One creationist claims that there has not been an ice age, others claim that the flood caused an Ice Age of about 700 years duration.
Conventional science claims that over 20 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years. If you are a YEC, do you believe that there was an ice age? Why was it not mentioned in the Bible?
Edited for typo
The Ice Age(s)
Moderator: Moderators
-
McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
The Ice Age(s)
Post #1Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
Post #11
JC
The fact is we are in an ice age right now. For most of the Earths history there was no permanent ice in the northern hemisphere. Semi-tropical forrests existed as far north as New York, temperate forrests as far north as Nome. Fossil evidence shows dinosaurs adapted to low light conditions(large eyes, turbolators in nasal cavities for heat retention) lived above the Artic Circle. Temperatures all over the Earth were 5 to 7 degrees higher avg. resulting in tropical temps where we now call temperate, temperate where we now have permifrost, and permafrost where we now have artic and very little sea ice at the pole. This has historically been the norm. Sea levels were 200 to 300 ft higher and an inland sea existed where the Mississippi is now with marine reptiles and ancient sharks swimming above where Kansas is now. Of course this was 70 million years before Neaderthal Noah came along.
Grumpy 8)
Typical of yec thought, misuse evidence that can be twisted to fit, ignore all evidence invalidating the preconcieved outcome. This is why creationism, in all it's forms and whatever it's source, is not valid science.Since I'm neither a geophysicist, hydrologist or meteorologist, you and Michael Oard will just have to get together sometime in order to resolve your scientific differences. Meantime, the evidence for at least one recent Ice Age is enough for me and I'm not looking forward to any more.
The fact is we are in an ice age right now. For most of the Earths history there was no permanent ice in the northern hemisphere. Semi-tropical forrests existed as far north as New York, temperate forrests as far north as Nome. Fossil evidence shows dinosaurs adapted to low light conditions(large eyes, turbolators in nasal cavities for heat retention) lived above the Artic Circle. Temperatures all over the Earth were 5 to 7 degrees higher avg. resulting in tropical temps where we now call temperate, temperate where we now have permifrost, and permafrost where we now have artic and very little sea ice at the pole. This has historically been the norm. Sea levels were 200 to 300 ft higher and an inland sea existed where the Mississippi is now with marine reptiles and ancient sharks swimming above where Kansas is now. Of course this was 70 million years before Neaderthal Noah came along.
Grumpy 8)
Post #12
Scientific arguments are open to lay understanding. I'd say that more than enough fatal objections have been made about Oard's claims that even a layperson can see they are without much scientific merit. You might need to be a "geophysicist, hydrologist or meteorologist" to recognize and refute these claims (in part because his mistakes rely on appealing to a layperson s lack of understanding and habit of being dazzled by fact they can't immediately look up or understand), but thankfuly there have been many geophysicists, hydrologists and meteorologists who have recognized the flaws in his case and have pointed them out for all to see in plain enough language that all can understand.jcrawford wrote:Since I'm neither a geophysicist, hydrologist or meteorologist, you and Michael Oard will just have to get together sometime in order to resolve your scientific differences. Meantime, the evidence for at least one recent Ice Age is enough for me and I'm not looking forward to any more.Jose wrote:Well, jcrawford. I won't respond to everything you've said. I'm simply too wordy, and I don't want to drive everyone bonkers. I will, however, rise to your bait about good ol' Oard being able to explain ice ages. I'd hoped you'd do it, so I could get it in a concise and understandable way, but alas... so, I looked up some stuff. .........
As far as I can see, Oard's model fails several critical tests, and is incapable of explaining ice ages.
If you claim that Oord's arguments are too complicated to be evaluated by yourself or others, or discussed here, then it was wrong of you to cite them in the first place. Either you understand them or you don't: saying that the mere fact that someone is making arguments for YEC is enough to satisfy you only demonstrates that you are not actually interested in what the evidence shows in the first place: just looking for political cover to declare victory without ever confronting the implications of your claims.
