Ice Age?

[Allister]

What about them?

where do they fit into you theory?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

My error here is one of omission I omitted to check what Austin had written but simply saw it in a Christian site not knowing that it mentions ice ages and maybe a whole lot of other things maybe I dont agree with. But in that respect the creationists have YECs and OECs so differences have to be expected.
Now as for lava dams could you give me references where you can see (by illustration or pic) what evidence there is to support that theory or is it only speculation whether it is a creationist or other who is being speculative. Thank you

http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r02.htm

 

[comana]

Ok, I don't know why this should seem odd in light of A4C's thesis on the formation of the Grand Canyon, but 4500 years??? And the Egyptians didn't notice they were under water?

Oh and the dinosaur tracks that have been lifted veritcally?? How about those. How did those giant dinos get from the ark to North America in the space of one year, afterward the surface they walked on hardened and was lifted vertically by water?? Quite impossible!

Got a web link for that one A4C?

 

[A4C]

Ok, I don't know why this should seem odd in light of A4C's thesis on the formation of the Grand Canyon, but 4500 years??? And the Egyptians didn't notice they were under water?

Oh and the dinosaur tracks that have been lifted veritcally?? How about those. How did those giant dinos get from the ark to North America in the space of one year, afterward the surface they walked on hardened and was lifted vertically by water?? Quite impossible!

Got a web link for that one A4C?

Let's just keep to Ice age pro and con discussion here eh?

Please feel free to start another thread and invite me by PM to reply if you like

 

[comana]

Let's just keep to Ice age pro and con discussion here eh?

Ok then. Yes there was an ice age. Humans crossed over the land bridge that spanned what is now the Bering Strait. Archaeological evidence places humans in north america at least 10,000 yrs ago. Geological evidence shows repeated flooding on a monumental scale from enormous glacial lakes.

Some reading for you
Ice Age Lake Missoula
GLACIAL LAKE MISSOULA
Bering Land Bridge

And how might an ice age begin?
The Great Conveyor

 

[gluadys]

Interestingly, it was a fervent anti-evolutionist, Louis Agassiz, who did the seminal studies on the most recent ice age, first in his native Switzerland and later in America.

His studies convinced him that the ice age ending about 10,000 years ago was the most recent "global" catastrophe (even though it was not completely global).

Even before he began his studies, geologists (most of them creationists) had ascertained that none of the deep strata were a consequence of a global flood, and the theory at the time was that only surface geology such as moraines could be attributed to the biblical deluge.

Agassiz showed conclusively that these were due to glaciation, not flooding. In the 1830s, this was the nail in the coffin of any scientific support for a global flood, as admitted by Rev. Adam Sedgwick in 1835.

 

[A4C]

Interestingly, it was a fervent anti-evolutionist, Louis Agassiz, who did the seminal studies on the most recent ice age, first in his native Switzerland and later in America.

His studies convinced him that the ice age ending about 10,000 years ago was the most recent "global" catastrophe (even though it was not completely global).

Even before he began his studies, geologists (most of them creationists) had ascertained that none of the deep strata were a consequence of a global flood, and the theory at the time was that only surface geology such as moraines could be attributed to the biblical deluge.

Agassiz showed conclusively that these were due to glaciation, not flooding. In the 1830s, this was the nail in the coffin of any scientific support for a global flood, as admitted by Rev. Adam Sedgwick in 1835.

So there is no more scientific support for a global flood eh?
What a pity

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

MB
There is much evidence that the Grand Canyon is Flood made.

No, there is none. In fact, the Grand Canyon is one of the most telling reasons why a global flood did not occur because it contains so many features incompatible with a global flooding event.

Anything else is mere avoidence by those who do not believe there ever was a world Wide Flood 4500 years ago according to the Bible and as referred to by Jesus.

That's beyond ridiculous. Everything else is science, not a conspiracy. Remember, it was young earth creationists who disproved young earth creationism in the first place in the early 19th century.

Do you have a mandate to refute the word of God?

Once again, the standard creationist tactic of trying to distract the scientific discussion into the polarization of global flood versus atheism.

An old earth does not equal atheism.
An earth on which there was no global flood does not equal atheism.

If you think they do equal atheism, that's your problem. It also means you have disproved Christianity.

Scientists who reach the conclusions of an old earth and no global flood do not do so for atheistic intentions and are not trying to "refute the word of God."

Perhaps I could refer you to a good book on the subject of the GC formed by the flood :

Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. Dr Steven A. Austin
here is it's intro statement
Perhaps after reading it you will stop insisting that the flood didn't do it
Perhaps if you are still not satisfied as to how the Grand Canyon was formed you might like to go on a tour organised by a group of Christians who will explain it in detail for you


Details here​

So rather than give scientific evidence, you refer us all to a coffee table book written by a layman with contributions from professional creationists who have been caught in lies promoting their position (and yes, Steve Austin is one of those caught in a lie).

I already know that the Grand Canyon did not form by a global flooding event. I have a university level education in geology to back that up as well, as I have stated before. I have also provided you with 12 reasons why the Grand Canyon disproves a global flood (not to mention the fact that there's not enough water on earth in the first place for it to occur). You ignored them. That's very telling. The one whose position is in shambles is you.

 

[A4C]

No, there is none. In fact, the Grand Canyon is one of the most telling reasons why a global flood did not occur because it contains so many features incompatible with a global flooding event.



That's beyond ridiculous. Everything else is science, not a conspiracy. Remember, it was young earth creationists who disproved young earth creationism in the first place in the early 19th century.



Once again, the standard creationist tactic of trying to distract the scientific discussion into the polarization of global flood versus atheism.

An old earth does not equal atheism.
An earth on which there was no global flood does not equal atheism.

If you think they do equal atheism, that's your problem. It also means you have disproved Christianity.

Scientists who reach the conclusions of an old earth and no global flood do not do so for atheistic intentions and are not trying to "refute the word of God."

So rather than give scientific evidence, you refer us all to a coffee table book written by a layman with contributions from professional creationists who have been caught in lies promoting their position (and yes, Steve Austin is one of those caught in a lie).

I already know that the Grand Canyon did not form by a global flooding event. I have a university level education in geology to back that up as well, as I have stated before. I have also provided you with 12 reasons why the Grand Canyon disproves a global flood (not to mention the fact that there's not enough water on earth in the first place for it to occur). You ignored them. That's very telling. The one whose position is in shambles is you.

So you dont believe A Global Flood laid down sediment layers and the receeding waters covering massive land areas formed the Grand Canyon as that sediment was redistributed? Fine -Thats cool

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

So you dont believe A Global Flood laid down sediment layers and the receeding waters covering massive land areas formed the Grand Canyon as that sediment was redistributed? Fine -Thats cool

I don't believe something to be true when it has already been proved false. That's intellectually dishonest.

My conclusions are based upon evidence, not emotional desires of what I would want to be true.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

As a side issue - A4C - how is limestone produced?

 

[A4C]

As a side issue - A4C - how is limestone produced?

If your real question is How did the limestone get to be a layer on the GC? The answer is that it wasn't formed there but was deposited there as sediment having been formed perhaps in caves at higher elevations and became washed out during receeding of flood waters.

 

[leccy]

If your real question is How did the limestone get to be a layer on the GC? The answer is that it wasn't formed there but was deposited there as sediment having been formed perhaps in caves at higher elevations and became washed out during receeding of flood waters.

How is limestone, most frequently composed of the calcareous remains of marine organisms, formed in CAVES?

 

[A4C]

How is limestone, most frequently composed of the calcareous remains of marine organisms, formed in CAVES?

Do you not have limestone caves where you live?

 

[leccy]

Do you not have limestone caves where you live?

Yes, but the caves are formed in limestone, not the other way around.

 

[Jet Black]

If your real question is How did the limestone get to be a layer on the GC? The answer is that it wasn't formed there but was deposited there as sediment having been formed perhaps in caves at higher elevations and became washed out during receeding of flood waters.

got any evidence for that?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

If your real question is How did the limestone get to be a layer on the GC? The answer is that it wasn't formed there but was deposited there as sediment having been formed perhaps in caves at higher elevations and became washed out during receeding of flood waters.

No, my real question is what I asked. How is limestone formed?

 

[leccy]

No, my real question is what I asked. How is limestone formed?

Apparently by the same process by which holes form Emmental..........

 

[A4C]

Yes, but the caves are formed in limestone, not the other way around.

Whatever .
Here is a neat little indication of typical "scientific error from here
It concerns a sign for the Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico
In 1924 the sign said "This cave is 260 million years old"
In 1988 the sign said "This cave is 7-10 million years old"
In 1990 the sign said "This cave is 2 million years old"

the sign has gone for several years now

 

[A4C]

No, my real question is what I asked. How is limestone formed?

Here is a good start for you
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-079.htm
included on this page it states:

Solution cave chemistry can be simply stated: limestone and dolostone, the host rocks for most caves, are dissolved by natural acids (carbonic, sulfuric, and various organic acids) which occur in groundwater. Calcite (CaCO3), the principal mineral comprising limestone, is dissolved in the presence of add to produce calcium ion (Ca ++) and bicarbonate ion (HCO3 _). Dolomite [CaMg(CO3)2], the most important mineral in dolostone, is dissolved by acid to produce calcium ion (Ca ++), magnesium ion (Mg ++), and bicarbonate ions (HCO3_ ). If the acid is able to flow through the rock, ions will be removed and a cavity or solution conduit will form.

I hope this is the information you were after.