Topic: Polar ice, proof of world-wide flood of Noah's day? (Read 2862 times)

Tony N · « **on:** March 02, 2006, 05:17:48 AM »

Has anyone ever wondered if the polar ice, which I believe is over two miles thick, is the result of the flood of Noah's day?

Would this ice have remained intact through the flood if it was there prior to the flood?

Since there is not enough precipitation at either the north or south poles, how did this ice, this thick, get there?

Ragnar · « **Reply #1 on:** March 02, 2006, 10:09:03 AM »

Quote from: Tony N

Has anyone ever wondered if the polar ice, which I believe is over two miles thick, is the result of the flood of Noah's day?

Would this ice have remained intact through the flood if it was there prior to the flood?

Since there is not enough precipitation at either the north or south poles, how did this ice, this thick, get there?

Umm, because it's really cold there. Even Mars has ice caps, it's not an indication of global flooding.

Tony N · « **Reply #2 on:** March 02, 2006, 12:21:09 PM »

Quote from: Ragnar

Quote from: Tony N
Has anyone ever wondered if the polar ice, which I believe is over two miles thick, is the result of the flood of Noah's day?

Would this ice have remained intact through the flood if it was there prior to the flood?

Since there is not enough precipitation at either the north or south poles, how did this ice, this thick, get there?

Umm, because it's really cold there. Even Mars has ice caps, it's not an indication of global flooding.

Ture, Ragnar, Mars does have ice caps which are very thin, about 3 to 4 feet at their thickest.
From Noah's day till today, how did ice about three miles thickness of ice get on earth's poles? It is so very cold at both the north and south ice caps that sometimes the precipitation is only about 10 inches of snow a year and 10 inches equals 1 inch or rain. Some areas are dryer than the Sahara Desert.

So how did it all get there? Someone leave a faucet on?

Ragnar · « **Reply #3 on:** March 02, 2006, 04:37:28 PM »

Your depiction is inaccurate. While it is true that most of the interior of the continent receives 10 inches a year, the coastal regions receive 20-40 inches or more. In addition, there are violent windstorms throughout the continent that blow snow, ice, and rain to all parts. Rain from more temperate areas is blown into the interior, where it freezes and becomes part of the ice. In the interior, 75 percent of the sun's radiation is reflected off the ice, so there is virtually no evaporation. In other words, the snow it does get stays there. Like I said, the place is frickin' cold. The source of my info came largely from this website: http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/weather/climate.shtml

There's a website called "Ask a scientist" or some such. Someone asked where all the ice in Antarctica came from and the answer was simply snowfall. I didn't stop with that, though, because it seemed a rather simplistic explanation. In light of the subsequently gathered statistics, however, this answer is basically correct.

I cited the source about Antarctica for my own future reference. Since it's not the bible, I don't expect you to pay much attention to it. Unlike the bible, and the numbers you pull out of your ass, the site seems to be fairly accurate.

Ragnar · « **Reply #4 on:** March 02, 2006, 04:51:43 PM »

By the way, your three miles thick comment is also inaccurate. That is the thickest the ice gets, the average is actually 7000 feet, which is about a mile and a half.

So, using a conservative estimate of 20 inches a year, or 1.66 feet a year, it would only take 4217 years to reach a thickness of 7000 feet. The continent has been in its current location for millions of years. Allowing for a slow rate of evaporation and melting into the ocean, the ice is pretty much exactly where we would expect it to be.

Once again, science triumphs over the irrationality of religion.

Tony N · « **Reply #5 on:** March 03, 2006, 09:09:33 AM »

Quote from: Ragnar

By the way, your three miles thick comment is also inaccurate. That is the thickest the ice gets, the average is actually 7000 feet, which is about a mile and a half.

So, using a conservative estimate of 20 inches a year, or 1.66 feet a year, it would only take 4217 years to reach a thickness of 7000 feet. The continent has been in its current location for millions of years. Allowing for a slow rate of evaporation and melting into the ocean, the ice is pretty much exactly where we would expect it to be.

Once again, science triumphs over the irrationality of religion.

How did all those millions of giant mastadons get stuck in that ice dying in an instant as if drowning in water then frozen?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #6 on:** March 03, 2006, 10:59:14 AM »

Quote

So, using a conservative estimate of 20 inches a year, or 1.66 feet a year, it would only take 4217 years to reach a thickness of 7000 feet. The continent has been in its current location for millions of years. Allowing for a slow rate of evaporation and melting into the ocean, the ice is pretty much exactly where we would expect it to be

What's really funny is that you can't even tell what position you've actually supported.

Ok, let's keep your statements.

A. using a conservative estimate of 20 inches a year, or 1.66 feet a year, it would only take 4217 years to reach a thickness of 7000 feet.

B. The continent has been in its current location for millions of years.

C. Allowing for a slow rate of evaporation and melting into the ocean, the ice is pretty much exactly where we would expect it to be

lol... A slow rate of evaporation? Why not give us your 'conservative' estimate here? And what is your 'conservative' estimate of ice melt? Exactly where we would expect to be? rofl

Given a A, a conservative estimate of 20 inches a year, or 1.66 feet a year, and given B, the continent being in its current location for millions of years... let's just use 2 million, the lowest possible number in order for your statement to be true... 2,000,0000*1.66 feet=3,320,000 feet, or, divided into miles ( /5,280) 628 miles worth of ice.

Exactly where we would EXPECT IT TO BE, given A and B, is 600 miles thick. However, you think you've made an argument that is a triumph of science by illustrating that the current thickness is perfectly consistent with a date less than 6,000 years... which as far as I know is an argument for quite something else! lololol

So, I only used 2 million years. The earth is alleged to be 4.5 billion years. Fossilization in sedimentary rock... I dunno.... call it only a billion years.... 1 billion times 1.66 feet a year... equals... how thick of an ice cap 'should we expect'? lol

Why don't you give us the rate of evaporation and ice melt, which apparently is going to have to be almost as fast as the ice is formed, so we can tweak your 'scientific argument' to fit what you expect.

The way I see it... you need a rate of evaporation+ice melt of 1.657 a year in order to arrive at only 4,217 feet after 2 million years (2,000,0000*1.66 feet=3,320,000; 3,320,000-4175=3315785/2,000,000=1.657).

Please... inform us... what is the actual observed rate of evaporation and ice melt?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #7 on:** March 03, 2006, 11:02:58 AM »

Tony, I'm not sure about your mastodon reference. Millions, especially, seems like an awful lot. Do you have any sources on that?

Ragnar · « **Reply #8 on:** March 03, 2006, 01:59:31 PM »

There is actually concern recently that the ice is melting too fast due to possible global warming effects - possibly faster than it forms in some places. I only searched for a few minutes, but large ice shelfs have broken off recently. It may be due to global warming, but it is also a very real possibility that this is a part of the natural cycle of Antarctica. When enough ice accumulates, it breaks off, and eventually one would expect it to melt back into the ocean.

There seem to be a number of theories about Antarctica's past, and they all work very well without resorting to young earth nonsense. These are mysteries that are not even close in scale to how life originated. I think our understanding of Antartica will increase ten fold over the next century, assuming the melting ice doesn't flood the planet by then

Tony, I am also not taking your claim of millions of frozen mastodons seriously until you provide a source. Without even bothering to research it, I'm sure there have been nowhere near that many mastodon fossils discovered.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #9 on:** March 03, 2006, 02:42:10 PM »

"There is actually concern recently that the ice is melting too fast due to possible global warming effects"

All that means is that it was presumed that global warming is a new problem, not an old one. Thus, the ice cap's accumulation and melting and evaporation all should have been 'conservatively' the same for the last hundred million years.

"It may be due to global warming, but it is also a very real possibility that this is a part of the natural cycle of Antarctica. When enough ice accumulates, it breaks off, and eventually one would expect it to melt back into the ocean."

This is a convenient cop-out. :) Are we allowed to create ad hoc explanations, too? However, I don't envy your position- you just invoked uniform physical processes to justify that what we have now can be produced in under 6,000 years... thanks, I won't have to demonstrate it, you have already conceded it- but you have to fit the observations to a presumed 4.5 billion year time frame.

"and they all work very well without resorting to young earth nonsense."

Seems to me that begs the question. You have just posited, without any prompting, evidence for a young earth! Apparently its not nonsense, but derives prima facie from what you've just presented all on your own. Ad hoc conjectures may very well 'all work' without resorting to anything, but I guess I suffer under the delusion that a scientific point of view must be derived from looking at the evidence without deciding in advance what one's conclusion is going to be.

Your argument ths far is perfectly consistent with a YEC position, and contrary to an old earth position. I'll leave you to yourself to sort out your 'errors.'

biblestudent · « **Reply #10 on:** March 03, 2006, 05:21:05 PM »

I am new to this sight, but so far it seems pretty interesting.
Earlier, Ragnar, you said that science once again triumphs over religion.
To clarify things, I don't have a religion, I have a relationship with Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
About your statement concerning science and religion, the Bible is light years ahead of man when it comes to science. For instance, man at one time believed that the world was flat. If they had read the Bible they would have known that the earth was round. Isaiah 40:22 says that the earth is a circle. Leviticus 15:13 talks about using running water to wash.
Remember when doctors used to wash their hands in standing, instead of running, water? They could have saved a lot of heart ache if they had just read the Bible.
As far as the polar ice caps, I would like to put my forth theory. It is just that, a theory. I am willing to admit that. However, it makes a lot more sense than the accumulation of ice over millions of years, which you still have to prove why the ice caps don't reach outer space. When God created the earth He made it perfect. In Genesis chap. 1:7 God seperated the waters under the firmaments from the waters above the firmaments. The waters under the would be the ocean as there was only one at the time. There was also water above the firmaments (which would be the atmsopere as we know it know). The waters above the firm. formed a canopy. This canopy acted as a shield for uv rays and and kept the warmth of the sun in, making the earth pretty much like a big greenhouse. During the flood this canopy was destroyed and came crashing to the earth. Genesis 7:11. Because of the Electro-magnetic field this huge amount of water would naturally be attracted to the poles. Since there was no longer the greenhouse effect the poles would have been, as you like to put it, frickin' cold, and the water froze forming the ice caps. This is an over simplified version of what I believe formed the ice caps. Here are a few other things that disprove evolution. Meteoritic dust - Cosmic dust particles enter the earth's atmosphere at a rate of 14 million tons a year. If the earth was 5 billion years old there would be a layer of dust 182 feet thick over all the earth. Even the moon only had about 1/8 inch. Petroleum and natural gas

Evolutionists say that petroleum and natural gas took millions of years to develop. Recent experiments have shown that:

- Plant material has been converted into petroleum in only 20 minutes under the right temperature and pressure conditions.

- Petroleum and natural gas are contained at high pressures in underground reservoirs. Calculations based on measuring the cap rock has shown that this pressure could not be maintained longer than 10, 000 years.

Coal

Evolutionists - believe that coal was formed millions of years

Before man evolved (it is made of the metamorphosed remains of vegetation) they believe that these came from stagnant swamps.

Creationists believe that coal was formed due to the plants that were on the earth during the great flood. The types of plants involved and the texture of the coal shows that it was caused by turbulent waters, not stagnant swamps.

Here's the kicker. . . . . . . . .

Remember Evolutionists think that coal was formed millions of years before man "evolved". Well, human skeletons have been found in coal deposits as well as the intricately structured gold chains that they wore. How can this be? Let's look at the Bible.

In Genesis chapter 4 verse 22 we find that before the flood people were skilled in metal working. And in Genesis 7&8 we find that all of these people, their work, and the plants of the day were destroyed and buried in the sedimentary layers of the earth's crust.

Rotation of the earth

The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing due to the gravitational drag of the sun, moon and other factors. If the earth is billions of years old as the Evolutionist believes, then its present rotation should be zero. Furthermore, if we go back for several billion years, the centrifugal force would have been so great that the continents would have been sent to the equator and the earth would have been as flat as a pancake. Christopher Columbus took care of that theory long ago.

- Earth's magnetic field - The strength of the earth's magnetic field has been measured for over a 100 years. In a recent study, Dr. Thomas G. Barnes has shown that the earth's magnetic field is decaying at rate of 1/2 life every 1400 years; that means that the earth's magnetic field was twice as strong 1400 years ago as it is now. If the earth was even as old as 10, 000 years it's magnetic field would be as strong as a star! That is impossible! The earth could not possibly be any older than 10, 000 years! (The earth's magnetic field is caused by electric currents in the earth's core. If we go back as far as 20, 000 years, we find that the heat produced by those currents would have melted the earth).

Creationist to the Core

Ragnar · « **Reply #11 on:** March 03, 2006, 11:18:05 PM »

This is a convenient cop-out. :) Are we allowed to create ad hoc explanations, too? However, I don't envy your position- you just invoked uniform physical processes to justify that what we have now can be produced in under 6,000 years... thanks, I won't have to demonstrate it, you have already conceded it- but you have to fit the observations to a presumed 4.5 billion year time frame.

holy crap, you're so frickin obtuse. I did no such thing. I was responding to a specific point made by Tony - the ludicrous assertion that the accumulated snowfall in Antarctica couldn't have produced the ice that is there, and that this was evidence for a global flood. This is clearly not the case.

For you to suggest the reverse, that it would have been possible for the ice in Antarctica to have accumlated over only 6000 years, when the thaw from the last ice age happened 12,000 years ago (got that from an off-the-cuff remark at the beginning of this fascinating article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/14/tech/main508926.shtml), shows a serious lack in your critical thinking skills.

Ragnar · « **Reply #12 on:** March 03, 2006, 11:24:57 PM »

biblestudent - I just did a quick web search and found that Earth's magnetic field actually fluctuates - it increases and decreases over the years. There is no setady rate of decline. Check this website: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm

I already knew that it moves, and that periodically at irregular intervals it flips - North becomes South and vice versa. I didn't know its strength varies, now I do.

Since I debunked this claim of yours so quickly, I'm not even going to bother checking up on anything else you've said - it's all probably equally wrong or inaccurate.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #13 on:** March 03, 2006, 11:40:43 PM »

"holy crap, you're so frickin obtuse."

I don't get it.

"I did no such thing. I was responding to a specific point made by Tony - the ludicrous assertion that the accumulated snowfall in Antarctica couldn't have produced the ice that is there, and that this was evidence for a global flood. This is clearly not the case."

I'd have let it slide except you got all small bunniesy in dismissing it all as ... what was the phrase.... Oh yea, "Once again, science triumphs over the irrationality of religion"

And then you turned around and laid out a pretty good argument for a young earth. I mean, speaking of critical thinking skills, come on!

"For you to suggest the reverse, that it would have been possible for the ice in Antarctica to have accumlated over only 6000 years,"

Ahem, that was your suggestion. In your haste to trounce on Tony, you said:

Quote

By the way, your three miles thick comment is also inaccurate. That is the thickest the ice gets, the average is actually 7000 feet, which is about a mile and a half.

So, using a conservative estimate of 20 inches a year, or 1.66 feet a year, it would only take 4217 years to reach a thickness of 7000 feet.

How that does not constitute a justification of this statement of mine:

Quote

you just invoked uniform physical processes to justify that what we have now can be produced in under 6,000 years...

I don't know. I may be obtuse, or even stupid, but even with me on this bench eating my box of chocolates, I know that 4,217 years is less than 6,000 years.

"shows a serious lack in your critical thinking skills."

The real lack of critical thinking skills is the part where you conveniently refuse to take your own calculations back millions of years. By pointing out that things have warmed up since the ice age only suggests that your 'conservative' estimates can be justifiably extrapolated millions of years back beyond the ice age. So why don't you do the extrapolation? All we need is your estimated rate of evaporation and ice melt, and it should be simple math from there.

I bet you don't even need to be a scientist to do that one.

Ragnar · « **Reply #14 on:** March 04, 2006, 12:10:25 AM »

The real lack of critical thinking skills is the part where you conveniently refuse to take your own calculations back millions of years. By pointing out that things have warmed up since the ice age only suggests that your 'conservative' estimates can be justifiably extrapolated millions of years back beyond the ice age. So why don't you do the extrapolation? All we need is your estimated rate of evaporation and ice melt, and it should be simple math from there.

I bet you don't even need to be a scientist to do that one.

I've tried to find info on this via web searches, but all that pops up are concerns over the current rate of ice melt. It has proved difficult to find any info about what the rate of ice melting was in the past, probably because no one is seriously questioning the age of the earth. I don't really see the point in me estimating past rates of melting and evaporation, I haven't a clue what they might be.

I see you conveniently didn't mention the article I did cite. Let me paste the first paragraph for you:

(REUTERS) The Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves are cracking up and, on the face of things, it is the most serious thaw since the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago.

And here's another reference to the age of the planet:

The real problems arise if the ice built up over millions of years on parts of Antarctica's land mass melts.

This is really all beside the point, though, because there is far more compelling evidence for the earth's old age than the thickness of the ice in Antarctica. I think others refuted you well enough on this issue in other threads, but if you really want me to I could start cutting and pasting stuff into whatever thread you had going on the subject.

Anyone who is interested could simply google "age of the earth" and see all the compelling evidence for themselves. Those who really start with no preconceptions will conclude that the earth is probably about 4.5 billion years old. Those who desperately want to believe that the bible is literally true will dismiss all the evidence and cling to their beliefs at the cost of knowledge itself.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #15 on:** March 04, 2006, 12:32:35 AM »

"It has proved difficult to find any info about what the rate of ice melting was in the past, probably because no one is seriously questioning the age of the earth."

Sure. Why not? We wouldn't want to confound our theories with facts, do we? Dawkins said something similar in his "The Blind Watchmaker." He said, "This would be circular reasoning if anyone seriously questioned evolution." Something pretty close to that. Me thinks you are not being very skeptical. Sounds to me like you're believing what you're already prepared to believe.

"I don't really see the point in me estimating past rates of melting and evaporation, I haven't a clue what they might be."

You seemed pretty confident about it a little earlier... taking into account a 'slow evaporation' and ice melt its 'just where we'd expect it to be...'

Guess you were actually just talking out of your arse, eh?

"I see you conveniently didn't mention the article I did cite. Let me paste the first paragraph for you:"

I didn't ignore it. I said:

"By pointing out that things have warmed up since the ice age only..."

And then I continued from there to point out it wasn't relevant. All it means is that you should be justified in taking your extrapolations out millions of years. Remember, 12,000 years is not that long in geologic terms, right?

And here's another reference to the age of the planet:

"This is really all beside the point, though, because there is far more compelling evidence for the earth's old age than the thickness of the ice in Antarctica."

But what if all that evidence is just like this? You got a conservative estimate for the accumulation of ice, but if you extrapolate it out, it comes out to more than 600 miles worth of ice. That's a bit much, but in order to resolve the stupidity of the position, you just need the observed rate of evaporation and melt. This would be important information... but you can't find it? Or, is your point that the observed rate of evaporation and melt is believed to be different now than it was 12,000 years ago? If so, than on what grounds do you maintain that the rate of accumulation has been the same? Or don't you? My head's spinning!

Don't worry. Experimentation and observation have nothing to do with science. Carry on.

"I think others refuted you well enough"

You aren't a scientist, so how would you know?

"Those who really start with no preconceptions will conclude that the earth is probably about 4.5 billion years old."

Actually, we don't have earth rocks that are 4.5 billion years old. At best we have meteorites which are 4.5 billion years old. I'm sure you know that meteorites are not earth rocks.

"Those who desperately want to believe that the bible is literally true will dismiss all the evidence and cling to their beliefs at the cost of knowledge itself."

Are you sure about that? From where I stand, it looks like you're doing the exact same thing. You've appealed to authority. You made claims you couldn't back up. You explained away the lack of data as "no one seriously doubts this, anyway" and were content with that.

See, the difference between you and me is that I am skeptical about EVERYTHING, while you are only skeptical about some things.

Hey, while you're looking for actual data on observed accumulation, evaporation, etc, over millions of years, see if you can dig up the observed rate of growth of sedimentary rock each year. I've been looking for that number for a decade. Can't seem to find it.

Ragnar · « **Reply #16 on:** March 04, 2006, 12:55:23 AM »

Actually, we don't have earth rocks that are 4.5 billion years old. At best we have meteorites which are 4.5 billion years old. I'm sure you know that meteorites are not earth rocks.

Right, the oldest earth rocks date back to 3.8 billion years. And sedimentary rocks generally aren't used for dating purposes, as they are made up of different kinds of matter. Igneous rocks are generally used because they are more reliable indicators of age.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #17 on:** March 04, 2006, 01:06:33 AM »

"Right, the oldest earth rocks date back to 3.8 billion years."

Ah, what is 750 million years among friends, anyway? So, how do you get to 4.5 billion years without falling back on 'preconceptions'? (your word, again)

"And sedimentary rocks generally aren't used for dating purposes, as they are made up of different kinds of matter."

I think you mean metamorphic rock.

"Igneous rocks are generally used because they are more reliable indicators of age."

Sure, they have certain aspects of them that allow for the whole radiometric dating thing to work better, or so they say. Of course, igneous rocks only make up what.. 10% of the earth's above bedrock rock? Sedimentary rock is 80%. The remaining 10% is metamorphic. Since when does anyone thing you can be reasonable in determining a reliable dating off of a sample only 10% large.

Would that work in a court trial?

"We've got a 10% match to the DNA.... let's fry the mother!"

Or,

"We were only able to get a reliable dating off of 10% of the DNA..."

Man, if it doesn't work to fry a guy for murder, it ain't good enough as science. That's my view.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007264

'Exposed rock" is the rock above bedrock. I estimated on my numbers above, and then went 'digging' if you will pardon the pun for a source to confirm what I already new.

Sedimentary rock, according to that site makes up 70-75% of the 'exposed' rock. I said 80%. Not bad, johnny. Not bad at all for shooting off the hip. I couldn't find a source to confirm the 10%/10% split of the other kinds, but my satire still holds... if the full 25% is igneous rocks and its only that which we can use for dating, that's a pretty darn small and selective sample.

Did you abandon the polar ice cap?

Ragnar · « **Reply #18 on:** March 04, 2006, 01:07:26 AM »

See, the difference between you and me is that I am skeptical about EVERYTHING, while you are only skeptical about some things.

No, I am skeptical about supernatural explanations when natural explanations will suffice. You are apparently skeptical of anything written outside of the Bible.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #19 on:** March 04, 2006, 01:14:08 AM »

Nah, there was a time I was skeptical of that, too.

Nor do I think that just because you can concoct a naturalistic explanation does that mean its reasonable.

Nothing more on your 7,000 feet of polar ice in 4,500 years?

Author Topic: Polar ice, proof of world-wide flood of Noah's day? (Read 2862 times)