C
2007-02-06 08:05:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by MIGHTY MINNIE 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
none of the above. It doesn't say anywhere on that site that it was under thousands of years of ice. It just give feet of ice. In some areas snowfall and ice buildup can happen quite fast - in others it takes a lot longer. Then there are ice crevaces and other geological events that can account for it being buried so deep. That does not prove anything other than a plane was buried in ice.
2007-02-06 16:09:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by Sage Bluestorm 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
The plane was not found under the annual ice layers of the Greenland Ice pack. It was found in a moving glacier. It is a classic Creationist deception to say it was elsewhere.
2007-02-06 16:06:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by novangelis 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
The article you link to says nothing about layers of ice.
As with most science opponents, you don't really understand it, so you can't debate it rationally. Just stupid potshots like this, which you and your like-minded buddies can all rally round and be content that at least *you* know that science is nothing more than other people's opinions, not anything approaching fact.
You should be thanking all of the scientists who, over the centuries, have built up the modern world we live in. Where do you think electricity, medicine, robitics, etc. come from?
Moron.
2007-02-06 16:05:19
·
answer #4
·
answered by Steven D 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
D. Your statement is a lie.
Many times when a persons states some "fact" that goes contrary to what we know, the statement is a lie.
2007-02-06 18:10:04
·
answer #5
·
answered by forgivebutdonotforget911 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
where did this say anything about being under "hundreds of thousands of annual ice layers"?
2007-02-06 16:04:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by Nick F 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
a plane crashed in 1942 and found in the ice
2007-02-06 16:07:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by andrew w 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Did you even read the story....the plane CRASHED into the ice...its not like Cavemen fell from really high and buried themselves deep in ice...
2007-02-06 16:05:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by Ashton 2
·
3⤊
1⤋
It was under 268 feet of ice - what's the big deal ?
2007-02-06 16:05:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by Alan 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
None of the above! Shesh! You sound like one of today's politicians. Only giving choices the elite rich want, or in this case, UFO whacko's
2007-02-06 16:06:47
·
answer #10
·
answered by Daniel T 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
You clearly did'nt read the story. At NO time is the term "annual ice layer" mentioned.
I suggest reading it again. And if there are too many big words for you, get someone to read it to you SLOWLY...
2007-02-06 16:05:25
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋