Frozen Tropical Animals

In message #11 of the Analysis of Amos 9:11-15 as Prophecy thread, buzsaw tosses out this line as evidence for a global canopy:"5. The tropical animals found frozen in the Arctic ices indicate the poles were likely warm before the flood. The canopy seems to be the best explanation of this."I have no interest in buzsaw's attempts at shoehorning current or historical events into his particular interpretation of bible passages. However the above statement is so absurd and unsupported by evidence that I think it needs further discussion.I suspect he might be giving creedence to some long debunked stories which the Jehovah's Witnesses pass off as evidence of global flooding. I wonder if he actually has anything new to offer to support his assertion above.O2U, buzsaw. Provide citations for your frozen tropical animals.

Gotta run for now, but here's a link to ponder in the mean time:
However I don't agree with ICR or this link that there had to necessarily be an ice age. I believe the ice was only at or near the poles, but with more ice than is observed today. The reason most creationists agree to an ice age as such is to explain what they believe happened to the dinosaurs which they believe were on the ark. I don't believe there was any dinosaurs on the ark, as I take the dinosaurs to be the Edenic serpents which God cursed to become belly crawlers. The offspring of these, imo were born belly crawlers and only the offspring belly crawlers we observe today were taken into the ark. Uh,oh. I see another thread emerging!http//:The Ice Age, the Bible, and the Woolly Mammoth Creation vs. evolution flood [This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-17-2003]

Since when were mammoths "tropical animals" ?Even if I bought the ICR's assertions (and I don't) it doesn't really help you.

Hey, I really liked this part of Buz's link: So, if mammoths were clean animals, and Noah took seven on the ark, then they could multiply to hundreds of thousands in 10 years.Also, note the "animals multiply quickly." Now, that's a relative term. Big animals like elephants multiply slower than humans, and I don't think even rabbits can pull of seven to 100,000 in 10 years.Yikes! No wonder that link doesn't want you cutting and pasting from their page. (Just click view and source on your browser menu and cut and paste from the text page if you need to quote from there like I did.)

Uh....do mammoths cleave the foot?

Hi Buzz,Is there any possibility of persuading you to read an introductory geology book? You continue to advocate positions for which the contrary evidence is unequivocal. Even large parts of the northern United States and a good part of the British Isles were glaciated during the most recent ice age. The evidence for glaciers descending far south of the poles is very strong. Glaciers leave extremely obvious evidence. They etch deep striations on the rock of the hills and mountains that guard valleys. At their base they push along huge masses of gravel that are left at the glacial maximums and are known as moraines. They carry with them huge boulders, known as erratics, that get dropped in the middle of open spaces as the glaciers retreat. The evidence for glaciation far south of the poles is unequivocal. Your own state of New York was mostly covered with glaciers that dug into and scoured the region, leaving behind moraines at the southern ends of the Finger Lakes and creating long hills of glacial sediment known as drumlins. There is no evidence supporting anything here. The last dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago. We know this because we can radiometrically date the geologic layers in which dinosaur fossils are found. No dinosaur fossil has ever been found in any geologic layer related to the recent glaciation periods, specifically never with mammoth remains.Dinosaurs are not closely related to snakes. Snakes are a type of reptile, and snake fossils are found along side dinosaur fossils in the same geologic layers as dinosaur fossils, first showing up around 100 million years ago. In other words, dinosaurs and snakes were contemporaries, and snakes, as part of the reptile family, did not evolve from dinosaurs.--Percy

[qs]do mammoths cleave the foot?[qs] Lol. I never thought about considering the two requirements for being clean or unclean. Duh!

Elephants certainly have flat feet, uncloven. I would expect mammoths likewise.

quote:

---

Is there any possibility of persuading you to read an introductory geology book? You continue to advocate positions for which the contrary evidence is unequivocal.

---

This's like me trying to persuade you to read Genesis and other Biblical books. They're just not on the same page ideologically wise. Your books are going to interpret what's observed your way and that's not the way I see it.

quote:

---

Even large parts of the northern United States and a good part of the British Isles were glaciated during the most recent ice age. The evidence for glaciers descending far south of the poles is very strong. Glaciers leave extremely obvious evidence. They etch deep striations on the rock of the hills and mountains that guard valleys. At their base they push along huge masses of gravel that are left at the glacial maximums and are known as moraines. They carry with them huge boulders, known as erratics, that get dropped in the middle of open spaces as the glaciers retreat. The evidence for glaciation far south of the poles is unequivocal. Your own state of New York was mostly covered with glaciers that dug into and scoured the region, leaving behind moraines at the southern ends of the Finger Lakes and creating long hills of glacial sediment known as drumlins.

---

These observations can be attributed to one of two things or both, imo.
1. Glacial post flood movements from the poles.
2. Flood waters which indeed can move large bolders and about anything a flood can move if given enough force and volumn of water.

quote:

---

There is no evidence supporting anything here. The last dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago. We know this because we can radiometrically date the geologic layers in which dinosaur fossils are found. No dinosaur fossil has ever been found in any geologic layer related to the recent glaciation periods, specifically never with mammoth remains.

---

I'm not convinced that that Carl Baugh's dinosaur/human footprint combo is fraudulent or bogus. Here again dating methods are what's bogus, imo.

quote:

---

Dinosaurs are not closely related to snakes. Snakes are a type of reptile, and snake fossils are found along side dinosaur fossils in the same geologic layers as dinosaur fossils, first showing up around 100 million years ago. In other words, dinosaurs and snakes were contemporaries, and snakes, as part of the reptile family, did not evolve from dinosaurs.

---

The reason the snake fossils are found with dinosaur fossils is that the original dinosaurs which I take to be the Edenic serpents lived long periods like humans and likely longer even until the flood. After the curse, they were to become belly crawling serpents. However, I do not believe the parent dinosaurs were zapped into belly crawlers. Instead their eggs hatched into the belly crawler serpents (to the utter dissapointment of mommy dino. ) Anyhow, this would allow for the coexistence of the modern reptiles and the extinct reptiles, (the dinosaurs). After all, they are all a form of reptile.It is indeed interesting and very unusual that a whole species of animals should become extinct, and I believe that this is the explanation for that, though Christians like Ken Ham and John Morris would not agree with me on this. All the remaining dinos went down in the flood as, imo, they were not in the ark.

Buzsaw, where are the tropical animals frocen in Arctic ice?

I'd be very surprised if Percy hadn't read Genesis and the rest of the bible. Several times, even.Do you really think he argues from a position of ignorance about opposing points of view? That he feels his certainty about his argument is so weak that it couldn't survive contradictory arguments? No offense, but that's kind of the way you come off. You're not in the least bit suspicious about a so-called "footprint" that's 20+ inches long and shows no indication of heel, arch, or toes, shod or otherwise?I've seen the "footprint" and it doesn't look anything like a foot.If men and dinosaurs lived together, why don't we find human remains in dinosaur skeletons? Or vice-versa? Or cave drawings of dinosaurs? Happens all the time. Dodo? Perigine falcon? Passenger pidgeon? Heard of these?

There may be somewhere where peregrines are extinct, but the species is still around.Try Great Auk instead.

quote:

---

2. Flood waters which indeed can move large bolders and about anything a flood can move if given enough force and volumn of water.

---

So why don't we find a worldwide debris layer from the Noachian flood, with all kinds of things jumbled up together?

quote:

---

I'm not convinced that that Carl Baugh's dinosaur/human footprint combo is fraudulent or bogus.

---

Based upon what evidence do you believe that humans and dinosaurs were contemporary, besides these questionable footprints?

quote:

---

Here again dating methods are what's bogus, imo.

---

Please explain, in detail, exactly how it is that each of the dozen or so different radiometric dating methods are "bogus". In addition, please explain how each of these methods can be wrong in such a way to return remarkably consistent dates for rock dated with them.If you can't explain, and I think that's the case, then you are being pigheaded and lying to yourself.It's amazing to me the kind of anti-intellectual people that God chooses. I mean, what did he give us this big brain for if he didn't want us to use it?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-19-2003]

I've not only read and studied the Bible, I've taught Genesis and Matthew in Bible study classes. I own maybe ten Bibles, and many more if you count the CD set I have which includes all the common translations. My questions are about your particular interpretations of certain Biblical passages, and about your general philosophy of prophecy interpretation. This is perhaps worth exploring a little. Scientists everywhere around the globe of many different nationalities, cultures and religions share the same views on physics, geology, biology and cosmology. What do you believe they have in common ideologically that leads them to the same misinterpretations of evidence? As I already explained the first time I suggested you do some reading, I'm not asking you to accept the interpretations and conclusions but just to become aware of the available evidence. In that way you can stop presenting proposals that contradict that evidence. Both proposals are inconsistent with known evidence. For item 1, not only is there no evidence for the flood, according to the Bible the flood was about 5,000 years ago, while the end of the last ice age was more than 10,000 years ago, so we already know there could have been no major post-flood glaciation episodes.For item 2, floods leave different evidence than glaciers. They do not scratch striations into the rock of hills and mountains bordering valleys, they do not form moraines or drumlins, and they do not leave large boulders in the middle of the flat plains where many erratics are found since a flood can only move boulders when flowing very swiftly in narrow channels.You see, Buzz, whatever happens in the past leaves evidence. If a flood shaped the landscape then it looks one way, if a glacier caused it then it looks another. If Creation Science is truly science then it can't look at a valley full of evidence of glaciers and simply declare, "A flood caused this." It must first show how the glaciation evidence is mistaken or misinterpreted, then it must produce positive evidence of a flood. The measure of the quality of your science isn't the tenacity with which you hold your opinions, but rather your ability to produce evidence supporting your views. The Answers In Genesis website has a webpage titled Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. Carl Baugh is included in the list. About him they say: But since we're doing science, can you cite any evidence supporting your opinion? But this scenario is inconsistent with the evidence.

1. We know that dinosaurs lived long ago, becoming extinct about 65 million years ago. The age evidence comes from multiple dating methods, including both radiometric and geological.
   ​
2. Snakes and dinosaurs coexisted for about 40 million years through many, many geological layers. Your postulated scenario requires the dinosaurs who laid the eggs which bore snakes to live millions of years afterward, an impossibility in itself, and to show a rapidly declining population since no new dinosaurs are being born, only snakes. Plus you have to explain how our current understanding of snake evolution is wrong. Plus you invoke a miracle, which lies outside the realm of any Creation Science that could be presented in science classrooms.
   ​
3. Morphologically snakes and dinosaurs bear little similarity. Snakes are not dinosaurs which have lost their legs.
   ​
4. Snakes are in the reptilian order Squamata, while dinosaurs were in two different reptilian orders, Saurischia and Ornithischia. These two orders are very different morphologically, and if all dinosaurs had become snakes then there would be two orders of snakes, not one.

This isn't unusual at all. Species go extinct all the time. But above the species level is the genus, and above the genus level is the family, and above the family level is the order. What is unusual about the dinosaurs is that two entire orders of the reptilian class representing hundreds and hundreds of species went extinct, all within at most a period of a few million years.--Percy