Ice Ages

[AV1611VET]

Job is after Genesis and Noah. Try again.

Ya ... just like your OP stipulates.

One of the popular claims in the YEC Flood Geology literature is that the Ice Age occurred after Noah's Flood.

What is it you want to know?

Be specific, please.

 

[RickG]

What is it you want to know?

Be specific, please.

Do you mean about the article I presented by Michael Oard, or what is it I know about ice ages?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you mean about the article I presented by Michael Oard, or what is it I know about ice ages?

Skip it.

 

[RickG]

.

 

[RickG]

Ya ... just like your OP stipulates.

Yes, I know Job is after Genesis. It is also after the ice age described in Oard's article. An no, Job does not describe an ice age in the least.

What is it you want to know?

Be specific, please.

1. Why people want to accept such an overt misrepresentation in spite of what is known about the ice ages and past climates?
2. Why does Oard persist in misrepresenting paleoclimatology and its related fields of science?
3. Why does anyone wish to present such erroneous information in support of Christianity? And that really concerns me.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. Why people want to accept such an overt misrepresentation in spite of what is known about the ice ages and past climates?
2. Why does Oard persist in misrepresenting paleoclimatology and its related fields of science?
3. Why does anyone wish to present such erroneous information in support of Christianity? And that really concerns me.

I'm not responsible for what Oard thinks.

I don't even know the guy.

 

[RickG]

I'm not responsible for what Oard thinks.

I never said you were responsible for what he thinks. You asked me to be specific about what I was looking for, so I listed a few things.

I don't even know the guy.

I don't either. But I do know that his knowledge and skills in paleoclimatology and geology are completely lacking.

 

[abysmul]

Ice age? was that man made global cooling? Or was the warming up after them man made?

 

[RickG]

Ice age? was that man made global cooling? Or was the warming up after them man made?

Or, maybe you might source the article I linked in post #4 and give us your critique.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't either. But I do know that his knowledge and skills in paleoclimatology and geology are completely lacking.

And so you're looking for someone who agrees with him, so you can accuse him of the same thing?

Is that it?

 

[RickG]

And so you're looking for someone who agrees with him, so you can accuse him of the same thing?

Is that it?

I made no such statement either in the OP or the specifics you asked for. Try addressing the questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

I made no such statement either in the OP or the specifics you asked for.

Not yet ... no.

You haven't found anyone who agrees with Oard yet.

 

[RickG]

Not yet ... no.

You haven't found anyone who agrees with Oard yet.

Not yet. If someone chimes in support of the article, it would be interesting to see their point of view.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not yet. If someone chimes in support of the article, it would be interesting to see their point of view.

Why should they?

You already bottom-lined it.

But I do know that his knowledge and skills in paleoclimatology and geology are completely lacking.

 

[SkyWriting]

One of the popular claims in the YEC Flood Geology literature is that the Ice Age occurred after Noah's Flood. I would have said last ice age, but they only think there was one.
So, two questions to begin with:

1. Who in the Creation Science Camp has the proper credentials to make such a claim and why?
2. What are the contributing (YEC) factors for such an ice age?

The atmosphere and climate seems to have changed to include "rain."

Please link to the requirement for "proper credentials."
For the gazillionth time, Once and for all.
Prove to us this isn't a construct of your mind.

 

[RickG]

The atmosphere and climate seems to have changed to include "rain."

Please link to the requirement for "proper credentials."
For the gazillionth time, Once and for all.
Prove to us this isn't a construct of your mind.

Post #27.

 

[RickG]

Below in italic is the AiG article written by Michael Oard. Let's dissect it.

Severe Difficulties with Secular/Uniformitarian Beliefs

Secular/uniformitarian scientists have great difficulty explaining any recent ice ages based on rates they observe today.

The insinuation there is that those scientists are atheists. Nothing could be further from the truth.

They have proposed dozens of hypotheses, but all have serious flaws. One problem is that the summer temperatures in the northern United States would have to cool more than 50°F (28°C) accompanied by a huge increase in snow.

Really, I wonder why he avoids naming those "dozens" of hypothesis. Maybe because there aren't dozens of hypothesis.

What would trigger or sustain such a dramatic climate change that would persist for thousands of years? David Alt of the University of Montana in Missoula recently admitted, “Although theories abound, no one really knows what causes ice ages.”

There's no doubt that whatever David Alt said concerning causes of ice ages, there is a context problem there with Oard's claim.

Ancient ice ages have been somewhat controversial over the years, but recently some uniformitarian scientists have come out with the shocking belief that some Proterozoic ice ages were global.

What do you say we substitute Oard's word "belief" with EVIDENCE.

This belief is based on paleomagnetic data that supposedly shows certain rocks, believed to be from ancient ice ages, were marine and equatorial. Because of the reflection of sunlight from a white surface, it is likely that a glaciated earth would never melt.

Again, Evidence, not a belief. The paleomagnetic evidence shows at which latitude the glacial debris that was deposited was formed, which was very near the equator. Therefore .... duh

However, advocates of “snowball earth” state not only that such a glaciation completely melted but also that temperatures following glaciation ended up much warmer than today. Such a “freeze-fry” hypothesis indicates that the concept of ancient ice ages is unsound.

Again, Oard seems to ignore the evidence, such as; Palaeomagnetism, Low-latitude glacial deposits, Open-water glacial deposits, Carbon isotope ratios, Banded iron formations, Cap carbonate rocks, Changing acidity, Distribution of the continents, to name a few. To ignore that evidence is to deny the last ice age as well. And where is the evidence to support Oard's claim that the concept is unsound? Oh! There isn't any.