Jump to content


Photo

So... What Kind Of Animals Lived During The Ice Age?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
29 replies to this topic

#21 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 08 December 2010 - 07:31 PM

But since creationists tend to not count age dating techniques other than the use of the Bible's historical records,

View Post

Have you seen dating techniques that scientifically back a young earth paradigm? I can't find them all together in a nice bunch, but I do remember a few: helium, the earth's magnetism, the amount of erosion on the continents and in the oceans (including sediments and salts).

If someone has a thread or link with them all together I would be interested in reading it.

#22 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 10 December 2010 - 09:21 AM

You did not explain why the earth would be cold for hundreds of thousands of years.  What would trigger such a continuous condition?  The only thing wwe can compare it to is the poles, but not CANADA.  There is no present scientific comparison for the mechanism of this massively thick ice sheet! Actually, I have seen material that has it eroding/scratching rock as far south as New York and the Great Lakes.

   So you see, the uniform/actualist picture has some of it's own unbelievable story to explain.  To say it happened and leave it at that is a double standard. I'm not saying it wasn't there, I'm saying you have no viable mechanism to get it there.  I do.

Concerning your allusion to "40 days."  Catastrophic plate tectonics has the ocean floor raising by heat and lower density.  As well as runaway subduction which has been to shown to work mathematically on Baumgardner's TERRA--a program respected by geophysicists. 

Forty days of rain alone couldn't produce the ice sheet.  That would be completely correct.  But the historical account in Genesis does not report only rain--it reports catastrophic tectonics. 

The "fountains"  could well be both water and lava, which does not contradict many formations.  The "broken up" tells how this happened. It just didn't "shoot out" of the mantle.  There was a breaking up first, causing many intrusions (and the oceanic ridges) under the soft ocean sediments deposited by a catastrophic uplift of the ocean floors, and extrusions on land and under water causing massive water jets and precipitation.  Magma would have met water causing "fountains of the deep."  The deep is many times a reference to the ocean in scriputure.

Massive limestone and shale deposits over the continents attest to transgression of water throughout the world.  These are ocean sediments, and have many evidences of turbidity, transport, and rapid deposition (e.g. fossils).  The unis have hijacked this evidence and reinterpreted it with their own scenarios.  These scenarios seem scientific because they use the present to understand the past.  But this is the grand assumption of uniformintarianism--"the present is the key to the past."

View Post


I think there are various ideas about what might make the earth colder for hundreds of thousands of years including changing the currents in the oceans. the configuration of the continents and atmospheric changes through volcanism, etc. But I don’t think the study of glaciation should remain limited to present ice sheets. The moraines and other deposits are evidence of multiple glaciations in the past, and from what you post you seem to realize that Canada has been glaciated.

I was commenting on a hole in the logic of your previous post, not writing a treatise on glacial periods so I don’t think your comment about “saying it happened and leave it” is a fair one in context of the thread. You have not given a “viable mechanism to get it there” but I have not seen any other creationist come up with anything viable either, just some scattered ideas that do not unify into a proper model that fits the evidence. Catastrophic plate tectonics seems to be a fall-back to the previous total rejection of continental drift. It seems to be an acknowledgment that mainstream geologists were right and creationists wrong about this unifying theory, but then following a mode of making up a mechanisms in the mind rather than actually interpreting the evidence in the rocks. Runaway subduction does not work mathematically within YEC limitations of time even as run by Dr. Baumgarder using his own program. Dr. Baumgarder wrote about runaway subduction:

”One difficulty in making a connection between these calculations and the Flood is their time scale. Some 2 x 10^7 years is needed before the instability occurs in the second calculation. Most of this time is involved with the accumulation of a large blob of cold, dense material at the barrier created by the phase transition at 600 km depth.” John R. Baumgardner, Runaway Subduction as the Driving Mechanism for the Genesis Flood, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1994), p. 74


Taking 20 million years for runaway subduction to get going does not seem to fit within a YEC flood geology model to me, even if the other aspects of this idea were workable. Once again Dr. Baumgardner has said that it all does not work without invoking miracles.

“The main difficulty of this theory is that it admittedly doesn’t work without miracles. [Baumgardner, 1990a, 1990b] The thermal diffusivity of the earth, for example, would have to increase 10,000 fold to get the subduction rates proposed [Matsumura, 1997. (National Center for Science Education, a pretentiously named organization totally devoted to promoting evolution.  Its roots are firmly in atheistic humanism)], and miracles are also necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.”


I think if one has to resort to miracles there is little point in attempting to come up with a scientifc explanation at all. Just list the special pleadings and be done with it, or allow that natural laws are the best explanation for scientifc explanations and don't invoke miracles.

I think it is a giant stretch of the imagination to say that the Bible reports catastrophic tectonics.

And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth." Genesis 6:13


In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. Gen 7:11-12 


The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; Gen 8:2 KJV


Not much to work with these vague references. So no, I don’t see any basis for the following:

The "fountains" could well be both water and lava, which does not contradict many formations. The "broken up" tells how this happened. It just didn't "shoot out" of the mantle. There was a breaking up first, causing many intrusions (and the oceanic ridges) under the soft ocean sediments deposited by a catastrophic uplift of the ocean floors, and extrusions on land and under water causing massive water jets and precipitation. Magma would have met water causing "fountains of the deep." The deep is many times a reference to the ocean in scriputure.


I think it is a stretch to have the fountains refer to anything other than water. But as I have posted before, those fountains can do all sorts of magic in the minds of some creationists, filling any gap that exposes itself in their explanations. Once Again I have to ask if the fountains also cured the common cold.

Massive limestone and shale deposits over the continents attest to transgression of water throughout the world. These are ocean sediments, and have many evidences of turbidity, transport, and rapid deposition (e.g. fossils). The unis have hijacked this evidence and reinterpreted it with their own scenarios. These scenarios seem scientific because they use the present to understand the past. But this is the grand assumption of uniformintarianism--"the present is the key to the past." 


No, some of these rocks attest to multiple transgressions. Separated by regressive sequences or unconformities. Some are not transgressive at all. Some are not ocean sediments at all. Mainstream geologist have hijacked nothing. They have developed tried and true scenarios from the study of the sediments involved instead of the usual creationist approach of arm-chair re-interpretations of data obtained in field work by scientists actually following the scientific method of allowing the data to lead to the conclusions and not the other way around as in force-fitting bits and pieces of facts into a pre-conceived flood model. They fact that they seem scientific is because they have followed proper scientific methods. Using present day analogues is indeed a good approach.

#23 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 10 December 2010 - 09:27 AM

Amazingly enough, if you are a theistic evolutionist, who claims to be a Christian, you too are a "Creationist" (unless you don’t believe that God “created the heavens and the Earth, and all therein). Therefore, you may want to re-think the usage of the word "creationist" when making sweeping generalizations like that.

View Post


I posted months ago that in the large sense I am indeed a creationist for the reasons you offer here, but as you will probably find in most of my posts I usually use more specific terminology. However, I think it is pretty apparent from the context of my post and what I have posted elsewhere about my religious and scientific views what my meaning was meant to be.

#24 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 December 2010 - 10:19 AM

Amazingly enough, if you are a theistic evolutionist, who claims to be a Christian, you too are a "Creationist" (unless you don’t believe that God “created the heavens and the Earth, and all therein). Therefore, you may want to re-think the usage of the word "creationist" when making sweeping generalizations like that.

View Post

I posted months ago that in the large sense I am indeed a creationist for the reasons you offer here, but as you will probably find in most of my posts I usually use more specific terminology. However, I think it is pretty apparent from the context of my post and what I have posted elsewhere about my religious and scientific views what my meaning was meant to be.

View Post


Then, at this point, it would probably make sense for you to correct your misuse of the word. Because, contextually, it is incorrect; and in the general sense it would be incorrect as well. ALL creationists are creationists. Some creationists tend to accept the flawed dating methods used by evolutionists, and some do not. Therefore, yours was an incorrect statement (contextually) regardless of what your "meaning was meant to be".

#25 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 10 December 2010 - 06:47 PM

Interesting about Plate Tectonics. It seems to be the most supported theory at this time from what I gather.

Michael Oard is a climate specialist and has written several books and papers that use computer modeling, etc. to show a viable method to start the ice age, end the ice age... length of the ice age, amount of glaciation, etc. in detail.

#26 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 December 2010 - 07:38 PM

Interesting about Plate Tectonics. It seems to be the most supported theory at this time from what I gather.

Michael Oard is a climate specialist and has written several books and papers that use computer modeling, etc. to show a viable method to start the ice age, end the ice age... length of the ice age, amount of glaciation, etc. in detail.

View Post


What is even more interesting, is that it is all still only speculation. That's why it's called computer "modeling".

In other words, it's a good read, but...

#27 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 December 2010 - 08:41 PM

Have you seen dating techniques that scientifically back a young earth paradigm? I can't find them all together in a nice bunch, but I do remember a few: helium, the earth's magnetism, the amount of erosion on the continents and in the oceans (including sediments and salts).

If someone has a thread or link with them all together I would be interested in reading it.

View Post


Still being completed, but here is one of the most complete you'll find.


http://www.evolution...indpost&p=23507



Enjoy.

#28 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 11 December 2010 - 05:38 AM

I think there are various ideas about what might make the earth colder for hundreds of thousands of years including changing the currents in the oceans. the configuration of the continents and atmospheric changes through volcanism, etc. But I don’t think the study of glaciation should remain limited to present ice sheets. The moraines and other deposits are evidence of multiple glaciations in the past, and from what you post you seem to realize that Canada has been glaciated.

View Post

I would like to see the evidence that there were long multiple glaciations. I have read and heard about the causes of unconformities being ice sheets that eroded mountains away. Only there is no evidence of a mountain, besides the morrain. The overwhelming evidence is that the scientists are supposing this happened. There is no proof that a morrain is the leftovers of a supposed mountain over current strata.

I was commenting on a hole in the logic of your previous post, not writing a treatise on glacial periods so I don’t think your comment about “saying it happened and leave it” is a fair one in context of the thread. You have not given a “viable mechanism to get it there” but I have not seen any other creationist come up with anything viable either, just some scattered ideas that do not unify into a proper model that fits the evidence. Catastrophic plate tectonics seems to be a fall-back to the previous total rejection of continental drift. It seems to be an acknowledgment that mainstream geologists were right and creationists wrong about this unifying theory, but then following a mode of making up a mechanisms in the mind rather than actually interpreting the evidence in the rocks.

Actually, according to Austin, continental drift was first proposed by a creationist in the 1800's. I believe his name was Schneider, I don't have time to look it up. It was later slowed down to fit the deep time model.

Runaway subduction does not work mathematically within YEC limitations of time even as run by Dr. Baumgarder using his own program. Dr. Baumgarder wrote about runaway subduction:
Taking 20 million years for runaway subduction to get going does not seem to fit within a YEC flood geology model to me, even if the other aspects of this idea were workable. Once again Dr. Baumgardner has said that it all does not work without invoking miracles.
I think if one has to resort to miracles there is little point in attempting to come up with a scientifc explanation at all. Just list the special pleadings and be done with it, or allow that natural laws are the best explanation for scientifc explanations and don't invoke miracles.

I realize that in the "institution" of science, you will not leave the confines of naturalistic limitations. However, in the Bible, it is clear that God was responsible for the flood.

If you are a Christian then your faith in Christ is based on a miracle--the ressurection of Jesus Christ. Is the ressurection also a special pleading?

Moreover, standard science offers the formation of Earth by asteroids defying physics. Somehow they just "stuck" together, "nucleated," and eventually became a sperical planet. Doesn't the explanation of a miracle require that it defy known physical data. There is no data anywhere of asteroids conglomerating.

Abiogenesis also defies known mathematical explanation, yet somehow proteins spotaneously developed, complete with complementary binding sites, then came together to form a "whatever" RNA world creature. A story with no proof, nor scientific data to base it upon.

SO science has plenty of it's own miracles--WITHOUT a miracle worker I might add.

#29 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 11 December 2010 - 09:43 AM

Thanks Jason.

SO science has plenty of it's own miracles--WITHOUT a miracle worker I might add.

View Post

:) Cells with no nucleus somehow producing or modifying bacteria into one is another.

#30 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 11 December 2010 - 02:54 PM

I wrote a previous post to Geode concerning...

1) a request for evidence for mutltiple glaciations (to add--in deep time strata.) Because this is most likely based on unconformities in the strata, or other evvidences based on the assumption that the concerned strata are seperated by hundreds of thousands of years.

2) In respponse to Geode's statement that creationists acknowledge the "unifying theory" of plate tectonics, when it was in fact originally proposed by Antonio Snider in the 1800's, based on the flood geology.

In 1859 Antonio Snider proposed that rapid, horizontal divergence of crustal plates occurred during Noah’s Flood. Modern plate tectonics theory is now conflated with assumptions of uniformity of rate and ideas of continental “drift.” Catastrophic plate tectonics theories, such as Snider proposed more than a century ago, appear capable of explaining a wide variety of data—including biblical and geologic data which the slow tectonics theories are incapable of explaining. We would like to propose a catastrophic plate tectonics theory as a framework for Earth history. Antonio Schneider


3) In response to the suggestion that the catastrophic plate tectonics must be intitiated by miracles. Here is a preliminary response--first of all, talkorigins where this statement came from....

The main difficulty of this theory is that it admittedly doesn’t work without miracles. [Baumgardner, 1990a, 1990b]  The thermal diffusivity of the earth, for example, would have to increase 10,000 fold to get the subduction rates proposed [Matsumura, 1997. (National Center for Science Education, a pretentiously named organization totally devoted to promoting evolution.  Its roots are firmly in atheistic humanism)], and miracles are also necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.”


There are many questions raised concerning the ark, care of the animals, and the flood, which would are on this page, all from the same bunch-- "National Center for Science Education, a pretentiously named organization totally devoted to promoting evolution. Its roots are firmly in atheistic humanism" . Would they not also deny the ressurection of Jesus Christ, the parting of the Red Sea, creative fiat, the miracles performed by the apostles.

And believers listen to this bunch, which reveal their atheistic faith, as well as their naturalistic philosophy. As though a worldwide flood, the creation, or the ressuredtion would be anything BESIDES a miracle.

One thing I would like to say. None of the strata can tell us the scientific cause, only the effect. Unis assume they can, but if you read their abstracts, most of them are intermingled with dogmatic geotime scenario, in the same sentences with hard field data.

My point is this. If I know someone who could not walk, and he is raised up in Jesus Name, I can not understand the scientific cause for the healing, but I do see the effect. And the effect leaves evidence that I can see. Because I have seen this very thing happen in Africa.

It is the same thing with the flood and the ark. A very simple question. The ark had one window. How did the sewage fumes not kill everything on the ark? Because the Bible does not give every explanation (as it is a book revealing God's plan of redemption through time, not a science or engineering book) does this mean these things were not dealt with by an omniscient GOD? A miracle would have been required. Like hibernation--would this have been a problem for GOD? It comes down to whether you BELIEVE in GOD. If he brought the animals--even carnivous animals, then He was in control. No amount of scientific reasoning can bring two tigers to volutarily enter a boat.

To shew the testimony of Genesis away, because it requires miracles--well, then you have to rule out the ENTIRE Bible--because it is FULL of miracles.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users