You did not explain why the earth would be cold for hundreds of thousands of years.Ã‚Â What would trigger such a continuous condition?Ã‚Â The only thing wwe can compare it to is the poles, but not CANADA.Ã‚Â 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.
Ã‚Â So you see, the uniform/actualist picture has some of it's own unbelievable story to explain.Ã‚Â 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.Ã‚Â I do.
Concerning your allusion to "40 days."Ã‚Â Catastrophic plate tectonics has the ocean floor raising by heat and lower density.Ã‚Â As well as runaway subduction which has been to shown to work mathematically on Baumgardner's TERRA--a program respected by geophysicists.Ã‚Â
Forty days of rain alone couldn't produce the ice sheet.Ã‚Â That would be completely correct.Ã‚Â But the historical account in Genesis does not report only rain--it reports catastrophic tectonics.Ã‚Â
The "fountains"Ã‚Â could well be both water and lava, which does not contradict many formations.Ã‚Â The "broken up" tells how this happened. It just didn't "shoot out" of the mantle.Ã‚Â 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.Ã‚Â Magma would have met water causing "fountains of the deep."Ã‚Â 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.Ã‚Â These are ocean sediments, and have many evidences of turbidity, transport, and rapid deposition (e.g. fossils).Ã‚Â The unis have hijacked this evidence and reinterpreted it with their own scenarios.Ã‚Â These scenarios seem scientific because they use the present to understand the past.Ã‚Â But this is the grand assumption of uniformintarianism--"the present is the key to the past."
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 donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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 donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think your comment about Ã¢â‚¬Å“saying it happened and leave itÃ¢â‚¬Â is a fair one in context of the thread. You have not given a Ã¢â‚¬Å“viable mechanism to get it thereÃ¢â‚¬Â 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:
Ã¢â‚¬ÂOne 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.Ã¢â‚¬Â 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.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“The main difficulty of this theory is that it admittedly doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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.Ã‚Â 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.Ã¢â‚¬Â
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 7:11-12Ã‚Â
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 donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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."Ã‚Â
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.