 15, 1942, six brand new P-38 Lightning's
: and two B-17 Flying Fortresses took off from a secret airfield in
: Greenland, heading for bombing missions in Germany. The squadron
: became lost in a blizzard and ran out of fuel before reaching their
: destination. They were forced to land on a glacier where one made a
: crash landing and the other seven made perfect belly landings. The
: crewmen were rescued nine days later, but the planes were abandoned to
: the relentless snows and remained on the glacier for the next half
: century.
This image of the planes happily sitting there as snow built up over
them is belied by the fact that when they were found in 1988, they
were about two miles from where they landed. My source for this bit
of trivia is the cover story "Iced Lightning" by Karen Jensen in the
Dec. 92/Jan. 93 issue of _Air and Space Smithsonian_.
: In 1980, Richard Taylor and Patrick Epps, two Atlanta
: businessmen, decided to find the airplanes. In the words of Epps, "All
: we'd have to do is shovel the snow off the wings, fill them with gas,
: crank them up, and fly them off into the sunset. Nothing to it."
Jensen writes:
"Our thoughts were that the tails would be sticking out of the
snow," Taylor says with a grin. "We'd sweep snow off the wings
and shovel them out a little bit, crank the planes up, and fly
them home. Of course, it didn't happen."
The name "Greenland" is a misnomer if ever there was one.
Legend has it that Eric the Red, who discovered it around
A.D. 900, gave it the misleading name in order to lure Norwegian
and Icelandic settlers to its rocky shores. A protectorate of the
Kingdom of Denmark, the island resembles an ice-filled bowl. Over
the years, the massive ice cap--10,000 feet deep in places and
covering almost seven-eighths of Greenland's surface--has pushed
the center of the island below sea level. There the constant
snows melt or are compressed into sheets of ice that move
steadily outward toward the island's mountainous fringe.
Taylor (and perhaps Epps) were clearly joking about their naivete at
the outset of the expedition. They were quite surprised by the depth
at which the planes were buried (Epps is later quoted: "That year the
tail wasn't sticking out so they were ten feet under."), but their
surprise clearly didn't come from them discovering that they were
wrong in their carefully thought out ideas of what would happen to a
plane sitting on a glacier for 50 years.
I confess that I know very little about ice core dating (though I did
just retrieve and re-read Matt Brinkman's contribution from Brett's
archive). However, I suspect that the area where these planes from
Operation Bolero crash landed wouldn't be at all suitable for dating,
and no reputable scientist would suggest that they would be. Much of
the ice above the planes most likely did *not* come from annual
storms, but rather came from ice melted from further inland. When the
pilot's landed, they were only ten miles from the southeast shore of
the island.
According to Matt's FAQ, the Greenland glacier could not have formed
under current climatic conditions. I take that to mean that the rate
of water loss from the glacier is larger than the rate of accumulation
(or at least it's the same). I would suspect that the planes sank not
only because of their weight causing the underlying ice to melt (which
has been suggested here twice), but also because the ice is melting
and flowing out to the ocean even in the absence of airplanes.
: After twelve years of obsessive effort, extensive searching, back
: breaking labor, and millions of dollars spent; the persistent partners
: finally succeeded in locating and retrieving one of the eight
: airplanes. Unfortunately, it will be a while before that P-38 is
: "flown into the sunset" because it had to be dismantled piece-by-piece
: to recover it from underneath... 240 feet of solid ice!
Actually the planes were 264 feet beneath the surface. Despite that,
at the time of Jensen's article Epps and Roy Shoffner (who was funding
the restoration) expected the plane to be flying this summer at
Oshkosh. Not all of the planes were so lucky. Epps and Taylor first
hit one of the B-17's and discovered that it had been crushed by the
ice (the P-38's are much smaller and sturdier, and the members of the
expedition chose to excavate the one that seemed to have best survived
the initial crash).
: This story is an interesting contrast to the standard
: interpretation of ice cores that have been drilled in the ice at the
: polar caps. These cores supposedly show millions of years of
Matt's FAQ says 160,000 years for the Vostok (Antarctic) ice core.
But what's a measly order of magnitude to your innumerate friends? :-/
: accumulation and multiple ice ages on our planet. Although the lost
: squadron was located in a different area than the ice cores,
No, that couldn't be important could it?
: the fact that 240 feet of solid ice can accumulate in only 50 years,
That the depth from which the P-38 was retrieved represents the effect
of accumulation only is easily disputable. In fact, I find it
inconsistent with the lateral shifting of the aircraft.
[snip]
: The evidence for this ice age, and for a dramatically
: different climate in the not too distant past, is undeniable. For
: instance, tropical plants and animals have been found buried in Arctic
: regions;
Guess Bruce skipped the day that plate tectonics was described.
: Copyright (C) 1994, Bruce Malone
: --
: Bruce Malone [malone@alc-ohio.alc.com] (614) 587-0762
--
Mickey Rowe (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
From source file sftt2.faq
Article 30332 of talk.origins:
From: rmg3@access1.digex.net (Robert Grumbine)
Subject: Re: SftT: D-5 Age of the Earth [12/40]
Date: 12 May 1994 16:36:14 -0400
Organization: Under construction
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <2qu3vu$ho@access1.digex.net>
References: <1994May11.121421.14643@alc-ohio.alc.com> <2qs6li$cll@netnews.upenn.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
In article <2qs6li$cll@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Mickey Rowe wrote:
>Bruce Malone (malone@alc-ohio.alc.com) wrote:
>
>and no reputable scientist would suggest that they would be. Much of
>the ice above the planes most likely did *not* come from annual
>storms, but rather came from ice melted from further inland. When the
Not ice that _melted_ further in, but that _flowed_ from inland.
Ice flows under pressure. (Not fast, I grant you.)
>
>According to Matt's FAQ, the Greenland glacier could not have formed
>under current climatic conditions. I take that to mean that the rate
>of water loss from the glacier is larger than the rate of accumulation
>(or at least it's the same).
I'm the source on this (quoting a friend's work if you want citation).
It does not mean that the present ice sheet is melting (present loss
greater than present accumulation). Rather, if you were to destroy
the ice sheet, the increase in melting (loss) would be much greater than any
increase in accumulation (even if there were one, which is doubtful).
The mechanism for increased melting would be that rather than having
much-cooled air, due to elevation (try travelling up a mountain 3000 meters
tall and see the difference in temperature), you would have the much warmer
sea level air sitting on the would-be ice sheet's surface.
--
Bob Grumbine rmg3@access.digex.net
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
From source file sftt2.faq
Article 30356 of talk.origins:
From: rowe@ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Subject: Re: SftT: D-5 Age of the Earth [12/40]
Date: 12 May 1994 21:51:10 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <2qu8ce$o5f@netnews.upenn.edu>
References: <1994May11.121421.14643@alc-ohio.alc.com> <2qs6li$cll@netnews.upenn.edu> <2qu3vu$ho@access1.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pender.ee.upenn.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Robert Grumbine (rmg3@access1.digex.net) wrote:
: In article <2qs6li$cll@netnews.upenn.edu>,
: Mickey Rowe wrote:
: >and no reputable scientist would suggest that they would be. Much of
: >the ice above the planes most likely did *not* come from annual
: >storms, but rather came from ice melted from further inland. When the
: Not ice that _melted_ further in, but that _flowed_ from inland.
: Ice flows under pressure. (Not fast, I grant you.)
Hmmmm... I'm trying hard to fathom exactly what happened to these
planes. Can you help stitch this together for me--the P-38 that was
retrieved was laying in a normal orientation (so far as I can tell
from the pictures) when they found it. How would the ice flow over
the top without rotating the plane?
: >According to Matt's FAQ, the Greenland glacier could not have formed
: >under current climatic conditions. I take that to mean that the rate
: >of water loss from the glacier is larger than the rate of accumulation
: >(or at least it's the same).
: I'm the source on this (quoting a friend's work if you want citation).
: It does not mean that the present ice sheet is melting (present loss
: greater than present accumulation). Rather, if you were to destroy
: the ice sheet, the increase in melting (loss) would be much greater than any
: increase in accumulation (even if there were one, which is
: doubtful).
I'm trying even harder to understand this. I took Matt's statement to
mean that the glacier isn't currently growing. Did I misunderstand
that? Do you mean instead that the glacier would not have formed if
Greenland's elevation was as low at the beginning of incipient glacier
formation as it is now that the glacier's mass has pushed Greenland
down?
: Bob Grumbine rmg3@access.digex.net
--
Mickey Rowe (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
From source file sftt2.faq
Article 30421 of talk.origins:
From: rmg3@access1.digex.net (Robert Grumbine)
Subject: Re: SftT: D-5 Age of the Earth [12/40]
Date: 13 May 1994 11:42:43 -0400
Organization: Under construction
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <2r075j$6of@access1.digex.net>
References: <1994May11.121421.14643@alc-ohio.alc.com> <2qs6li$cll@netnews.upenn.edu> <2qu3vu$ho@access1.digex.net> <2qu8ce$o5f@netnews.upenn.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
In article <2qu8ce$o5f@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Mickey Rowe wrote:
>Robert Grumbine (rmg3@access1.digex.net) wrote:
>
>: In article <2qs6li$cll@netnews.upenn.edu>,
>: Mickey Rowe wrote:
>
>: Not ice that _melted_ further in, but that _flowed_ from inland.
>: Ice flows under pressure. (Not fast, I grant you.)
>
>Hmmmm... I'm trying hard to fathom exactly what happened to these
>planes. Can you help stitch this together for me--the P-38 that was
>retrieved was laying in a normal orientation (so far as I can tell
>from the pictures) when they found it. How would the ice flow over
>the top without rotating the plane?
Over the very small vertical distance of the plane, the flow is
essentially constant. One thing which I don't remember from the
article (I also saw one in the popular press), was whether the
plane had been dismembered by the stress along the flow line. Ice
sheet flow is compressive on a body imbedded in it, and usually
things are stretched long and thin.
>: I'm the source on this (quoting a friend's work if you want citation).
>: It does not mean that the present ice sheet is melting (present loss
>: greater than present accumulation). Rather, if you were to destroy
>: the ice sheet, the increase in melting (loss) would be much greater than any
>: increase in accumulation (even if there were one, which is
>: doubtful).
>
>I'm trying even harder to understand this. I took Matt's statement to
>mean that the glacier isn't currently growing. Did I misunderstand
>that? Do you mean instead that the glacier would not have formed if
>Greenland's elevation was as low at the beginning of incipient glacier
>formation as it is now that the glacier's mass has pushed Greenland
>down?
The latter statement is correct. If there were little or no ice on
Greenland, under present meteorolgical conditions, an ice sheet would
not grow.
The present state of balance for Greenland is uncertain. It is
certain that if it is growing or shrinking, it isn't doing so rapidly.
It could be doing either, so far as direct observations are concerned.
Parts, definitely, are growing (getting thicker), and parts, definitely,
are shrinking (thinning, edge retreating). The question is which there
is more of, which involves taking a small difference (so far) of two
large numbers. The expectation is that the sheet will grow under
conditions expected for the next few decades (note doubly-indirect
inference).
--
Bob Grumbine rmg3@access.digex.net
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
From source file sftt2.faq
Article 30464 of talk.origins:
From: rowe@ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Subject: Re: SftT: D-5 Age of the Earth [12/40]
Date: 13 May 1994 20:51:00 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <2r0p7k$it@netnews.upenn.edu>
References: <1994May11.121421.14643@alc-ohio.alc.com> <2qs6li$cll@netnews.upenn.edu> <2qu3vu$ho@access1.digex.net> <2qu8ce$o5f@netnews.upenn.edu> <2r075j$6of@access1.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pender.ee.upenn.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Robert Grumbine (rmg3@access1.digex.net) wrote:
: In article <2qu8ce$o5f@netnews.upenn.edu>,
: Mickey Rowe wrote:
: >How would the ice flow over the top without rotating the plane?
: Over the very small vertical distance of the plane, the flow is
: essentially constant.
I'm not sure if I've made my question clear; I think you could answer
me if you could say what direction the flow takes with respect to
gravity. I'm trying to understand if the planes are/were deeper than
they would have been if they were just sitting on a static block of
ice. You seem to be saying that the ice flow was the cause of the
lateral displacement, but was literally orthogonal to the vertical
displacement.
: One thing which I don't remember from the
: article (I also saw one in the popular press), was whether the
: plane had been dismembered by the stress along the flow line.
I can answer with a fair amount of certainty that the recovered plane
was not dismembered. The skin was crumpled and there was evidence of
rust. The canopy was cracked, but the cockpit itself seemed to have
remained dry and free of ice. Other than that the plane was in pretty
good condition, I think. There are some *really* great photos in the
_Air and Space_ article I quoted before, and some of them were taken
when the plane was still in situ under the ice.
: Ice sheet flow is compressive on a body imbedded in it, and usually
: things are stretched long and thin.
P-38's are fairly long and thin to begin with. As I mentioned
previously, the B-17 that was located first was crushed. However,
that might have been due only to the tremendous load of 264 feet of
ice. I'd suspect that the flow is slow enough that moving along
through such a glacier would be pretty good approximation of a
quasi-static stress test.
: >Do you mean instead that the glacier would not have formed if
: >Greenland's elevation was as low at the beginning of incipient glacier
: >formation as it is now that the glacier's mass has pushed Greenland
: >down?
: The latter statement is correct. If there were little or no ice on
: Greenland, under present meteorolgical conditions, an ice sheet would
: not grow.
Thanks for clearing that up and embellishing for me.
: --
: Bob Grumbine rmg3@access.digex.net
--
Mickey Rowe (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)