Everyone else has already noted that one baby mammoth found in a remarkably well-preserved state is not the same thing as millions of mammoths suddenly frozen in a sudden change of climate.
So I will just repeat my previous question: weren't these mammoths supposed to have been drowned in a big flood and buried with all those dinosaurs before they had a chance to be frozen in the big post-flood climate change?
Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?
A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger
I believe the earth is between 6,000-12,000 years old. As for the 1000 mammoths thing. I did some researching, I was wrong about the 1000 mammoths. Piece of bad information. Anyways Question. If there wasn't a flood, how do you explain Dinosaur fossils found on Mt. Everest.
I did some researching, I was wrong about the 1000 mammoths. Piece of bad information.
I don't mean to belabour an issue that you've already conceded, but my point was less about the accuracy of your information and more about the validity of your logic. Yes, there are some frozen mammoths, but there is no connection between those mammoths and a flood of any kind, never mind a global flood.
We often hear, "the best explanation for frozen mammoths is a global flood" or "the best explanation for fossils on mountaintops is a global flood". But we don't hear you telling us what the explanation is.
How does a global flood - or any flood - explain climate changes? How does a global flood explain fossils on mountaintops? You need to think more clearly about how point A leads to point B, not just jump to the conclusion that everything points to a global flood.
If there wasn't a flood, how do you explain Dinosaur fossils found on Mt. Everest.
I think you meant why are there Sea Shell Fossils on Mt. Everest.
Also note there are Sea Shell Fossils on upper rim of the Grand Canyon over 10000 ft above sea level, I know I have collected them.
However, how is this evidence of a world wide flood?
Just how did those immobile sea shells get transported way up the sedimentary column? As you search for this answer, keep in mind the other creationist arguement of hydrologic sorting to explain why dinosaurs and mammals are distinct in the fossil record as well as why Trilobites never mix with dinosaur or mammal fossils.
Sea shell fossils on mountain tops is evidence of uplift - a process at work today.
quote:Yes, there are some frozen mammoths, but there is no connection between those mammoths and a flood of any kind, never mind a global flood.
While it might not seem obvious at first, there is a direct connection between ANY quickly frozen piece of organtic substance and a flood.
Before I explain this corrilation, I'd like to state that mammoths, dispite most artists seem to think, were NOT frozen tundra animals. The fur coat on the discovered wolly mammoths is not thick enough to have kept the animals warm in a Siberian winter as we see it today. In fact, it isn't much if any thicker then we see on many moderate climate animals today, bison perhaps? Therefore, it stands to reason that there was SOMEthing that happened to change the climate of northern Siberia while the mammoths were already there. It also stands to reason that that is what caused the mammoths (not to mention the other animals that have been found frozen in the Siberian wasteland) to have frozen with food still in their mouths (as was in the case of one of the Berezovka mammoths)
Now, what could have caused such a catistrophic change in the Siberian cilmate? an Ice Age?
quote:"Answers in Genisis" The opening of the â€œfountains of the great deepâ€ and the resulting worldwide Flood would have caused upheavals and tremendous volcanic activity. A shroud of volcanic dust and aerosols (very small particles) would have been cast into the stratosphere and trapped there for several years following the Flood. These particles would have reflected some of the sunlight back to space and caused cooler summers, mainly over large landmasses. Extensive volcanic activity would have continued for a number of years after the Flood and gradually declined as crustal magma solidified and crustal movements lessened. There is abundant evidence of extraordinary volcanic activity during the Ice Age, which would have replenished the dust and aerosols in the stratosphere. Ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica also show abundant volcanic particles and acids in the sections associated with the Ice Age.
An Ice Age also requires huge amounts of water in the atmosphere, which then falls as snow. But where would the tremendous amounts of water necessary to saturate the atmosphere have come from? The Genesis account records that the â€œfountains of the great deepâ€ burst forth during the Flood (Genesis 7:11). Movements in the earthâ€™s crust would have released high-pressure outflows of deep, hot water reservoirs, while huge volcanoes and large underwater lava flows would have added heat to the oceans. The rapid Flood currents would mix the warm water, driving it from pole to pole. Warm water would prevent the formation of ice in the sea. As a result, the warm ocean would have a much higher level of evaporation than that in the modern cool ocean. Under such conditions, most of the resulting snow would fall in the middle latitudes and polar regions. Warm water and cold continents are a recipe for powerful and continuous snowstorms, whose behavior can be estimated using basic weather principles.
quote:We often hear, "the best explanation for frozen mammoths is a global flood"
Does that answer your question?
quote:the best explanation for fossils on mountaintops is a global flood
Well, how would YOU explain them? It's scientifically impossible for a animal to just die from old age or a heart attack or something an turn into a fossil (which, I can explain if you want me to). Fossils can only be made in the presence of a lot of mud and pressure (a flood?)(I can also explain that if you want me to) So how else would you sugust that a fossil made it to the top of a mountain?
Well, how would YOU explain them? It's scientifically impossible for a animal to just die from old age or a heart attack or something an turn into a fossil...Fossils can only be made in the presence of a lot of mud and pressure
Only impossible in Creationist literature.
Fossilization of an organism requires certain factors and it is an exceptionally rare occurrence. For an organism to be fossilized, the remains need to be covered by sediment quickly after death such as a sand storm, flood, mass wasting, earthquake, volcanic eruptions, etc. Other conditions can produce fossils such as an organism sinking to an anoxic environment such as to the bottom of a lake or sea.
Today there are discoveries of partially fossilized specimens. I have several in my collection. For example, I have some charcoal wood sitting here on my desk that I found buried underneath a Columbia Plateau pillow lava flow that occurred probably 15 million years ago. The wood most likely was at the bottom of a pond or river and the lava flow did not complete incinerate the wood being protected by water and mud. This wood would have someday been fossilized.
Also there are many examples of 1000's of year old buried forest that are get uncovered by storms or excavations. These forest demonstrated that organic material can survive very long periods. These buried forests are tomorrow's fossilized forests. Many examples occur in the Pacific Northwest and here is an example dating from the ice age:
Also note these are "polystrate fossils" in the making....
So how else would you suggest that a fossil made it to the top of a mountain?
Uplift and mountain building, a process occurring today. There have been many documented accounts of mussel-shell beds raising 10 feet from a single earthquake! More modest events are noted all the time.
Therefore, it stands to reason that there was SOMEthing that happened to change the climate of northern Siberia while the mammoths were already there.
As I said, the climate change is called "winter". A mammoth who got caught in a mudhole, for example, might have frozen to death if the temperature fell drastically for a day or two. No long-term climate change is implied at all.
Now, what could have caused such a catistrophic change in the Siberian cilmate?
You haven't shown any evidence that there was a "catastrophic change".
Does that answer your question?
Not even close. That crap from Answers in Genesis is nothing but wild-eyed speculation.
Fossils can only be made in the presence of a lot of mud and pressure (a flood?)
We're not talking about fossils here. We're talking about frozen mammoths.
I have neither mud nor pressure in my freezer.
Edited by Ringo, : Extended the last quote.
Edited by Ringo, : Fixed punctuation in previous edit.
So how else would you sugust that a fossil made it to the top of a mountain?
It's worth pointing out that a fludde does not explain the presence of fossils on the tops of mountains and the condition in which they are found. Leonardo da Vinci figured this out in the 15th century; apparently creationists are still stuck in the 14th century. See Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519).
First, at the bottom of each person's message is a peek button and a reply button. You should use the reply button that is on the specific message you are replying to, that way we will all know who you are trying to answer.
If there was no flood, explain how bones were found on top of Mt. Everest.
Go to the beach, dig your hand in the sand and grab a handful. Lift your hand into the air. How did the sand go from being in the ground, to being in the air?