If the ice melting in one year then yes the magma would not be able to move with any hope of reaching greenland. but it will not melt in one year, it will melt (if it does at all) over a century). Each year the weight will grow a little bit more in the ocean and the weight will grow a little bit less under greenland. this will create a small bit of difference between the pressure on the magma under the ocean and the pressure on the magma under iceland. Since magma is a liquid, it will move from higher pressure to lower pressure. This means that each year a compairatively tiny amount would move from the indian ocean to the pacific, and a little bit more would move from the pacific to under the us (which has not changed) and the same amount would move from under the us to the atlantic, and then a good bit more would move from there to underneith greenland.
here is an test. take a fairly large space (such as a kiddy pool, and fill it with water about half way. seal it with a tarp or piece of plastic large enough to go all around. now fill the top of the pool with water, and put sand in places like the continents of the world, including greenland. Once its stablized, measure the hight of the water. take a picture of how the water is on the land. then take some of that water and freeze it and put in on top of the area named iceland. what you will see is the ice pushing the sand called iceland down and the rest of the place where the land, and oceans are, up. then watch as the ice melts. if you can see the water below, as the ice melts it flows underneith the lighter area, and away from all the other areas. now the weight of the water will make the areas the water covers heavier, which will make the water below that (seperated by the plastic sheet) go more than the areas under the land that did not have the ice. There will be some change in the hight of the water to land, but most of the difference of the weight will push the other water forcing it to go under the area that had the land and ice.
as far as the part about the galaxy, you need to read that again. I did not say there were fewer of them, i said that if god only wanted to give us light in the darkness of space, he could have made more stars nearby. I said there was no need to have more distant galaxies since by the time we could hope to reach them, all the stars would have died of old age, as would all their decendants. What is the use of distant galaxies if we cant learn anything from them. Science is not about god. nor has astronomy proved his existance. better read that thread again.
In otherwords, im not the one that is not looking at the big picture.
