Evolution's hall of shame.

Like the coelacanth fish from the previous page. This is another claim made that has been proven wrong. The assumption was that for every light and dark area found in ice, in either the north or south pole. Would represent 1 passing year. And because science has basically cornered the market of doing ice core drills. They figured no one would ever prove them wrong. They basically made this statement about the different colors found in ice cores, without really testing it to make sure. So it was a guess based on a theory (evolution, and the time required for it to happen) that they wanted to support. A theory that was starving for supporting evidence. So evolutionists stuck their foot in their mouth on this one, and are unwilling to admit their mistake. And this mistake is still being taught in every science-evolutionist class in both high school, and college. It is even in the school text books.

Just like the Ernest Haeckel fraud , which by the way will be reprinted and taught again (what next, Piltdown man?). Science refuses to remove the information, unless someone makes them. And like the Stanley Miller experiment.  The problems are not mentioned, so that the theory of evolution can for the most part, always go unchallenged.

https://thelostsquadron.com/p-38-pages/p-38-lightning-recovery.htm

Supposed annual layers like you see in the hole above, Are the same as the layers you see in the sample ice core below. In 48 years, the P-38 aircraft was covered in ice 263 feet deep. Now some might claim that it sunk in the ice to that level (lame excuse, without testing this, to debunk evidence that does not support current theory). Being that the plane is very nose heavy. Which part of the plane do you think would sink more because of that? Example: If I were to have set a penny next to the plane, and left it there for 48 years. If the plane actually sunk into the ice, which would sink quicker? The plane, or the penny next to it? And if the plane were just being covered with ice and snow, both the plane and the penny would be at the same level in ice.

So if sinking in ice was the reason the plane got so deep in 48 years, then the heaviest part would have sunk first. Meaning the plane would have been found in a nose down position. But, if it were being just covered in ice and snow, it would have stayed in the same position it landed on the ice in. Which was the position it was found in.

263 feet equals a little over 80 meters. So 80 meters of ice formed over the plane in 48 years. Now the picture above, the scale at the bottom, is done in centimeters (not actual size because it would not fit in browser), total length 100 centimeters which equals one full meter of ice core shown in picture. If you take 48 years, and divide it into 80 meters. You get 1.6 meters of ice and snow per year. Which equals 1 annual layer per 1.6 meters of ice, if annual layers were correct. But the pic above is only 1 meter (100 centimeter scale). Which means there should not be even one annual layer visible in 1 meter. And how many rings can you see?

Side note: The "full length" of the core (how far down they drilled) is stated at the top of each ice core (in meters). If you want to read the scale better, click here: Ice Cores.  This is the full size pic from above. I had to squeeze the pic to fit on this web page, and is the reason you cannot read the scale clearly. And if you think I changed the pic in any way, you can see the reference for the pic here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/

Finding out how much ice and snow can accumulate per year (1.6 meters, or 5.2 feet per year), also explains how that much ice can be on the earth in both poles in 4,400 years (since Noah's Flood). So those who try and claim: not enough time for that much ice to form, this evidence debunks that also.

How much could have accumulated.	Feet of ice.	Meters of ice.
4,400 years since Noah's flood.	22,880 feet	7040 meters
4,400 years since Noah's flood.	4.3 miles	7.04 km.

Now compare to see if enough ice can form in 4,400 years...

Current thickness.	Feet of ice.	Meters of ice.
Antarctic ice cap thickness.	7,000 feet	2,133 meters
	1.3 miles	2.13 km.
Arctic ice cap thickness.	9842 feet	3000 meters
	1.9 miles	3 km.

Here's where a website, that is often used to teach those who wish to know about science etc... Still promoting what is clearly proven wrong.

Annual layers of snowfall in ice cores can be counted as easily as tree rings, allowing precise* dating of events such as volcanic eruptions. Distinct annual layers stand out because, in snow that falls in summer, crystals are larger and acidity higher than in winter snow. In some cases, scientists can even tell seasons apart, by using a laser to measure the concentration of dust particles. (Winds are generally stronger in springtime, meaning more dust gets blown into the atmosphere.) In this photograph of an ice core drilled in the Kunlun Mountains of western China, the thick, lighter bands indicate heavy snowfall during the monsoon season in the year 1167 AD, while the thinner, darker strips show layers of dust blown into the snowfield during the dry season. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/stories/nojs.html

*I have show on this web page that annual rings (layers) in ice cores are not precise, nor accurate. If evolutionists wanted to be accurate in this type of dating. They could have driven a pipe into the ground. Mark off where the pipe meets the ice. Then come back in a year and remove the pipe to see how much of it was covered in one year. In fact, several pipes could be used this way in several areas in the poles, where weather differs. This would be a gathering of valuable data concerning how weather affects ice layering per year in each area. It can also help determine some type of average for annual rings (layers) per year in each area this is done in. But, it still would not be an exact science because weather is not always the same. Evolutionists need to admit to this and quit selling this (like a used car sells men) as an exact science.

If you want to do more research on ice cores, you can click here:

Google.

Yahoo.

Did science ignore the Scientific Method to make this sound true?

Let's look at the first step of the Scientific Method and see:

Step one: First, never accept anything as true that I did not know evidently to be so; that is, carefully to avoid precipitous judgment and prejudice; and to include nothing more in my judgments than what presented itself to my mind with such clarity and distinctness that I would have no occasion to doubt it. http://www.lessonplans.com/sci_1.htm

Accepting a unproven claim about rings in ice being annual, with no evidence or tests to prove it. Is accepting what is not known to be true as actual truth. With no testing, and no evidence. To what right do they make the claim that it is true, when it has been proven untrue? So upon doing this they break their own guidlines for finding truth and fact, and instead lay a foundation that is based on faith that the evidence will support the conclusion, which has already been made.