Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do scientists explain the cause of the Ice Age(s)?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 11 of 96 (548171)
02-26-2010 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by slevesque
02-25-2010 11:07 PM


I love how two people just called creationists liers back to back ...
No-one did in fact do any such thing. As one can tell by reading their posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by slevesque, posted 02-25-2010 11:07 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by slevesque, posted 02-26-2010 1:48 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 12 of 96 (548172)
02-26-2010 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by jasonkthompson
02-26-2010 1:06 AM


Re: so what is the explanation
Oh, and here's what I've been looking at: The Ice Age Model
Can you actually falsify it or just vaguely say it's been dis-proven or it's a lie.
Falsify what, in particular? The guy that you quote begins with the sentence: "The evidence for an Ice Age that covered 30% of the high and mid latitude continents is overwhelming."
I do not believe that I can "falsify it or just vaguely say it's been dis-proven or it's a lie". I think that that is true. How 'bout you?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jasonkthompson, posted 02-26-2010 1:06 AM jasonkthompson has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 15 of 96 (548181)
02-26-2010 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by slevesque
02-26-2010 1:48 AM


I am sorry, you're quite right. They did say that. If it is not an excuse to say that I was drunk when I wrote that, and therefore incapable of my usual high standard of critical analysis, then I hope it is at least an explanation. Oops.
I myself prefer the belief that creationists are halfwits, and will defend this view against the proposition that creationists are deliberate liars in despite of anyone who prefers that opinion.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by slevesque, posted 02-26-2010 1:48 AM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ZenMonkey, posted 02-26-2010 2:36 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 18 of 96 (548188)
02-26-2010 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by ZenMonkey
02-26-2010 2:36 AM


Re: Who can say?
Very well. I maintain that the vast majority of creationists are sincere, and I shall argue for it. Start a thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ZenMonkey, posted 02-26-2010 2:36 AM ZenMonkey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ZenMonkey, posted 02-26-2010 5:03 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 61 by Taz, posted 02-22-2011 11:00 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 42 of 96 (581217)
09-14-2010 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Jeff Davis
09-14-2010 12:14 PM


By the way, the massive Laurentide continental glacier that covered Canada and the northern parts of the U.S. is still around. It is in the Baffin Islands. We know this because the rock grooves and scratches (striations) lead directly to this particular ice sheet. It is no longer considered a glacier because it is not moving ...
I think you're wrong there.
A glacier is defined by movement of the ice from the point of accumulation to the point of ablation.
You're talking as though you think that a glacier is defined by forward motion of the point of ablation. In which case you're wrong. A glacier is a glacier whether or not the point of ablation is advancing, stationary, or retreating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Jeff Davis, posted 09-14-2010 12:14 PM Jeff Davis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Jeff Davis, posted 09-14-2010 9:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 96 (581295)
09-14-2010 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Jeff Davis
09-14-2010 9:41 PM


I believe you are missing my point. The ice sheet is not in motion at all, so it is not considered a glacier.
Well, if you google on the phrase "Baffin Island Glacier", you'll find that a lot of people do consider it a glacier.
Moreover, if it's more than about 30 meters thick then it must flow.
But I don't see how it could not be a glacier. If snow accumulates on it, then it will eventually be thick enough to flow. The only way round that is for it to be a seasonal phenomenon, which it doesn't seem to be.
The point of ablation may not move, but I bet you a beer that it's a glacier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Jeff Davis, posted 09-14-2010 9:41 PM Jeff Davis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Jeff Davis, posted 09-15-2010 11:24 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 51 of 96 (605772)
02-22-2011 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Robert Byers
02-22-2011 12:07 AM


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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Robert Byers, posted 02-22-2011 12:07 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Robert Byers, posted 02-22-2011 7:36 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 60 of 96 (605945)
02-22-2011 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Robert Byers
02-22-2011 7:36 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Robert Byers, posted 02-22-2011 7:36 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 66 of 96 (606148)
02-23-2011 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Robert Byers
02-23-2011 10:51 PM


Studies on mega floods show almost all formations in sediment or bedrock are from fast flowing water. That is the votices and other mechanisms within the flow. even Drumlins are seen now as from mega floods.
I think we were looking for a little more detail and evidence than that, rather than mere assertion.
As it stands, you might as well have written:
Studies on flying pigs show almost all formations in sediment or bedrock are from pigs fluttering their wings. That is the votices and other mechanisms within the fluttering. even Drumlins are seen now as from flying pigs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Robert Byers, posted 02-23-2011 10:51 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 69 of 96 (606172)
02-24-2011 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Robert Byers
02-24-2011 1:19 AM


In fact it is said that the Med sea was carved out by fast flowing water into it.
Said by whom, on what basis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Robert Byers, posted 02-24-2011 1:19 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Robert Byers, posted 02-28-2011 5:36 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 75 of 96 (606744)
02-28-2011 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Robert Byers
02-28-2011 5:36 AM


its a common mention in books dealing with the origin of the Med sea.
No it isn't.
It's widely accepted that the Med was filled by a breach of the Straits of Gibraltar, but not that the Mediterranean basin was excavated by the water in question. How would that even work?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Robert Byers, posted 02-28-2011 5:36 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Theodoric, posted 02-28-2011 11:31 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 84 by Robert Byers, posted 03-03-2011 3:35 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 79 of 96 (606801)
02-28-2011 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by fearandloathing
02-28-2011 12:02 PM


Re: excavated?
Look into the Zanclean flood theory.
What R.B. said was that: "the Med sea was carved out by fast flowing water into it" (my emphasis). Which is a different kettle of fish entirely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by fearandloathing, posted 02-28-2011 12:02 PM fearandloathing has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 86 of 96 (607320)
03-03-2011 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Robert Byers
03-03-2011 3:35 AM


They do talk anout great canyons and other evidence on the floor showing powerful moving water.
And they say that these canyons correspond to rivers which drained into the basin while it was a desert.
And no-one (well, no geologist, I can't speak for the creationists, who might say anything) says that the basin as a whole was produced by the breach of the straits. It had to be there already, as proved by drilling and indeed by common sense, since the Atlantic had to have something to flow into.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Robert Byers, posted 03-03-2011 3:35 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:50 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 87 of 96 (607321)
03-03-2011 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Robert Byers
03-03-2011 3:39 AM


Re: excavated?
The material would be the origin of the areas in North africa. in fact the material for the pyramids. I imagine water carving out a basin and depositing material on the sides ...
* sigh *
Water washes sediment down, not up.
And it flows down, not up. The Atlantic could rapidly pour into the Mediterranean Basin only because there was a Mediterranean Basin.
You creationists seem to employ water like a bulldozer, as though it could push anything anywhere you wanted it. You want it to shovel sediment out of the ground here, dump it over there --- but it's water, dammit, it obeys various laws of physics rather than your whims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Robert Byers, posted 03-03-2011 3:39 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2011 10:43 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 90 of 96 (608042)
03-08-2011 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:50 AM


its new ideas that water flooded into the area in a big way and anyways it filled the area up with water.
New? The phrase "Zanclean flood" is two years older than I am.
It simply was so powerful it lowered the basin and threw the sediment on top of the boundaries.
The great fossil assemblages on all sides i see as from this short event about a century or two after the flood.
Again I would point out that water is not a bulldozer. It can't push things hither and thither just because you want it to. Nor does it need to. All the geological evidence shows that the Mediterranean is a perfectly ordinary ocean, like the Atlantic, with which it is contiguous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:50 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024