glaciers and the flood

SL, there is nothing BUT background noise. There isn't any consistency in the viewpoints. I'm not sure there are two creationists who agree on even 80% of the details. And most seem to contradict themselves over time.

You say "when they only expected them to be barely burried in snow.". How do you know this? What is the average snow fall where they are? You should note that it is NOT the snow fall of the interior of Greenland but rather nearer the coast.If the average snowfall where they crashed is great enough then 75 m of ice in a half century is not a problem. Perhaps you should check your facts.Additionally, the ice cores are not for "millions of years" they are for about 100,000 years.see
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eismayewski.htmlI'm afraid you have two major points and they are both wrong. Perhaps you should be more careful.

UH, what are the issues? Are these them:
1) What is the flood model for glaciation?
2) Snow depth over some aircraft?If so:
1) I don't know where this is.
2) Done with, gone as an issue.

I'm no geologist. Perhaps you can check this link and let me know what it is actually saying about the first of the Joe Meert examples? (the Missouri one) We will have to also wait till Joe gets back to give us some more info.They seem to be "analysing" and critizing the Missouri example [i]from the photograph![/qs]Would you confirm if that is the case or not? If it is you don't actually expect that to be taken seriously do you?

I see no hint of them doing anything but pretending to analyze the geology from the picture alone. Would you please show where they do anything else? They did not set out in quotations anything they took from Meert so I can't see it.ABE
I went to the Meert site they reference and it has the picture they use but no description. It also has a lot of other even more interesting paleosols. They don't mention those.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-25-2005 01:10 AM