Little Ice ages proof up in smoke

[dad]

Another 'cometdunnit' fable seems to have bit the dust.


Study casts doubt on mammoth-killing cosmic impact



" The study, of soil from Syria, is the latest to discredit the controversial theory that a cosmic impact triggered the Younger Dryas cold period."

Study casts doubt on mammoth-killing cosmic impact -- ScienceDaily

Glad I never believed them anyhow!

 

[Heissonear]

Yep, scoria through "campfires".

So many modern scientist want recognition for their work that a litte "evidence" promotes conjecture. But many believe of its possibility until further evidence takes it down.

Over zealous scientists? Yep, all around today.

 

[lesliedellow]

What are you trying to say? That the little ice age never happened?

People who lived between the mid seventeenth and mid nineteenth centuries would be most interested to hear that. We have paintings from the time, showing them skating on the River Thames.

 

[florida2]

Scientists propose a possible reason why something happened.

Later research finds evidence that contradicts this.

A new possible conclusion is proposed based on the evidence now available.



That's how science works, guys - not sure what the problem is here?

 

[dad]

What are you trying to say? That the little ice age never happened?

People who lived between the mid seventeenth and mid nineteenth centuries would be most interested to hear that. We have paintings from the time, showing them skating on the River Thames.

Yeah yeah, and last winter Lake Superior froze more than it did in a long time. Whoopee do. None of that was in thae age of mammoths was it? Of course there are fluxuations and equilibriums that needed to happen after both the flood, and later the big climate change event known as the split!

 

[dad]

Scientists propose a possible reason why something happened.

Later research finds evidence that contradicts this.

A new possible conclusion is proposed based on the evidence now available.



That's how science works, guys - not sure what the problem is here?

The problem is the ungodly little puddle of criteria they use to draw all their ungodly, and later to be proven false...models of the past on!

Science---the great SHAME of all history.

 

[florida2]

The problem is the ungodly little puddle of criteria they use to draw all their ungodly, and later to be proven false...models of the past on!

Findinf evidence which goes against your hypothesis is fantastic news for a scientist - it shows they could be on the road to a real discovery.

The spiritual cannot be assessed or measured in a scientific context so cannot be included however much any individual wants it to be.

Science---the great SHAME of all history.

Says the person happily using a computer to communicate with me, and no doubt having many many other fruits of science in his home. Indeed, your home itself could not be built without science and mathmatics.

Without science we'd still be living to 30 and living in the stone age.

 

[dad]

Findinf evidence which goes against your hypothesis is fantastic news for a scientist - it shows they could be on the road to a real discovery.

Nothing is against my hypothesis that poor pathetic little manscience can cook up!

The spiritual cannot be assessed or measured in a scientific context so cannot be included however much any individual wants it to be.

Then manscience is pretty useless. No news here.

Says the person happily using a computer to communicate with me, and no doubt having many many other fruits of science in his home. Indeed, your home itself could not be built without science and mathmatics.

The little aspects of science that actually stick to this state and present state rules are NOT even a part of the debate here. Try honesty.

Without science we'd still be living to 30 and living in the stone age.

All bow...

Not me, thanks.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yeah yeah, and last winter Lake Superior froze more than it did in a long time. Whoopee do. None of that was in thae age of mammoths was it? Of course there are fluxuations and equilibriums that needed to happen after both the flood, and later the big climate change event known as the split!

You should try googling "little ice age", and find out what the term refers to.

 

[florida2]

Nothing is against my hypothesis that poor pathetic little manscience can cook up!

So you're so stuck to your dogma that evidence from reality won't change your mind? Ok.

Then manscience is pretty useless. No news here.

Interesting new word you've got there.

The little aspects of science that actually stick to this state and present state rules are NOT even a part of the debate here. Try honesty.

You're the one saying that science is the shame of history. I'm simply pointing out that despite saying that you're quite happy to enjoy it's many benefits.

All bow...

Not me, thanks.

Did I say worship it? Nope. Don't twist my words.

If I said 'Without cars we'd still take ages to travel everywhere by horse and cart' mean we should worship cars? Of course not. Realising the benefits something has brought doesn't mean worship.

 

[dad]

You should try googling "little ice age", and find out what the term refers to.

You should read the OP and about the mamoths at the time of the event in question. After all, I hear that there were supposed to be many 'ice ages'.

In this case the climate changes were shown not to be due to what science claimed. Ho hum.

 

[Aureus]

Another 'cometdunnit' fable seems to have bit the dust.


Study casts doubt on mammoth-killing cosmic impact



" The study, of soil from Syria, is the latest to discredit the controversial theory that a cosmic impact triggered the Younger Dryas cold period."

Study casts doubt on mammoth-killing cosmic impact -- ScienceDaily

Glad I never believed them anyhow!

The Little Ice Age is not 'The Younger Dryas.' Your Thread title is incredibly off base and misleading. They are two very different time periods. This study you have linked casts more doubt and creates more holes with a controversial theory that has already been torn in several other areas as well. I'm a bit confused as to why it is even being referred to as a theory as I always knew it as a hypothesis. However the Impact Hypothesis for the Younger Dryas is well... an attempt at explaining the cause of an observed cold period. There is no doubt cast at all on the Younger Dryas as having happened. The question remains as to what was the cause of the Younger Dryas.

The Little Ice Age is just a whole different thing all together.

In this case the climate changes were shown not to be due to what science claimed. Ho hum.

"due to what science claimed." ? No. A group of scientists came up with a hypothesis and presented it to the greater world of Science. Other scientists looked at it and conducted their own analysis and studies and found a great many holes in the Impact Hypothesis. There was never a "what science claimed" because there has never been a scientific consensus as to the cause of the Younger Dryas cooling.

 

[dad]

So you're so stuck to your dogma that evidence from reality won't change your mind? Ok.

You should be fined for even using the word reality! Then fined again for pretending you have some association to it! Science has assassinated reality...at least as far as their closed little minds go.

Interesting new word you've got there.

Thanks. Real science includes the spiritual and God. Manscience is a demonic cult that makes up antichrist tales.

You're the one saying that science is the shame of history. I'm simply pointing out that despite saying that you're quite happy to enjoy it's many benefits.

The so called science that preaches dying suns and universes, and alternate creation theories has never done anything but pipe up delusions from hell actually. All the actual knowledge and science that is real has no relation, except in name only.

Did I say worship it? Nope. Don't twist my words.

The acid test for that is to ask ourselves the question...'do I put anything above God and His word'? If you answer yes 'I trust science more' then that IS worship.

Ro 11:4 -But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

If I said 'Without cars we'd still take ages to travel everywhere by horse and cart' mean we should worship cars? Of course not. Realising the benefits something has brought doesn't mean worship.

Giving the credit to man above God is leaning to our own wisdom.

Jer 17:5 -Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. God's ways are way way way way way way way way above manscience!

 

[dad]

The Little Ice Age is not 'The Younger Dryas.' Your Thread title is incredibly off base and misleading.

"
At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth’s history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!).
Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago."


Ice Ages – What are they and what causes them? - Utah Geological Survey


The topic then is about how the comets were claimed to have killed the mammoths (which we usually see associated with ice and cold in the past) actually didn't kill them!


Besides, the imaginary time is so foolish that one needs to be delusional to take any of it even a little bit seriously! The 3 million years is actually more likely something like less than 5000 years! So, when they are talking about comets bring the oceans, and comets maybe bring life or the stuff of life to earth, and comets killing off this or that....it is all hooey! In this case they got busted on one particular cometdunnit claim.

They are two very different time periods.

Not like science thinks!!

This study you have linked casts more doubt and creates more holes with a controversial theory that has already been torn in several other areas as well.

Hey, when something is busted, it is busted! Why would it NOT also be busted in other arenas??

I'm a bit confused as to why it is even being referred to as a theory as I always knew it as a hypothesis.

Funny how folks seem to be apologists for failed science

However the Impact Hypothesis for the Younger Dryas is well... an attempt at explaining the cause of an observed cold period.

Of course, but more specifically an attempt at explaining it omitting God and the flood and Scripture etc. A failed attempt as we now see

There is no doubt cast at all on the Younger Dryas as having happened.

Foolishness. The cold times after the nature change and/or flood can be called anything we like! Of course it was cold, but forget the Dryas fable!!

The question remains as to what was the cause of the Younger Dryas.

Bingo! In other words you don't know. That is the price science pays for keeping itself in the dark in an institutional methodical way!! Talk about dark ages!! Welcome to the darkest age!

The Little Ice Age is just a whole different thing all together.

Great. But it all depends how we use the term. Many used to think there was a big ice age. No? Later they cooked up several.

"due to what science claimed." ? No. A group of scientists came up with a hypothesis and presented it to the greater world of Science. Other scientists looked at it and conducted their own analysis and studies and found a great many holes in the Impact Hypothesis. There was never a "what science claimed" because there has never been a scientific consensus as to the cause of the Younger Dryas cooling.

If you want to play it that way, then I guess we can say science never claims squat! Those folks who work for science and purportedly are scientists make claims all over the place. Some of these claims are fairly widely accepted before they get busted

 

[Aureus]

"
The topic then is about how the comets were claimed to have killed the mammoths (which we usually see associated with ice and cold in the past) actually didn't kill them!

Except that your thread title is " Little Ice ages proof up in smoke " and the article has nothing to do with the Little Ice Age.

Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries,[3][4][5] or alternatively, from about 1350 to about 1850,[6] though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. NASA defines the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and 1850 and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming."

 

[dad]

Originally Posted by dad

"
The topic then is about how the comets were claimed to have killed the mammoths (which we usually see associated with ice and cold in the past) actually didn't kill them!
​

Except that your thread title is " Little Ice ages proof up in smoke " and the article has nothing to do with the Little Ice Age.

Little ice ages would be anything other than what many used to call the ice age. The so called ice age billions of years ago for example. Hooey.

I was not referring to the tecnical term of 'the little ice age'


They are all little almost compared to the actual ice age that resulted either after the flood directly of after the flood in a century or two.


Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[Aureus]

Little ice ages would be anything other than what many used to call the ice age. The so called ice age billions of years ago for example. Hooey.

I was not referring to the tecnical term of 'the little ice age'


They are all little almost compared to the actual ice age that resulted either after the flood directly of after the flood in a century or two.

So you're making up term to mean something that doesn't really make much sense at all, and the term you make up happens to exactly correspond in words to a normal term yet have an entirely different meaning. Lovely.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I prefer good quality tobacco. Not unmitigated horse manure.

 

[florida2]

The so called science that preaches dying suns and universes, and alternate creation theories has never done anything but pipe up delusions from hell actually.

So what about computers, medicine, materials, transport, construction, electronics etc? Are they delusions from hell? Was the research and discovery of of the cause of disease and antibiotics delusions from hell?

All the actual knowledge and science that is real has no relation, except in name only.

Sorry, not sure what you mean. No relation to what?

The acid test for that is to ask ourselves the question...'do I put anything above God and His word'? If you answer yes 'I trust science more' then that IS worship.

Didn't say I did. Recognising the benefits of something isn't putting it above God and isn't worship.

Ro 11:4 -But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Giving the credit to man above God is leaning to our own wisdom.

Jer 17:5 -Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. God's ways are way way way way way way way way above manscience!

Ok, you've got a really strong faith - no problem.

I just find it odd that you say science is the great shame of history but enjoy all its benefits.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's because the impact wiped out the dinosaurs - not initiated the little ice age, or global warming periods - caused simply by the sun's cyclic variance.

http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif

The little ice age was merely a fluctuation of the sun.

http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/sunspots-climate-friends-of-science.gif

As it briefly cooled even though the real ice age had just been gotten out of. But don't worry, you are soon about to find out just what caused the "little ice age" as we begin that cyclic downward plunge all over again.

Edit:

The question is, is science advanced enough to keep us from that "edge of extinction" once again when that next Meander Minimum hits us?? Or will it again drive us into the stone age and near extinction with depleted food supply???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQanWtkSDHE

 

[Strathos]

That's because the impact wiped out the dinosaurs - not initiated the little ice age, or global warming periods - caused simply by the sun's cyclic variance.

You know those hypotheses refer to two separate impacts that occurred millions of years apart, right?