Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:15 pm
The Other Kevin wrote:Jackal wrote:The Other Kevin wrote:I've always felt wetter (In advance, fuck you Jackal) running.
Haha, Kevin has a wet vagina while running.![]()
Edit: Haha, Kevin has a vagina to begin with!!![]()
Your mom lays on people.
Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:32 am
Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:22 am
Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:16 am
puttincomputers wrote:myth- it took millions of years forthe river to form grand canyon!
really i didnt know rivers flow uphill!
Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:37 am
Yet when they study the earth and everything in it, its more likely to be around 6,000 years old.
Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:52 am
Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:59 am
Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years (4.54×109 years).[1] This age represents a compromise between the interpretations of oldest-known terrestrial minerals – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – and astronomers' and planetologists' determinations of the age of the solar system based in part on radiometric age dating of meteorite material and lunar samples.
Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:05 am
THE LOST SQUADRON
In 1942, during World War II, some war planes landed in Greenland. When the war ended, those planes were left there and forgotten.
In 1990, an aircraft enthusiast came up with the bright idea to find them and fly them off again.
He organised a group and they went searching. As it turned out, they had to use radar, because the planes were under the ice, in fact, so deep under the ice, the men had a hard job finding them. Do you know, that lost squadron had got covered by 263 feet of ice in 48 years!
Let's do some arithmetic.
* 263 feet divided by 48 years, that's an ice growth of about 5.5 feet per year.
* Now divide 10,000 feet by 5.5. And you get 1,824 years for ALL of the ice to build up.
We should allow longer for the fact that the deeper ice is pressed into finer layers.
Note: those planes did not sink into the ice, due to pressure on the ice. The ice had grown OVER them.
ARE THESE ANCIENT AIRCRAFT IN ICE?
Okay, would you do some maths? Can you work this out?
The Denver National Ice Core Laboratory said that 10,000 feet of ice had to be 135,000 years old! So the 263 feet deep of "Lost Squadron" ice - how old should that be? That's right, 3,419 years old.
Does that mean those aircraft are 3,419 years old? What do you think?
Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:12 am
Consider this my last post. I try to stay away from any debate over Science or Religion because in the end, after all the arguing, after all the "prove me wrong", after all the "here is my proof", after all that, in the end they continue to believe in what they want to believe and it never really accomplishes anything. People will continue to believe what they want, and you wont be able to change their minds, at least not in a forum. LOL
Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:21 am
Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:22 am
Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:33 am
And, if you're going to date ice layers (Like some people do to "prove" that the Mayans died from a massive heat wave), you trace chemicals and isotopes in the ice. Not just count how many layers there are. But if you wanna hack it and just count the layers, you need to at least study the different types of layers (it's not as simple as one layer = one year. Far from it.), if not, you're going to end up with a crapload of extra layers. Which, the lost squadron didn't even do.The depth of ice – the amount of annual snowfall at the Lost Squadron site (near the coast) is much greater than the GISP2 site (far inland near the summit of the ice sheet). The annual snowfall at the Lost Squadron site is around 7 ft per year. So 268 ft of snow in 50 years isn't unusual for that site. The amount of annual snowfall at the GISP2 site is much lower (around 1 ft per year). Using the amount of snowfall accumulation at the Lost Squadron site to infer the rate of snow accumulation at the GISP2 site is wildly inappropriate. That would be like using the amount of rainfall on the west side of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon to make predications about the amount of annual rainfall in Arizona.
Source (March 16 post)
Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:57 am
-Young Buck- wrote:No this is science. Here is an article where they found a Plane in ice, that shows even their dating of ice is off too.THE LOST SQUADRON
In 1942, during World War II, some war planes landed in Greenland. When the war ended, those planes were left there and forgotten.
In 1990, an aircraft enthusiast came up with the bright idea to find them and fly them off again.
He organised a group and they went searching. As it turned out, they had to use radar, because the planes were under the ice, in fact, so deep under the ice, the men had a hard job finding them. Do you know, that lost squadron had got covered by 263 feet of ice in 48 years!
Let's do some arithmetic.
* 263 feet divided by 48 years, that's an ice growth of about 5.5 feet per year.
* Now divide 10,000 feet by 5.5. And you get 1,824 years for ALL of the ice to build up.
We should allow longer for the fact that the deeper ice is pressed into finer layers.
Note: those planes did not sink into the ice, due to pressure on the ice. The ice had grown OVER them.
ARE THESE ANCIENT AIRCRAFT IN ICE?
Okay, would you do some maths? Can you work this out?
The Denver National Ice Core Laboratory said that 10,000 feet of ice had to be 135,000 years old! So the 263 feet deep of "Lost Squadron" ice - how old should that be? That's right, 3,419 years old.
Does that mean those aircraft are 3,419 years old? What do you think?
But it would be litterally impossible for it to happen that way.
Here is another one. The big bang created the universe over billions of years.
Why are people at this forum so petrified of debates or discussions these days? It's happening in NBA Talk and now it's going on here. If you have an opinion you've got to be willing to back it up because a fact of life is, not everyone is going to agree with you. The purpose of a discussion isn't to change someone's mind, it is to inform/educate the other party on your own particular thoughts/beliefs/whatever.
Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:34 pm
-Young Buck- wrote:Here is another one. The big bang created the universe over billions of years. That one is pretty popular. Apparently if you add the phrase "Millions of years" or "billions of years" to anything people will believe it. Yet when they study the earth and everything in it, its more likely to be around 6,000 years old. Not Billions.
Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:10 pm
I disagree.
Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:14 pm
Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:27 pm
Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:37 pm
Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:01 pm
Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:46 pm
Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:01 pm
Well, let me ask you aussies/other guys from the southern hemisphere: does the water flow backwards? it did when i was there.
Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:49 pm
illini wrote:Well, let me ask you aussies/other guys from the southern hemisphere: does the water flow backwards? it did when i was there.
EDIT realized the fallacy in the end question...what direction does it flow down there? They taught us about the Coriolis Effect at school and i'll be greatly amused at American schools giving completely false information
Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:02 pm
Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:42 pm
Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:05 pm
Christopherson wrote:Perhaps weathering had something to do with that. Over millions of years, the edge was weathered more than the middle, thus leaving the middle higher. How is that hard to understand. Are you trying to say the river didn't create the canyon? If not, then what did?