To : Bob Bloodgood Subj: ice here is a quick list of a few of the problems with the astral

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: David Bushard 13 Jul 94 11:14 To : Bob Bloodgood Subj: ice here is a quick list of a few of the problems with the astral ice idea, that as far as i can tell from reading the echo, you have not addressed: 1. if the ice appeared rapidly and recently, as you suggest, the ice would be undifferentiated throughout it's thickness, or at most have only large scale differentiation. when a drill core is examined, the existing icecaps are seen to be layered, as would be predicted my a deposition over many seasons. why? 2. ice bodies in the solar system (primarily comets) are composed of a mixture of frozen volatiles, including but not limited to water. large amounts of carbon dioxide, ammonia, methane, and small amounts of others are found mixed together. if an extra-terrestrial ice body deposited this stuff on the earth rapidly and recently, what is the evidence of these other volatiles? where are they now? 3. ice bodies are also known to include non-volitile stuff, mostly rocky things, but also dust, soot-like stuff, metal nodules -- things that resemble meteorites. did this stuff also come down with the ice? why, and how, and if not, why not, and where did it go? 4. do you have any reason beyond requiring some explanation for the flood myth for supposing that this event you postulate happened only 5000 years ago? 5. as glaciers advance, entrained materials scour the bed under the glacier, and when they retreat, they do so by melting, and they drop their entrained stuff. this has been directly observed in real time. there is evidence that there were 4 major advances and retreats of ice in northern north america in the last 2 million years. scratches in rocks (i have one in my front yard that weighs several tons), moraines and eskers, sedimented river valleys, and other features by the thousands and thousands agree. how did this evidence come to exist, if there was one and only one episode of ice, as you assert? 6. pollen from earth plants is found in the laminations of ice in the greenland and antarctic icesheets. regardless of how the laminations got there, how did the pollen get there? this pollen is not randomly mixed into the ice -- the sequence of kinds found agrees with the sequence found at other non-ice accumulation sites. how did it get like this, if the ice arrived rapidly and recently? 7. the rate of infall of meteorites is known. meteorites are found in antarctica, in the abundance that would agree with an age of millions of years. these meteorites show the exact same kinds of changes due to atmospheric heating as do other meteorites recovered elswhere. if the ice arrived recently and slowly, why are the entrained meteorites heated just like others? 8. the arrival, gentle transfer of ice, and departure of the visiting body that you postulate cannot happen without an enormous input of energy. what energy source is used to apply the stupefying amounts of delta-V required, and how was it applied? i presume you will not resort to LGMs for this one. there is lots more, of course, but any one of these should be plenty. there are models of the history of the earth that account for observed phenomena quite effectively, yet you insist on asserting one that is directly contrary to observed fact. why are you doing this, bob? i should make clear that i am personally not at all puzzled by any of the things listed above, so i am not really asking you for any answers; rather i am presuming that you are being straightforward when you say that you want to study these matters. think of the above as study questions, or as guides to the kind of phenemona that the theory you espouse must account for. if you cannot account for these phenomena at least as well as the more conventional explanations do, you need to (at least) become a great deal more sophisticated in your theoretical system. your suggestions (from patten) about the ways the icecaps are "anomolous" are all either distorted or flat out erroneous or require a specific supernatural miraculous intervention. you have stated over and over that your intent here is to "shine a bright light" on the deficiencies of evolutionary theory, and that you are convinced of these deficiencies not because you have any understanding of evolution but because your religious beliefs demand it. is this still true? do you insist that the evidence observed by science is wrong on religious grounds? david --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: The Swamp, River Falls WI 715.425.8865 & 612.436.5254 (1:2245/101)

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank