Jeez, just a few minutes' conversation here and there with my sister-in-law, who is a professor of geology specialising in glaciers, is enough for me to spot the scientific errors here. I'm interested in what she does and I ask her about it sometimes. For example, I know that the water at the bottom of a glacier is a supercooled liquid layer which would instantly freeze if it were brought to the surface but is kept liquid because of the intense pressure it's under. It's got nothing to do with the temperature of the earth a thousand miles below the surface. Surface features we see, apart from volcanoes and hot spots which vent the heat up to the surface, have little to do with this either.

We'll overlook that fact for now that experts like my relative have carefully been studying ice fields and glacial features across the world for centuries. Let's look at your reasons for saying that it's impossible for ice to be old. Please explain, then, why the climatic data that Razd has presented from ice layers, varves and tree rings all agree. It's a pretty strange coincidence, don't you think?