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

#1 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 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 12 November 2010 - 08:05 AM

I have read that hippos, mammoths and tropical plants lived fairly far north (like England) during the ice age and therefore the climate was mild with no permafrost.

What does the evidence say?

#2 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 12 November 2010 - 10:36 AM

I have read that hippos, mammoths and tropical plants lived fairly far north (like England) during the ice age and therefore the climate was mild with no permafrost.

What does the evidence say?

View Post


I think it is time to define "The Ice Age"...since there have been multiple ice ages in earth history. These are more correctly termed a glacial age. In The Pleistocene there were multiple glacial periods separated by interglacial periods. When one simply says "The Age Age" it generally mean the last glacial period. To be honest I do not know what creationists think about ice ages. I do know you claimed that The Ice Age followed The Flood.

I would say that the evidence of finding hippos, mammoths and plants generally adapted to warmer climates in England would indicate that they lived in one of the interglacial periods, and not during the last glacial period sometimes called "The Ice Age."

But since creationists tend to not count age dating techniques other than the use of the Bible's historical records, all of earth history is telescoped down into 10,000 years making dinosaurs living with men seem reasonable to them, etc. I would guess that fossil hippos would be treated much the same, with little regard to the geological evidence of glaciation and other means of calibrating average temperatures and the extent of ice to the faunas that existed. But the bottom line is since the Bible does not mention anything that sounds like a glacial age, why claim that one followed The Flood?

#3 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 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 12 November 2010 - 11:27 AM

But since creationists tend to not count age dating techniques other than the use of the Bible's historical records, all of earth history is telescoped down into 10,000 years making dinosaurs living with men seem reasonable to them, etc. I would guess that fossil hippos would be treated much the same, with little regard to the geological evidence of glaciation and other means of calibrating average temperatures and the extent of ice to the faunas that existed.

View Post

That is what I suspected, so I was looking forward to hearing some thoughts on this.

#4 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 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 12 November 2010 - 03:46 PM

Okay, weren't there areas that were never glaciated, or were only glaciated for short times at the end?

I see no reason for there to be multiple ice ages. There is evidence that one glacier can provide the evidence that is used to assume that there were many. I will have to find some more on this as the exact wording escapes me.

#5 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 12 November 2010 - 11:59 PM

Okay, weren't there areas that were never glaciated, or were only glaciated for short times at the end?

I see no reason for there to be multiple ice ages. There is evidence that one glacier can provide the evidence that is used to assume that there were many. I will have to find some more on this as the exact wording escapes me.

View Post


I think you are focusing on "The Ice Age" of the Pleistocene when in fact all areas were not glaciated, or were glaciated and then had the ice cover melt only to be covered in ice yet again. Each event left evidence in the rock record and in the ice record where it is continuous such as in Antarrtica.

There are various lines of evidence showing multiple periods of glaciation such as striations in rocks, tillites and moraines. There is geologic evidence of such periods before the Pleistocene.

There is no reason to invoke multiple glacial periods if you reject the evidence that shows multiple events, but it does in fact exist. If you assume that all the rocks containing such evidence were created in The Flood you only have to accept one glacial event. But even in doing this I cannot see how it can be claimed that "The Ice Age" followed The Flood, when evidence of glaciation is shown in rocks that were deposited before rocks that are cited as being created during the flood.

#6 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 14 November 2010 - 04:44 PM

Each event left evidence in the rock record and in the ice record where it is continuous such as in Antarrtica.


Perhaps you should look at some of the evidence that suggest the ice record isn't more than a few thousand years old.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=60481

There are various lines of evidence showing multiple periods of glaciation such as striations in rocks, tillites and moraines. There is geologic evidence of such periods before the Pleistocene


Those striations inidicated that the entire earth was frozen during the precambrian. Too much other evidence suggest that earth was warm during this time, so creationists such as Mike Oard suggest that they are actually striations form submarine landslides and not an ice age. especially since the debris pile (Moraines) are below cap carbonates that only form in warm conditions.

Hoffman and Schrag state the significance of such an abrupt transition to the cap carbonates:

‘But the transition from glacial deposits to these “cap” carbonates is abrupt and lacks evidence that significant time passed between when the glaciers dropped their last loads and when the carbonates formed.’




http://www.answersin...i1/snowball.asp - 43k



Enjoy.

#7 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 14 November 2010 - 05:09 PM

I have read that hippos, mammoths and tropical plants lived fairly far north (like England) during the ice age and therefore the climate was mild with no permafrost.

What does the evidence say?

View Post


I don't know about during the ice-age, but there is evidence of plants and animals living in the arctic circle (Northern Russia), no more than 20,000 years ago according to conventional dating. Which means, the ice sheets in Greenland can't be hundreds of thousands of years old. If the climate was that warm (~5 degrees warmer than today), then the ice sheets would have melted.

And, this problem isn't limited to the Hypsithermal period. Speaking of the area between Siberia and Alaska as well as the Yukon Territory of Canada Zazula et al said, "[This region] must have been covered with vegetation even during the coldest part of the most recent ice age (some 24,000 years ago) because it supported large populations of woolly mammoth, horses, bison and other mammals during a time of extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."

Grant D. Zazula, Duane G. Froese, Charles E. Schweger, Rolf W. Mathewes, Alwynne B. Beaudoin, Alice M. Telka, C. Richard Harington, John A Westgate, "Palaeobotany: Ice-age steppe vegetation in east Beringia", Nature 423, 603 (05 June 2003) ( http://www.sfu.ca/~qgrc/zazula _2003b.pdf )

I don't get it? Was it much warmer than today all the way around the Arctic Circle, everywhere, and still cold in Greenland? How is such a feat achieved?

As far as your "other lines of evidence" they all seem shaky to me in comparison to the overwhelming evidence of warm-weather plants and animals living within the Arctic Circle within the last 20kyr or so.




Enjoy.

#8 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 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 14 November 2010 - 06:56 PM

I don't know about during the ice-age, but there is evidence of plants and animals living in the arctic circle (Northern Russia), no more than 20,000 years ago according to conventional dating. Which means, the ice sheets in Greenland can't be hundreds of thousands of years old. If the climate was that warm (~5 degrees warmer than today), then the ice sheets would have melted.
Enjoy.

View Post

Thank you Jason!

because it supported large populations of woolly mammoth, horses, bison and other mammals during a time of extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."

Yes! Mammals that would not have been walking around on permafrost.

Of course, Michael Oard has a theory that has glaciers forming while other areas remain warm, due to a warm ocean temperature. :P

#9 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 16 November 2010 - 03:34 AM

But since creationists tend to not count age dating techniques other than the use of the Bible's historical records, all of earth history is telescoped down into 10,000 years making dinosaurs living with men seem reasonable to them, etc.


I think that is a very narrow and unfair statement considering creationist believers have differing opinions on the age of the earth and its history.

#10 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 16 November 2010 - 04:42 AM

I think that is a very narrow and unfair statement considering creationist believers have differing opinions on the age of the earth and its history.

View Post


I guess it depends on your definition of "creationist"....yes, there are "old earth creationists" but judging from the people that post on this forum that accept the title "creationist" the vast majority hold to the time frame I indicated. I think my statement was very fair keeping that in mind, and the fact that I did use the word "tend" .....which does not indicate that there are some who think differently.

#11 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 16 November 2010 - 05:05 AM

Each event left evidence in the rock record and in the ice record where it is continuous such as in Antarrtica.


Perhaps you should look at some of the evidence that suggest the ice record isn't more than a few thousand years old.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=60481

Those striations inidicated that the entire earth was frozen during the precambrian. Too much other evidence suggest that earth was warm during this time, so creationists such as Mike Oard suggest that they are actually striations form submarine landslides and not an ice age. especially since the debris pile (Moraines) are below cap carbonates that only form in warm conditions.

Hoffman and Schrag state the significance of such an abrupt transition to the cap carbonates:

‘But the transition from glacial deposits to these “cap” carbonates is abrupt and lacks evidence that significant time passed between when the glaciers dropped their last loads and when the carbonates formed.’

http://www.answersin...i1/snowball.asp - 43k
Enjoy.

View Post


As an earth scientist I have an interest in most aspects of the earth's history and I have looked at what evidence I have found published in various articles. But I cannot see how anything you have offered here really counters the statement of mine that you have quoted. The first evidence you have given here really is not about ice ages, but differing opinions about climatology, global warming and melting of ice in Greenland that has occured long after the dated geologic evidence of the last glacial period. Then there is a dialogue between two individuals with no real expertise in the subject at hand, and no relevent creditionals that have differences of opinion on said subject. This really is a side-show to meaningful discussion in my opinion. But even if taken as something worthy of scientific consideration (it really isn't since in my opinion it is only the opinions of two people like you and me that are not doing research in this field of study but simply taking the parts from other people's studies that they like) their comments do not address what I posted, and most certainly provide no evidence "that suggest the ice record isn't more than a few thousand years old"...

On to your next line of evidence. The AIG piece is rather a basic re-telling of the criticisms of "Snowball Earth" with nothing really startling or new. I am also skeptical that ice covered the entire surface of the planet. But what it does not do is provide evidence that there was not a glacial period in the Precambrian. It also does not address glacial events in rocks of later ages, but less that the last glacial event. The criticisms of "Snowball Earth" do not apply at all to later glacial events.

I stand by what I wrote.

#12 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 18 November 2010 - 10:14 PM

I think it is time to define "The Ice Age"...since there have been multiple ice ages in earth history. These are more correctly termed a glacial age. In The Pleistocene there were multiple glacial periods separated by interglacial periods. When one simply says "The Age Age" it generally mean the last glacial period. To be honest I do not know what creationists think about ice ages. I do know you claimed that The Ice Age followed The Flood.

I would say that the evidence of finding  hippos, mammoths and plants generally adapted to warmer climates in England would indicate that they lived in one of the interglacial periods, and not during the last glacial period sometimes called "The Ice Age."

But since creationists tend to not count age dating techniques other than the use of the Bible's historical records, all of earth history is telescoped down into 10,000 years making dinosaurs living with men seem reasonable to them, etc. I would guess that fossil hippos would be treated much the same, with little regard to the geological evidence of glaciation and other means of calibrating average temperatures and the extent of ice to the faunas that existed. But the bottom line is since the Bible does not mention anything that sounds like a glacial age, why claim that one followed The Flood?

View Post


I will be honest that I have not read alot on the ice ageS. I am interested as to what was the mechanism of 1500-3000 meter ice sheets covering Canada. This supposedly caused the oceans to recede. http://en.wikipedia....iki/Pleistocene

But what was the mechanism? That would have required alot of water. How did it get from the ocean to land?

If it was snow, then 1500 (the lowest range given) meters is app. 58000 inches. And to simplify it we will say the ice sheets were uncompacted snow. I am from Illinois--a good blizzard of very hard snow will leave 6 to 8 inches of snow in one night--say 12 hours. Let's make it 12 inches. An inch per hour. So we can say that an extremely hard blizzard that lasted 58000 hours or nearly the equivalent of 7 years of snowing hours (blizzard).

Now lets just take Canada, since that is what all the models show. The entire conrtinent. Canada is 3.85 million sq mls. So 3.85 x 10^6 sq mls or 8.59 x 10^12 squ meters times 1500 meters = 129.85 x 10^14 cubic meters. That is app. 130 quadrillion cubic meters of snow

Whether this accumulated over many years or continuously makes no difference. It is still the same amount of water. Why would the temperature have dropped, and what caused it to drop for so long with no summers in the respective hemispheres?

And if you had summers, it would have still been very hard, extremely large (over a vast area) blizzards--the likes of which we have never seen. This would seem to defy unifromintarian thinking--and would put theses\ kinds of blizzards on cataclysmic scales--wouldn't you agree?

So if this is so, why is it so easy to reject 40 days of hard catastrophic rain and the fountains of the great deep being broken up causing the sea floors to rise and advancing the oceans over the continents?

#13 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 21 November 2010 - 05:32 PM

Hi Geode,

As an earth scientist I have an interest in most aspects of the earth's history and I have looked at what evidence I have found published in various articles. But I cannot see how anything you have offered here really counters the statement of mine that you have quoted. The first evidence you have given here really is not about ice ages, but differing opinions about climatology, global warming and melting of ice in Greenland that has occured long after the dated geologic evidence of the last glacial period.


Actually, the point was that there is good evidence that there was only one iceage, given the fact that the Greenland ice sheets couldn't have lasted through the Hypsithermal period when the global temperatures were ~5 degrees warmer than today.

On to your next line of evidence. The AIG piece is rather a basic re-telling of the criticisms of "Snowball Earth" with nothing really startling or new. I am also skeptical that ice covered the entire surface of the planet. But what it does not do is provide evidence that there was not a glacial period in the Precambrian. It also does not address glacial events in rocks of later ages, but less that the last glacial event. The criticisms of "Snowball Earth" do not apply at all to later glacial events.


The main point of the paper is the fact that striations in rocks are likely from landslides and not glaciers. The precambrian striations being global, is what we would expect if the crust of the earth was fractured during the fountains of the great deep bursting forth. That would cause massive heat from friction and produce the cap carbonates and increase the global precipitation rates, which is the only known mechanism for an iceage to start with.




Thanks.

#14 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 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 22 November 2010 - 10:59 AM

Thanks for participating in my thread!

How many ice ages from http://www.answersin...oes-ice-age-fit

Still, there is the claim of many ice ages. Most formerly glaciated areas show evidence for only one ice age, and a substantial amount of information indicates only one ice age.12 The idea of multiple ice ages is essentially a uniformitarian assumption. Today this idea is strongly based on oxygen isotope ratios from seafloor sediments.

Areas that appear to have evidence of more than one ice age can be reinterpreted to be the deposits from one ice sheet that advanced and retreated over a short period. The more modern understanding of glacial activity indicates that ice sheets are very dynamic. We do not need 100,000 years for each ice age or 2.5 million years for multiple ice ages.


Uniformitarian scientists claim to be able to count annual layers in the Greenland ice sheet to determine its age, in the same way people can count tree rings.

These annual layers, however, are indistinguishable from a new storm system, according to Michael Oard, a specialist in Atmospheric Science.

#15 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 04 December 2010 - 03:52 AM

I will be honest that I have not read alot on the ice ageS.  I am interested as to what was the mechanism of 1500-3000 meter ice sheets covering Canada.  This supposedly caused the oceans to recede.  http://en.wikipedia....iki/Pleistocene

But what was the mechanism? That would have required alot of water.  How did it get from the ocean to land?

If it was snow, then 1500 (the lowest range given)  meters is app. 58000 inches. And to simplify it we will say the ice sheets were uncompacted snow.  I am from Illinois--a good blizzard of very hard snow will leave 6 to 8 inches of snow in one night--say 12 hours.  Let's make it 12 inches.  An inch per hour.  So we can say that an extremely hard blizzard that lasted 58000 hours or nearly the equivalent of 7 years of snowing hours (blizzard).

Now lets just take Canada, since that is what all the models show.  The entire conrtinent.  Canada is 3.85 million sq mls.  So 3.85 x 10^6 sq mls or 8.59 x 10^12 squ meters times 1500 meters = 129.85 x 10^14 cubic meters.  That is app. 130 quadrillion cubic meters of snow

Whether this accumulated over many years or continuously makes no difference.  It is still the same amount of water.  Why would the temperature have dropped, and what caused it to drop for so long with no summers in the respective hemispheres?

And if you had summers, it would have still been very hard, extremely large (over a vast area) blizzards--the likes of which we have never seen.  This would seem to defy unifromintarian thinking--and would put theses\ kinds of blizzards on cataclysmic scales--wouldn't you agree?

So if this is so, why is it so easy to reject 40 days of hard catastrophic rain and the fountains of the great deep being broken up causing the sea floors to rise and advancing the oceans over the continents?

View Post


Th amount of water in any given unit of ice is far greater than that of a volume of snow.

Accumulation of ice over tens or hundreds of thousandfs of years is in teh same league as something dramatic happening in 40 days. I don't think a comparison can be made.

#16 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 04 December 2010 - 04:12 AM

(Geode)"As an earth scientist I have an interest in most aspects of the earth's history and I have looked at what evidence I have found published in various articles. But I cannot see how anything you have offered here really counters the statement of mine that you have quoted. The first evidence you have given here really is not about ice ages, but differing opinions about climatology, global warming and melting of ice in Greenland that has occured long after the dated geologic evidence of the last glacial period."

Actually, the point was that there is good evidence that there was only one iceage, given the fact that the Greenland ice sheets couldn't have lasted through the Hypsithermal period when the global temperatures were ~5 degrees warmer than today.


Once again, speculation about Greenland ice sheets following the last glacial period do not to me offer any evidence that there was only one such period. There is evidence of glacial periods when Greenland was not in its present location.


"On to your next line of evidence. The AIG piece is rather a basic re-telling of the criticisms of "Snowball Earth" with nothing really startling or new. I am also skeptical that ice covered the entire surface of the planet. But what it does not do is provide evidence that there was not a glacial period in the Precambrian. It also does not address glacial events in rocks of later ages, but less that the last glacial event. The criticisms of "Snowball Earth" do not apply at all to later glacial events."

The main point of the paper is the fact that striations in rocks are likely from landslides and not glaciers. The precambrian striations being global, is what we would expect if the crust of the earth was fractured during the fountains of the great deep bursting forth. That would cause massive heat from friction and produce the cap carbonates and increase the global precipitation rates, which is the only known mechanism for an iceage to start with.


I can't see how striations can be the main point of the paper. I don't think I saw any reference to them at all within it. I also don't think Precambian striations are found with all outcrops of Precambrian rocks. How does massive heat create carbonate rocks? Are increased precipitation rates what causes an "ice age"...." I don't think so. It is a matter of temperatures not precipitation rates.

#17 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 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 04 December 2010 - 04:30 PM

Are increased precipitation rates what causes an "ice age"...." I don't think so. It is a matter of temperatures not precipitation rates.

View Post

It is both. You need temperatures low enough for the snow to remain over the summer rather than all melting (and that temperature can actually be above freezing at times depending on how much snow accumulates to begin with), and you need an increase in precipitation so that it can accumulate to begin with. There are very very cold areas that are considered deserts. They are not forming glaciers because they do not have enough precipitation.

#18 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 04 December 2010 - 07:23 PM

It is both. You need temperatures low enough for the snow to remain over the summer rather than all melting (and that temperature can actually be above freezing at times depending on how much snow accumulates to begin with), and you need an increase in precipitation so that it can accumulate to begin with. There are very very cold areas that are considered deserts. They are not forming glaciers because they do not have enough precipitation.

View Post


I disagree. I know there are various opinions on the subject, but it is possible to accumulate more ice with existing precipitation rates before such a glacial period starts just by lowering temperatures. There can be very cold areas that are by definition deserts even in a glacial age that will not be a place that glaciers form. Some areas that were not arid in an inter-glacial period can become arid during a glacial period with areas that were rain forests disappearing. I am sure that precipitation rates are affected by the lowered temperatures in a glacial age, but I think they can fluctuate. I still think that it is not a requirement to increase precipitation to initiate such a period, as if it was the cause. That was the idea to which I was making a reply.

#19 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 08 December 2010 - 06:29 AM

Th amount of water in any given unit of ice is far greater than that of a volume of snow.

Accumulation of ice over tens or hundreds of thousandfs of years is in teh same league as something dramatic happening in 40 days. I don't think a comparison can be made.

View Post

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."

#20 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 December 2010 - 10:18 AM

But since creationists tend to not count age dating techniques other than the use of the Bible's historical records, all of earth history is telescoped down into 10,000 years making dinosaurs living with men seem reasonable to them, etc.

View Post


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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users