Ice Age?

HRE · Jan 30, 2005

A4C said:
Of Course not I dont even believe such things as ice ages ever occured. At best they are probably assumptions simply to explain away evidence of a world wide flood

Yes, because a global flood obviously causes valley scarring, fjords, sills, kettles, morraines, lowering water levels, not to mention a mass extinction and a mass...explosion at both ends.

Hermit · Jan 30, 2005

A4C said:
Of Course not I dont even believe such things as ice ages ever occured. At best they are probably assumptions simply to explain away evidence of a world wide flood

Are you on somekind of a mission to make creationists look like complete morons or are you honestly just so ****ing dense?

Bargainfluger · Jan 30, 2005

http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/Has_there_ever_been_the_ice_age.html

Honestly, PetriFB. Please site your sources. I believe this is at least the second time you have plagiarized this guy. Either a) Give credit where it's due, or b) come up with your own conclusions rather than relying on shady sources.

A4C · Jan 30, 2005

Truth and Reconciliation said:
A minor change in the radius of Earth's orbit (with error covering radial loss via apogee and perigee) can cause DRASTIC climatic changes.

Yes agreed The flood would definately redistribute most of the soil covering the earth and significantly alter its alignment and thus climate. Aparently the aftereffects of the tsunami altered it to a small degree

A4C · Jan 30, 2005

Hermit said:
Are you on somekind of a mission to make creationists look like complete morons or are you honestly just so ****ing dense?

I am pretty sure I know who's looking what

A4C · Jan 30, 2005

HRE said:
Yes, because a global flood obviously causes valley scarring, fjords, sills, kettles, morraines, lowering water levels, not to mention a mass extinction and a mass...explosion at both ends.

Most likely

JohnR7 · Jan 30, 2005

HRE said:
Yes, because a global flood obviously causes valley scarring, fjords, sills, kettles, morraines, lowering water levels, not to mention a mass extinction and a mass...explosion at both ends.

The problem is, you can not find one geologist that will verify that. Even Dr Kurt Wise is YEC, but he does not believe that the current scientific evidence indicates a young earth. His YEC beliefs are based purely on "faith" and not on the scientific evidence available to us.

Your belief would not stand up in a court of law, the expert witness will win out over the novice every time.

HRE · Jan 31, 2005

My belief?

Sorry, I forgot the sarcasm tags around that post...

Allister · Jan 31, 2005

If the Gulf steam, which brings hot air to the northern atlantic, suddenly stoped working what does the person who doesnt believe in ice ages think would happen?

This Global flood that has been talked about:
did this flood submerge every centimetre of land across the globe or just the low lying areas?
if it did cover all the earth where did all the water come from and where is this water now?

do you not believe in plate tectonics aswel?

A4C · Jan 31, 2005

To the person who questioned the person who doesn't believe in ice ages and and who also queried the dynamics of a world wide flood may I answer thus:
Perhaps a study of the distribution of water and ground cover before and after such a catastrophic event as a world wide flood lasting over a period of a year may reveal answers to your questions. If you have doubts about the redistribution of elements consider the recent events in Asia lasting only minutes

Allister · Jan 31, 2005

A4C said:
To the person who questioned the person who doesn't believe in ice ages and and who also queried the dynamics of a world wide flood may I answer thus:
Perhaps a study of the distribution of water and ground cover before and after such a catastrophic event as a world wide flood lasting over a period of a year may reveal answers to your questions. If you have doubts about the redistribution of elements consider the recent events in Asia lasting only minutes

please answer my question. i have no doubts about redistributing of elements after a tsunami.
did this flood, not tsunami, cover every part of the earth? is there enough water to cover the earth? and if yes, where is that water now?

i assume that since you believe in the indian ocean tsunami you also believe in plate tectonics.

A4C · Jan 31, 2005

Allister said:
please answer my question. i have no doubts about redistributing of elements after a tsunami.
did this flood, not tsunami, cover every part of the earth? is there enough water to cover the earth? and if yes, where is that water now?.

OK so you are aware of the deveasting events of the flow of huge amounts of water and you are also aware of seismic events
Well when you look at the sediment layers laid down by the flood (of course TE's would refer to them as strata layers laid down over millions of years) you could ask "Where did all that dirt come from that formed that rock and why are mountains so rocky -shouldn't they have some dirt on them too?"
So you ask where did ll the water go. I ask you what makes you think that the amount that we have could not do the damage we see if the circumstance were to allow it to be so.
What you are asking is "there couldn't be a world wide flood with conditions as they are today " -and I would have to agree with you but todays conditions were not what prevailed before the Flood occurred.

Allister said:
i assume that since you believe in the indian ocean tsunami you also believe in plate tectonics.

I believe that there is movement within the earth -yes Do I believe that great chunks of ground got pushed up to form mountains or that huge continents drifted sideways for thousands of miles -no way

JohnR7 · Jan 31, 2005

Allister said:
is there enough water to cover the earth?

There is enough water to cover the earth two or three feet deep. The problem is that they believe there would have been more than 5000 feet of water on the whole earth. There does not seem to be enough water to accomplish that.

Actually, the YEC people believe all the mountains on the earth were covered, so that would take almost 30,000 feet of water to cover Everest in the Himalayas

Asimov · Jan 31, 2005

JohnR7 said:
There is enough water to cover the earth two or three feet deep. The problem is that they believe there would have been more than 5000 feet of water on the whole earth. There does not seem to be enough water to accomplish that.

Actually, the YEC people believe all the mountains on the earth were covered, so that would take almost 30,000 feet of water to cover Everest in the Himalayas

Just to put things in perspective, that would require 30 feet of rain per hour.

leccy · Jan 31, 2005

A4C said:
I believe that there is movement within the earth -yes Do I believe that great chunks of ground got pushed up to form mountains or that huge continents drifted sideways for thousands of miles -no way

So, just to clarify, you don't believe that huge continents drifted for thousands of miles and you don't beleive that great chunks of ground got pushed up to form mountains.

That means that you don't believe the catastrophic plate tectonics model proposed by some YECs.

To what process do you attribute those mountains?

A4C · Jan 31, 2005

The evidence of a Flood suggests massive redistribution of the whole surface of the earth. It has been demonstrated that preflood conditions would have enbled all the earth to be covered with water. Could that happen now -of course not because the terrain re-distribution prevents it.

leccy · Jan 31, 2005

A4C said:
The evidence of a Flood suggests massive redistribution of the whole surface of the earth.

What evidence is this?

You've just posted that the continents haven't moved.

It has been demonstrated that preflood conditions would have enbled all the earth to be covered with water. Could that happen now -of course not because the terrain re-distribution prevents it.

Perhaps you could clarify?

What were those pre-Flood conditions, how have they been demonstrated and what was different about them that would allow all of the Earth to be covered with water?

The terrain re-distribution that you describe- that refers to mountains? How do you envisage those mountains having formed- you stated earlier that you did not beleive that huge chunks of ground were pushed up- do you have a different process in mind?

A4C · Jan 31, 2005

leccy said:
So, just to clarify, you don't believe that huge continents drifted for thousands of miles and you don't beleive that great chunks of ground got pushed up to form mountains.

That means that you don't believe the catastrophic plate tectonics model proposed by some YECs.

To what process do you attribute those mountains?

The mountains including Ararat were always there albeit surrounded by mega tons of soil which now form "strata layers" at lower altitudes due to receeding flood waters

leccy · Jan 31, 2005

A4C said:
The mountains including Ararat were always there albeit surrounded by mega tons of soil which now form "strata layers" at lower altitudes due to receeding flood waters

So the mountains were there before the flood, but covered by a great thickness of soil?

A4C · Jan 31, 2005

leccy said:
So the mountains were there before the flood, but covered by a great thickness of soil?

You nearly got what I said except the covered/surround bit

Ice Age?

HRE

Guest

Loser

Playin' in Joes Garage

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Well-Known Member

HRE

Guest

Veteran

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Veteran

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Well-Known Member

Objectivist

Active Member

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Active Member

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Active Member

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency