Million Year Old Ice

Its a very interesting article. In fact, Antarctic studies were conducted jointly by the US and British scientists and they have drilled for cores a few years ago. The study of the cores suggested that a few thousand years ago, the Antarctic was green and there was plenty of vegetation. Hills and valleys were located under the sheet of ice and also it was found that antarctic is actually not one piece of land but two distinct pieces seperated by a channel. That Antarctic had ice a million years is thus a doubtful theory as it had been theorized that the vegetation may be of app 12500 yrs. Further, Antarctic was not in the place it is now, but moved to the current position just a few thousands years ago and not a million years ago. The continental drift theory partly explains this movemnet but some people think that the movement of the continent from east to westwards has been much more rapid than a continental drift and thus it must have been subjected to a violent movement in the recent past.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with anything you just wrote. I'm extremely confident there is no factual data to back up your statement above.

Basically what I'm saying is your statement above is pure fiction. You might as well have said the world is flat.

Fortunately, I had posted comments based on the factual data. There is no fiction about this. In fact there have been books written about this and there were authenticated documentation from NASA on the information I had mentioned. I can back up the information with the help of published information which is available.

"I can back up the information with the help of published information which is available"

Then do it. Post some links to pages that talk about this theory you're mentioning. Let's see some links. For all I know, the "NASA" you're referring to is the Native American Student Association.

Your definition of NASA is beyond my knowledge. Hence I give it a pass. The NASA, I know of is the space agency. Reagrding the theory of Antarctic ice and the continent below the ice cap, there have been many books written by authors such as Charles Hapgood. His books are interesting reading due to his research into medieval cartography and its origins. The search takes him to the conclusion about pole shift which I had mentioned in my previous messages. If you go into Google search and type Charles Hapgood, there is a lot of interesting reading about Antarctic pole shift and the core studies by joint US and Royal Navy teams I was referring to. We can always discuss your point of view. Give it a try.Its good reading.

Point of view? There are 1000s of scientific papers verifying the age of Antartica through ice core samples, glaciation trends, continental drift, etc.

Your "point of view" is based upon the writings of one medievel history professor who wanted to find Atlantis.

I don't mind intelligent debate, but there is nothing worthy of debate here. Like I said before, you might as well say the Earth is flat. Also, I could find nothing by NASA supporting Hapgood's crazy theory.

Here are some more of my "point of views" for you to debate:

1. I believe in evolution
2. I believe the Sun is the center of our solar system
3. I believe that the Earth is round
4. I believe the moon landing actually happened.

Feel free to bring forward any number of insane theories to dispute these "point of views" as well.

I dont agree to your point of view that Charles hapgood was a crazy medieval professor. The fact is that his theories were appreciated by the likes of Einstein and much research went into his work. There have been lots of people who called him crazy but his theories stood the test of time. In fact, there have been confirmatory correspondence from the US Airforce officials regarding his work and there were confirmations from Top ranking British Geological organizations which concurred with the therories profounded by him. If only, you are more open to research papers which are available in aplenty from various libraries in the US and Europe regarding Charles Hapgood's work, if only you are open minded and appreciated the good work of the likes of Hapgood. I do not dispute the millions of research papers on galcial movements, ice cap formations, sub soil mechanics, under water bed movement, plate tectonics and other catagories. Neither do I dispute that earth is round, sun shines, air blows etc. The solar centric theory was proposed in the 2nd century BC in India by Varahamihira is not disputed by me either. That the ancient Indian, mayan, Egyptian literature always showed the planets as globes is not disputed either. The evolution theory of Dawin, with all its flaws is still acceptable and so is the Dasavatara evolution sequences mentioned in Indian mythology. The Big Bang theory discussed in brahmanda purana of ancient India is not disputed either. Serious work can not be ignored and by drawing boundaries around and remianing inside assuming what we think is right is unfair in scientific investigations and an open minded accpetance of all decent research work must be appreciated because the persons who proposed such theories are not idiots but well acclaimed, reputed professors working in highly acclaimed educational institutions from advanced nations. Calling them medieval crazy professors is too uncivil. I rest my case.

What case? Look, I love science because it's rigorous and self consistent. That's what differentiates opinions from science. You have an opinion, an unsubstantiated opinion that blissfully ignores mountains of data that contradict it. I have a scientific fact, a fact backed up by 100 years of research, self consistent and vigorous. Your attempt to undermine my credibility with subtle attacks on my character, labeling me as uncivil, closed minded, and unfair, is unconscionable and reveals your character better than a thousand arguments. You have no case, you have only an overactive imagination and an inability to hold it in check.

My sincere apologies. I did not mean to attack your character neither I have the intention to dispute the research of the past hundred years. My point is that, the science changes every year and scientists come out with new analysis year after year on the same phenomenon. I was asking for a fair assessment of alternate theories particularly when submitted by knowledgeable scientists whose credentials have been acknowledged by the likes of Albert Einstein.

Of course you meant to attack my character. You have grouped me as the intractable, closeminded scientific community that would rather bury its head in the sand than consider a new idea. This is your sophist method for undermining my position and thus validating your own. You must take this approach because your argument doesn't stand on its own merit. When you can't attack the facts, attack the person. You go out of your way to present yourself as reasonable and understanding, and to paint me as anything but, but the truth is you are deceiteful. You have no interest in the truth, you wish only to mold and twist and torture facts until they have been distorted enough to fit your point of view, and to call me closeminded if I protest.

http://www.crystalinks.com/iceage.html. Here is a link to BBC programs on Ice ages. The one which is of interest is about Ice Cores drilled in the Antarctic. Based on the 3 kms long core recovered, scientists estimate that our planet had gone through 8 ice ages within a span of 740,000 yrs with brief warm spells such as the one we have now. Certainly, it is not millions of years mentioned.

Here is the headline from your link:

"Global climate patterns stretching back 740,000 years have been confirmed by a three-kilometre-long ice core drilled from the Antarctic"

In case you're confused, this is saying there is a core of ice that stretches back 740,000 years continuously. In other words, the location in Anatarctica where they drilled this ice core has been covered with ice for at least 740,000 years. They can tell climate change by the gas content and thickness of the ice layers.

So yes, millions of years.

http://classroomantarctica.aad.gov.au/materials/El evations.pdf. The link provided here is the ice profile maps for Antarctica issued by Governemnet of Australia. You will note that the average thickness of ice is 3kms. This is what had been cored and corresponds to 740,000 yrs.

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html. Here is another link which proposes that within the last 130, 000 yrs, the continents have seen rapid ice and warming cycles, each cycles app. occuring every 23,000 yrs. This paper based on core studies from greenlad, anatrctica, Devils hole, punctures the theory of millions of years of ice.

http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/gtprob.html#difficultie s. This link will throw more questions about the conventional wisdom about glacial deposition and raise awkward questions about tropical fossils found under galcial sheets. Once again, it is not about million years or more but about the recent past.

Finally you reveal yourself for what you are. The Journal Article you quote is from a Creationist Journal that questions Scientific Theories. Here is the link:

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html

If you're interested in support for the flood story, which was the undercurrent of this whole discussion, you should study the Black Sea which experienced a cataclysmic flood around ten thousand year ago, probably due to a rising Medeteranian Sea due to glacial melting. At least then you'd be using facts to support your argument.

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Research-Revie w/Magazine/1997-fall/village/iceAge.html. One more link which talks about continuoulsy changing glacial and warm periods in 100,000 yrs cycles. Once again, the oscialltion is about 4 precession cycles.

Another favorite tactic of your kind, when you can't win the argument, change the argument. Now your suggesting the discussion we have been having at length was somehow on global climate change. This was not our discussion.

No, the discussion was that you suggested that Antarctica shifted violently 9000 years ago resulting in dramatic climate change on that continent. That is what I rejected so vigorously. Your above response has nothing to do with that original argument which I dispute.

Way to go, Roger...you pegged him for what he is....by the way....did you know that wherever you find 4 baptist's.....you'll find a fifth.....

I challenge all of you to read just the very first page of this link...http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/R E1/chapter1.asp How about that, everybody has an interpretation of facts based on what they know to date. I personally believe that there are many rabbit holes for people that will choose to deny God, but I know that He still waits for those that will accept Him and the love He offers all.