|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5169 days) Posts: 9 From: Dallas, Texas, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do scientists explain the cause of the Ice Age(s)? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jeff Davis Junior Member (Idle past 4944 days) Posts: 29 Joined: |
Now, that's a bet I'd love to lose. From a pilsner to a stout. It's on me!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wojciech Junior Member (Idle past 4924 days) Posts: 6 From: Россия Joined: |
Oribital forcing or climate change due to shifts in the Earths elliptical orbit around the sun every 100 000 year (eccentricity), from an elliptical orbital to almost circular. There is also precession where the Earth wobbles like a top. One cycle takes approx 26ka. Finally there is obliquity which involves the tilt of the earth. The Earth currently has an axial tilt of about 23.4 and does vary from 22.1 and 24.5. As you probably know it is the tilt of the Earth which provides us with the seasons by varying the insolation or solar radiation (sunlight) striking the Earth because of the angle it comes in at. This cycle is about 43ka. These 3 cycles put together are called the Milankovitch cycles and correspond extremely with with the major glacial and warming periods. It does not explain all climate change such as in the Younger Dryas where a warm period about 12 000 years ago (between 10,800 and 9,500 BC) was interupted by a cold snap which lasted
about 1300 years. An asteroid impact was believed responsible for this. Other cooling periods have been caused by volcanic activity such as the Siberian Traps where volcanic activity lasted over a million years flooding most of what we call Siberia in basalt a volcanic rock. Edited by VenomFangX, : Part badly written, seemed I was only talking about one of the cycles and not all of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eye-Squared-R Member (Idle past 2641 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
Hello Bikerman.
Bikerman writes: RE : Thread on the honesty (or otherwise) of creationistsDid you start this thread? I would be very interested in joining in - 15 years debating creationists, sometimes in public arenas as well as on the internet, has given me some knowledge and experience which I'll share..... Yes, Zenmonkey started that thread Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?)! And here is your opportunity for debating a creationist: Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution Any Takers?!Please read the OP first. There are specific disciplines available for your commitment as detailed in Message 77 through Message 80 All the Best,Eye-Squared-R
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4393 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
This YEC creationist says the ice ages should more accurately be seen as a freezing rain age.
I see this age as coming about the years 2100 BC to 1900 BC and lasting till about 1700 BC or so. i speculate there was a great upheaval some centuries after the flood , these dates, and part of it was a great volcanic outporing up and down the spine of North/South America and elsewhere. This changed the climate, like a nuclear winter, and brought about the cool and rainy climate that we now call the ice age. I believe ice cores and the general ice depth in northern parts was rather quickly done by endless rain cycles as opposed to annual snow cycles. So there was not a movement from migrating ice but simply frozen water covering everywhere. Then the ice melted rapidly in great floods and all was over and nothing happened since. Its just been wrong interpretations about basic facts and processes from those not first accepting biblical boundaries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Its just been wrong interpretations about basic facts and processes from those not first accepting biblical boundaries.
And when "basic facts and processes" show the bible to be horribly wrong? What then? For example, your comments:I see this age as coming about the years 2100 BC to 1900 BC and lasting till about 1700 BC or so. ...are hopelessly wrong. Now what do you do? Just ignore facts and pretend the bible is accurate? Or is this where the "interpretation" comes into play? Edited by Coyote, : Add missing word Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This YEC creationist says the ice ages should more accurately be seen as a freezing rain age. I see this age as coming about the years 2100 BC to 1900 BC and lasting till about 1700 BC or so. i speculate there was a great upheaval some centuries after the flood , these dates, and part of it was a great volcanic outporing up and down the spine of North/South America and elsewhere. This changed the climate, like a nuclear winter, and brought about the cool and rainy climate that we now call the ice age. I believe ice cores and the general ice depth in northern parts was rather quickly done by endless rain cycles as opposed to annual snow cycles. So there was not a movement from migrating ice but simply frozen water covering everywhere. Then the ice melted rapidly in great floods and all was over and nothing happened since. Its just been wrong interpretations about basic facts and processes from those not first accepting biblical boundaries. But how do you explain the glacial striations, the moraines, the drumlins, the erratic boulders, the cirques, the roches moutonnes? Their existence, I think, falls under the heading of "basic facts".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Robert Byers writes: This YEC creationist says the ice ages should more accurately be seen as a freezing rain age.I see this age as coming about the years 2100 BC to 1900 BC and lasting till about 1700 BC or so. i speculate there was a great upheaval some centuries after the flood , these dates, and part of it was a great volcanic outporing up and down the spine of North/South America and elsewhere. This changed the climate, like a nuclear winter, and brought about the cool and rainy climate that we now call the ice age. I believe ice cores and the general ice depth in northern parts was rather quickly done by endless rain cycles as opposed to annual snow cycles. So there was not a movement from migrating ice but simply frozen water covering everywhere. Then the ice melted rapidly in great floods and all was over and nothing happened since. Its just been wrong interpretations about basic facts and processes from those not first accepting biblical boundaries. Where is your supporting evidence? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Its just been wrong interpretations about basic facts and processes from those not first accepting biblical boundaries. It would really help if you would present evidence which would demonstrate that these interpretations are wrong. Simply making up a story is not a valid way to falsify scientific interpretations that are based on literal mountains of evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4215 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
This YEC creationist says the ice ages should more accurately be seen as a freezing rain age. I see this age as coming about the years 2100 BC to 1900 BC and lasting till about 1700 BC or so. i speculate there was a great upheaval some centuries after the flood , these dates, and part of it was a great volcanic outporing up and down the spine of North/South America and elsewhere. This changed the climate, like a nuclear winter, and brought about the cool and rainy climate that we now call the ice age. I believe ice cores and the general ice depth in northern parts was rather quickly done by endless rain cycles as opposed to annual snow cycles. So there was not a movement from migrating ice but simply frozen water covering everywhere. Then the ice melted rapidly in great floods and all was over and nothing happened since. Its just been wrong interpretations about basic facts and processes from those not first accepting biblical boundaries. If this had occurred, why doesn't your book mention these floods which would have occurred in such places as Egypt, Canaan & Mesopotamia, where the Biblical stories take place. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4393 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: This YEC creationist says the ice ages should more accurately be seen as a freezing rain age. I see this age as coming about the years 2100 BC to 1900 BC and lasting till about 1700 BC or so. i speculate there was a great upheaval some centuries after the flood , these dates, and part of it was a great volcanic outporing up and down the spine of North/South America and elsewhere. This changed the climate, like a nuclear winter, and brought about the cool and rainy climate that we now call the ice age. I believe ice cores and the general ice depth in northern parts was rather quickly done by endless rain cycles as opposed to annual snow cycles. So there was not a movement from migrating ice but simply frozen water covering everywhere. Then the ice melted rapidly in great floods and all was over and nothing happened since. Its just been wrong interpretations about basic facts and processes from those not first accepting biblical boundaries. But how do you explain the glacial striations, the moraines, the drumlins, the erratic boulders, the cirques, the roches moutonnes? Their existence, I think, falls under the heading of "basic facts". No problem and in fact these days they are used to demonstrate that it was all from mega floods and not slow moving glaciers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4393 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Taq writes: Its just been wrong interpretations about basic facts and processes from those not first accepting biblical boundaries. It would really help if you would present evidence which would demonstrate that these interpretations are wrong. Simply making up a story is not a valid way to falsify scientific interpretations that are based on literal mountains of evidence. The evidence is the same evidence as used now to draw conclusions. Just a better interpretation is given here.There are only basic pieces of evidence in these things actually.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4393 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: This YEC creationist says the ice ages should more accurately be seen as a freezing rain age. I see this age as coming about the years 2100 BC to 1900 BC and lasting till about 1700 BC or so. i speculate there was a great upheaval some centuries after the flood , these dates, and part of it was a great volcanic outporing up and down the spine of North/South America and elsewhere. This changed the climate, like a nuclear winter, and brought about the cool and rainy climate that we now call the ice age. I believe ice cores and the general ice depth in northern parts was rather quickly done by endless rain cycles as opposed to annual snow cycles. So there was not a movement from migrating ice but simply frozen water covering everywhere. Then the ice melted rapidly in great floods and all was over and nothing happened since. Its just been wrong interpretations about basic facts and processes from those not first accepting biblical boundaries. If this had occurred, why doesn't your book mention these floods which would have occurred in such places as Egypt, Canaan & Mesopotamia, where the Biblical stories take place. The bible deals only with basic info for its agenda.Those lands would not be close to the action here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
The evidence is the same evidence as used now to draw conclusions. Just a better interpretation is given here. And this evidence is . . .? And your interpretation is better because . . .?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
No problem and in fact these days they are used to demonstrate that it was all from mega floods and not slow moving glaciers. How do mega floods produce these features?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No problem and in fact these days they are used to demonstrate that it was all from mega floods and not slow moving glaciers. Well go on then. Please "demonstrate" how these effects, which are never produced by floods and are always produced by glaciers, were on this occasion produced by floods and not by glaciers.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024