The "ice age"

[Knupfer]

Since Satan is the ruler of the air and his job is to keep people from God, then most of the world will buy into Satan's delusions. Another delusion is that of an ice age.

 

Why did this ridiculous theory come into place to begin with? The answer is easy; to try to prove the bible wrong. But the problem is, that in order to prove the bible wrong, one must again, make up his own history, a history which is not only bizarre and impossible, but which NO ONE in the past can verify.

 

Louis Agassiz first came up with this ridiculous theory when he noticed some rocks in the northern plains not indigenous to that area. So how did they get there? The most obvious and rational explanation is a global flood which, incidentally, is verified by the accounts of over 200 ancient cultures. But that would verify the bible so he can't say that. Instead, he put his own slant on it and claimed that FROZEN water once covered the earth.

 

What Agassiz neglected was the fact that in order for the earth to be covered by frozen water, there first had to be water that covered the earth because ice is of course, frozen water...unless, the ice, just came down from the the heavens in the form of snow and/or freezing rain which melted because the temps raised for a few months to melt the snow and then dipped back below freezing a few months later to freeze the melted snow into ice.

 

Of course there are zero ancient accounts of this convoluted scenario, but who cares? Since in the scientific world, the imagination is considered evidence, let's keep imagining some more.

 

So an ice age would mean that even south of the equator, the temps all stayed below freezing for millions of years, then one day, they popped back up to above normal and melted all the ice. But the temps north of the equator still remained below freezing for...let's say, millions of years...no, hundreds of thousands of years...no, actually, as long as we're imagining, let's go back to millions of years. yeah, that sounds better. Maybe we should take a vote and the majority wins.

 

So the vote is, let's say, 50 to 49 that the water melted south or the border first. We'll pick a nice round number and claim that 2 million years later, the temps began to rise north of the equator because of "global warming". But suddenly, the temps stopped so that man could exist on the earth. Boy, that was convenient! we lucked out there.

 

So why did the whole earth which was supposedly hot after the "Big Bang" suddenly plunge into sub-freezing temperatures and then just...well...rise again so that man could exist on earth? The answer is easy; because in the imagination, anything's possible.

[insane_alien]

Why did this ridiculous theory come into place to begin with? The answer is easy; to try to prove the bible wrong.

 

it had nothing to do with the bible, it was to explain observations.

 

But the problem is, that in order to prove the bible wrong, one must again, make up his own history, a history which is not only bizarre and impossible, but which NO ONE in the past can verify.

 

you mean like the bible did? the bible contradicts its own history, it is not the be all and end all of correctness you know. it wasn't even written as a historical document but rather a book to teach people morals. much like Aesops fables.

 

Louis Agassiz first came up with this ridiculous theory when he noticed some rocks in the northern plains not indigenous to that area.

 

more than that, there are U shaped valleys which cannot be explained by water erosion but are seen where glaciers are. this indicates that it was a glacier that caused them, U shaped vallies are also absent at latitudes close to the equator except in regions of high altitude where glaciers could form and are still there.

 

So how did they get there? The most obvious and rational explanation is a global flood which, incidentally, is verified by the accounts of over 200 ancient cultures.

 

not all cultures and they disagree on the dates, also the rocks show no sign of extensive water erosion which would be present if they were moved by a flood.

 

But that would verify the bible so he can't say that. Instead, he put his own slant on it and claimed that FROZEN water once covered the earth.

 

science cares little for the bible. it is neither factually correct or even relevant to the topic.

 

What Agassiz neglected was the fact that in order for the earth to be covered by frozen water, there first had to be water that covered the earth because ice is of course, frozen water...unless, the ice, just came down from the the heavens in the form of snow and/or freezing rain which melted because the temps raised for a few months to melt the snow and then dipped back below freezing a few months later to freeze the melted snow into ice.

 

well, it does snow in places, and if its cold enough the snow doesn't fully melt in the summer so builds up and forms glaciers, i mean, just a crazy idea here, it could have been the slow and steady accumulation over thousands of years as temperatures gradually fell which also lowered the level of the oceans as that was where the water was coming from. the lowering of the oceans led people to move with it so we see settlements that are underwater today but were quite far inland during the iceage. IIRC there are a lot off the coast of the uk.

 

Of course there are zero ancient accounts of this convoluted scenario, but who cares? Since in the scientific world, the imagination is considered evidence, let's keep imagining some more.[.quote]

 

yes zero human accounts. because we didn't have a robust method of recording events, there was really only word of mouth. BUT we have found other evidence that doesn't depend on humans knowing about it. we have the fact that we have dug up people from that period who have lots of heavy cold weather clothing at latitudes far lower than you would expect, mammoths in areas where they should have died for over heating and geological evidences such as scotland rising due to the lack of the weight of ice and england sinking as the rock springs back.

 

So an ice age would mean that even south of the equator, the temps all stayed below freezing for millions of years,

 

well the equator tends to be the warmest part and the temperature falls off towards the poles, south of the equator has the coldest place on earth today.

 

then one day, they popped back up to above normal and melted all the ice. But the temps north of the equator still remained below freezing for...let's say, millions of years...no, hundreds of thousands of years...no, actually, as long as we're imagining, let's go back to millions of years. yeah, that sounds better. Maybe we should take a vote and the majority wins.

 

it was not a sudden thing like you imply, in fact, we are still warming up and have not reached the equilibrium temperature yet.

 

So the vote is, let's say, 50 to 49 that the water melted south or the border first. We'll pick a nice round number and claim that 2 million years later, the temps began to rise north of the equator because of "global warming". But suddenly, the temps stopped so that man could exist on the earth. Boy, that was convenient! we lucked out there.

 

truth is not a democracy.

 

So why did the whole earth which was supposedly hot after the "Big Bang" suddenly plunge into sub-freezing temperatures and then just...well...rise again so that man could exist on earth? The answer is easy; because in the imagination, anything's possible.

 

it was not the big band that caused the earth to be hot in its inital formation, it was the fact it was formed by rocks slamming into each other.

 

the iceages were not sudden and they have been happening in cycles for millions of years. we suspect it has to do with a combination of solar activity and the earths orbit.

[Knupfer]

had nothing to do with the bible, it was to explain observations.

 

Sorry but ice doesn't carry objects from one area to another one. Water does. So why do scientists dismiss the flood when water is a better explanation and over 200 ancient people have passed along accounts of a flood and NO ONE has passed along an account of a global ice age? The answer is easy; because it's in the bible.

 

you mean like the bible did? the bible contradicts its own history, it is not the be all and end all of correctness you know. it wasn't even written as a historical document but rather a book to teach people morals. much like Aesops fables.

 

Sorry but unless you even know what happened in history, then you cannot claim that the bible contradicts history. And that's of course why you didn't list a specific part of history that you claim the bible contradicts.

 

more than that, there are U shaped valleys which cannot be explained by water erosion but are seen where glaciers are. this indicates that it was a glacier that caused them, U shaped vallies are also absent at latitudes close to the equator except in regions of high altitude where glaciers could form and are still there.

 

 

That's like looking at trees in a forest and claiming that the earth was once covered in trees. :rolleyes:There are many reasons for valleys which could have been caused by any number of things including the fact that they could have been created that way! So imagining what could have happened based on an observation is called speculation, not science. But speculating impossible things that no one has ever witnessed belongs in the realm of science fiction not science. Sorry.

[insane_alien]

Sorry but ice doesn't carry objects from one area to another one. Water does. So why do scientists dismiss the flood when water is a better explanation and over 200 ancient people have passed along accounts of a flood and NO ONE has passed along an account of a global ice age? The answer is easy; because it's in the bible.

 

look at what glaciers do. they are made of ice, they move. they move rocks, planes, people, anything thats on or in them.

 

oh and just because you cannot imagine something does not make it correct. it is perfectly plausible that an event that happened 12000 years ago has slipped out of human culture. mainly because it would consist of, 'yeah it was freezing a few hundred generations ago and its a bit warmer now' hardly an enthraling story compared to that really huge bear they killed a few summers ago.

 

Sorry but unless you even know what happened in history, then you cannot claim that the bible contradicts history. And that's of course why you didn't list a specific part of history that you claim the bible contradicts.

 

i didn't list them because its basically everything. it doesn't even agree with itself on when jesus was born. or what age he was when he died. or even who was king of certain times. records by historians at that time agree on who was king at that time.

 

That's like looking at trees in a forest and claiming that the earth was once covered in trees. :rolleyes:There are many reasons for valleys which could have been caused by any number of things including the fact that they could have been created that way! So imagining what could have happened based on an observation is called speculation, not science. But speculating impossible things that no one has ever witnessed belongs in the realm of science fiction not science. Sorry.

 

there is more to it than that as we can observe the valleys forming TODAY. there is no evidence of creation so don't bring it up.

The most likely method of formation is glacial erosion. it fits with the other evidence and fits processes we see happening today.

[swansont]

Sorry but ice doesn't carry objects from one area to another one.

 

What a steaming load of untruth. This has been observed many times.

 

"The wreckage became incorporated into the body of the glacier, with fragments emerging many years later and much farther down the mountain. From 1998 to 2000, about ten percent of the wreckage, including engine and propeller parts and the wheels (one with its tire still inflated), emerged from the glacier, prompting several re-examinations of the accident. More debris is likely to emerge as the glacier melts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STENDEC

 

Moved by the ice.

 

Learn some science, please. Because this is a farce — making bald assertions and spouting logical fallacies is no way to go through life.

 

Since Satan is the ruler of the air and his job is to keep people from God, then most of the world will buy into Satan's delusions. Another delusion is that of an ice age.

 

This is a science site. You are expected to back up assertions with evidence that meets the common standards. Appeals to religion do not meet these standards.

[Knupfer]

look at what glaciers do. they are made of ice, they move. they move rocks, planes, people, anything thats on or in them.

 

Glaciers can only move when they are on top of water. Otherwise they're frozen solid. So only when ice melts into water, can objects embedded in ice move. So it's water that transports objects from one area to another, not ice. Does anyone here even think? So again, instead of going with ancient accounts, scientists make up even more convoluted and impossible stories like claiming that ice moved the rocks.

 

So if this is a science forum, all you people have shown is that scientists not only know nothing about basic biology but they have no clue about geography either. Unbelievable.

[insane_alien]

go to youtube, search 'time-lapse glacier' they're solid, they move.

[SkepticLance]

knupfer will not be convinced by science, since it is blind faith in religious texts that means everything to this guy.

 

I have been down this road before with other people. A certain creationist of my acquaintance claims tha the world is less than 10,000 years old. I showed this woman evidence from tree rings showing annual rings going back 50,000 years. I showed her evidence from alpine lakes, showing annual sedimentation layers going back much further. I showed her glacial annual deposition layers going back several million years. Nothing so much as scratched the surface of her certainty.

 

Knupfer will be the same. Mere evidence will not do it, so we should simply ignore him.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Glaciers can only move when they are on top of water. Otherwise they're frozen solid. So only when ice melts into water, can objects embedded in ice move. So it's water that transports objects from one area to another, not ice. Does anyone here even think? So again, instead of going with ancient accounts, scientists make up even more convoluted and impossible stories like claiming that ice moved the rocks.

 

Generally speaking, you'll find that it's possible for glaciers to have small amounts of water underneath them, either because the pressure melts the water or because it's just warmer down there on the ground. (You'll notice that streams and lakes freeze from the top down.)

 

Also, the sheer pressure from the weight of the glacier can break the intermolecular bonds between layers of water molecules, allowing the glacier to move.

[JohnB]

Since Satan is the ruler of the air and his job is to keep people from God, then most of the world will buy into Satan's delusions.

Since the OP starts with a blatantly religious tone, why is the thread even open?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Good point.