Thanks again CTD for the effort you put into your response.
Well now, if it's "already been done to death", how is it you don't know they had to use sophisticated equipment in order to locate the aircraft? The readings told them how deep they'd have to dig, as I understand it.
And yet they must have known before hand that they would need it, or they would not have brought it along.
It's really a pity that anyone at all continues to cling desperately to uniformitarianism, given its dismal track record. Coal, opals, oil, flowstone - all have been demonstrated to be capable of forming in far, far shorter amounts of time than previously speculated. And that's just off the top of my head.
All of which has nothing to do with anything posted so far, so you are (again) providing what could be called either hand waving or a "knee-jerk"
non-sequitur response, as opposed to one that actually deals with the evidence and the argument.
I decline to debunk your "varves" just now. I'm confident folks know how to use google, and my time-wasting quota's been spent reading LindaLou's quack.
In other words you refuse to deal with the evidence and you would rather use
ad hominem attacks than reason. It is not just a matter of "debunking" the varves, as that alone would not explain the correlations between the varves and these ice layers. The issue is why they give the same answers.
From what I see, the evobunk's not worth much time - surely not worth all the money that's being spent just to add an obviously flawed argument to the global warming arsenal.
Another comment that basically admits that you can't do it, and another
non-sequitur comment that has nothing to do with answering the evidence or the argument.
Note that I predicted your failure to deal with the evidence. It is always nice to see predictions come to pass eh? Lots of irrelevant hand waving, but nothing that affects the facts. Again, thanks for your effort to distract people from the fact you can't answer the argument, as that is the best evidence that you have no real response to make.
Why do the Dundee ice cores and Lake Suigetsu varves give the same climate change over time results? Why do both of these match the results from the tree rings?
Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s),
and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]
