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

Tony N · « **Reply #20 on:** March 04, 2006, 07:37:58 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

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

Yo, Johnny,
There used to be a trade of wooly mammoth tusks years ago where they estimated at least 10,000 tusks from the ice were taken.

here's da link:

http://www.vision-harvest.com/products/books/?id=BK002MBI

This is, I think, a preface to the book:

"What would cause the summer temperatures of the northern United States and Europe to plummet more than 50 degrees Fahrenheit?

Why did mammoths become extinct across the entire earth at the same time as many other large mammals?

Why are the mammoth carcasses found generally in standing positions?

How could these carcasses still have partially decayed food in their stomachs?

How could large lakes exist in what are today very dry, desert-like places?

What was the source of the abnormal amount of moisture necessary for heavy snow?

What caused the cold summer temperatures and heavy snowfall to persist for hundreds of years?"

There are numerous other questions in this mystery. What would draw millions of woolly mammoths to a place where the winters are fiercely cold and the summers dangerously boggy? And, when they got there, what would they eat? Believers in the theory of evolution as fact have difficulty answering such questions, in part, because the theory refers to processes that take place over very long timeframes, that is, on the order of millions or billions of years. The author addresses these as he considers more plausible explanations.

Ragnar · « **Reply #21 on:** March 04, 2006, 01:37:28 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

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?

I thought we settled that. Currently the rate of melting is actually greater than the rate of accumulation. The thickness of the ice is DECREASING. This implies that the rate of accumulation was very slow, so that it would have taken much longer than 6000 years to reach 7000 feet.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #22 on:** March 04, 2006, 02:06:52 PM »

"I thought we settled that. Currently the rate of melting is actually greater than the rate of accumulation."

I asked you some questions about that. If the 'current rate of melting' is greater than the 'rate of accumulation,' then where did you get your 1.66 feet a year number, and why do you think you can trust it?

"The thickness of the ice is DECREASING. This implies that the rate of accumulation was very slow,"

1.66 feet a year doesn't seem that slow to me. Where did you get that number?

"so that it would have taken much longer than 6000 years to reach 7000 feet."

So? You were the one that provided the 1.66 feet a year number. Are you going back on that number, now?

Remember, you're talking about events only in the last 12,000 years. I'm asking you to account for your measurements prior to that, millions of years earlier. I used 2 million because it was the smallest number we could come up with that would still fit your 'millions of years' comment. Well, now you are saying that prior to end of the ice age, it was a slower amount of accumulation. That seems to me to be ad hoc: to retain your 1.66 feet number you'll end up with a ridiculous depth of ice.

You can't simultaneously argue that the ice cap can be created in only 4,500 years AND that it would have taken much longer than 6,000 years to pull of. Its a complete contradiction.

Ragnar · « **Reply #23 on:** March 04, 2006, 02:06:57 PM »

Read Tony's site, then read this site:

http://www.beringia.com/02/02maina2.html

You tell me which one is more scientific, more objective, and more likely to be true.

In contrast to the site that Tony quotes, it appears that there is really very little mystery concerning the woolly mammoth, how it lived, and how it died off. We know it adapted to cold winters by growing a thick layer of fur and then moulting in the summer. This is not theory. Moulting is easily observed in many animals that live today. They didn't survive the ice age because humans hunted them, driving them further north, where they were trapped by the rapidly changing climate.

If some of their remains were found to be standing, doesn't this indicate that they were frozen rather than that they died in a flood? The same applies to the food found in their stomachs. In fact, the ice age adequately explains all of the questions that site listed, while the theory of a gobal flood doesn't even conform to the very evidence that this author is presenting!

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #24 on:** March 04, 2006, 02:11:15 PM »

I posted just as you posted. Please see my post above yours.

"You tell me which one is more scientific, more objective, and more likely to be true."

Don't talk to me about 'more scientific' or 'more objective' when you're throwing numbers around that you've apparently plucked out of nowhere and then refuse to apply consistently, anyway. There is nothing scientific about assuming a uniformitarianistic interpretation of the data when it suits you in one case and then ignoring it in the next. There is nothing objective about deciding in advance what possibilities you are willing to consider and which you aren't. And if there isn't any more glaring indicator of your subjective biases, its your comment 'more likely to be true.'

As if you have any objective basis for knowing what is more likely to be true or not.

Ragnar · « **Reply #25 on:** March 04, 2006, 02:13:51 PM »

johnny, the 1.66 feet a year was simply the amount of snowfall. Antarctica gets 20-40 inches of snowfall a year. That number doesn't take melting and evaporation into account. New York already got more than 2 feet of snowfall this year, but looking out my window I only see a couple of inches still on the ground. The rest melted. It accumulates in Antarctica because it is much colder. What is so hard to understand about this?

Ragnar · « **Reply #26 on:** March 04, 2006, 02:16:39 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

I posted just as you posted. Please see my post above yours.

"You tell me which one is more scientific, more objective, and more likely to be true."

Don't talk to me about 'more scientific' or 'more objective' when you're throwing numbers around that you've apparently plucked out of nowhere and then refuse to apply consistently, anyway. There is nothing scientific about assuming a uniformitarianistic interpretation of the data when it suits you in one case and then ignoring it in the next. There is nothing objective about deciding in advance what possibilities you are willing to consider and which you aren't. And if there isn't any more glaring indicator of your subjective biases, its your comment 'more likely to be true.'

As if you have any objective basis for knowing what is more likely to be true or not.

So you think Tony's site is right and the site I posted is wrong? Why? On what basis?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #27 on:** March 04, 2006, 02:23:09 PM »

Well, it so happens that about five years ago I dug into this particular topic, so I have a pretty good idea of some of the raw data involved, although I confess I forget the particulars. Depending on how much you want to get into it yourself, we'll see just how 'scientific' this whole line of argumentation is. We still haven't even gotten into the really fun stuff.

I told you why I jumped in here- you went off on the whole notion that your position had some significantly superior rational high ground. So far, you've done nothing but appeal to authority and 'doesn't it seem more likely,' which is about as far from any superior rationality that I'm aware of, anywhere.

The fact is that if you are going argue on one side that you can get what we see in 4,500 years and on the other side that it will take much more than 6,000 years, you are not arguing rationally.

Why won't you extrapolate your 20-40 inches of snowfall that we observe today back 2 million years? If its melting now, that's one thing- but if it was colder then, what impact does that have on the amount of snowfall? It should only affect the melting/evaporation rate- which should have been much slower prior to the alleged 'ice age.' Thus, the extrapolation out millions of years ought to be justified. So just do the extrapolation.

Ragnar · « **Reply #28 on:** March 04, 2006, 03:36:06 PM »

This article summarizes two theories of how the Antarctic ice sheets formed. Both theories accept continental drift as a valid theory and that Antarctica started to freeze about 34 million years ago. Both theories suggest that the continent froze in a very short period of time - 50,000 years or less. Both theories acknowledge that there were a combination of factors at play that led to the freezing.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-01/uoma-usr011503.php

This site has a lot of interesting information about the history of Antarctica:

http://www.antarcticaonline.com/antarctica/science/science.htm

Snowfall appears to have very little to do with the thickness of the ice, and I was perhaps a little hasty in dwelling on it. I can admit when I made a mistake. Still, I don't see anything about Antarctica that would convince me that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #29 on:** March 04, 2006, 03:41:42 PM »

"Snowfall appears to have very little to do with the thickness of the ice, and I was perhaps a little hasty in dwelling on it. I can admit when I made a mistake."

Good man.

Now you gonna move in chess or what?

Tony N · « **Reply #30 on:** March 04, 2006, 04:44:56 PM »

Check this baby out:

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm

Piri Reis map of the Northern Coasline of antartica which today is uner a mile thick of ice. Today we only know the outline of the land under that ice by seismology. How did this person view that coastline and map it?

Ragnar · « **Reply #31 on:** March 04, 2006, 05:49:12 PM »

Quote from: Tony N

Check this baby out:

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm

Piri Reis map of the Northern Coasline of antartica which today is uner a mile thick of ice. Today we only know the outline of the land under that ice by seismology. How did this person view that coastline and map it?

Umm, he didn't. Ancient civilizations from 4000 B.C., before the peninsula was covered in ice, are the most likely originators of the map, according to the article.

How does this lend credence to the idea of a global flood?

A global flood as described in Genesis, by the way, is believed to have been impossible because the earth was not capable of producing that much precipitation.

Tony N · « **Reply #32 on:** March 04, 2006, 09:54:21 PM »

Quote from: Ragnar

Quote from: Tony N
Check this baby out:

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm

Piri Reis map of the Northern Coasline of antartica which today is uner a mile thick of ice. Today we only know the outline of the land under that ice by seismology. How did this person view that coastline and map it?

Umm, he didn't. Ancient civilizations from 4000 B.C., before the peninsula was covered in ice, are the most likely originators of the map, according to the article.

How does this lend credence to the idea of a global flood?

A global flood as described in Genesis, by the way, is believed to have been impossible because the earth was not capable of producing that much precipitation.

I guess you have to figure that out for yourself. If there was no ice 4 to 7 thousand years ago and then all of a sudden the ice appears, it seems it had to happen all of a sudden.

Also, remember the story about Jesus feeding the 5000 out of a few fish and a few loaves of bread? And remember in the Old Testament about the prophet telling the woman to get every jar in the village? Once she did and brought them to him she only had just a little oil left. He filled up every jar from that little bit of oil and once the lady ran out of jars the oil stopped. I'm not talking little canning jars either.
Therefore, if the prophet and Christ could to this, why couldn't God do it with water to flood the earth then reverse the process? I believe He did just that.

Ragnar · « **Reply #33 on:** March 04, 2006, 11:26:06 PM »

We're just talking about the peninsula right now, the most temperate area of Antarctica. It would probably have been the last to become frozen. A number of factors were the likely the cause of this, as talked about in the article I cited above.

Briefly, the movement of Antarctica due to the sliding of the earth's crust, as well as decreased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were probably the leading causes of the freezing of the continent.

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