Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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)?
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 19 of 96 (548197)
02-26-2010 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by jasonkthompson
02-26-2010 1:06 AM


Re: so what is the explanation
Hi jason,
Thanks for that link. There are many odd things about that page, but probably the most important oddity is the total lack of references to supporting data or peer-reviewed research results. It's just a bunch of assertions, like this one:
quote:
The Flood was a tremendous catastrophe involving meteorite impacts, volcanism, and large crustal movements.
Wow. How come none of that was mentioned in the Bible? Seems like it would have been pretty noteworthy (if that part of the Bible were actually intended as an historical account). But then again, it seems equally strange that there's no mention at all of any ice age in the Bible. Why would that be, if it were really true that an ice age happened after the flood? (Was it after or before the Tower of Babel thing?)
And how about this one:
quote:
6) ancient ice ages claimed hundreds of millions to a few billion years ago in the evolutionary science dating scheme are really huge landslides during the Flood;
No supporting evidence. No references. You have to take this guy's word for it that warm oceans and mild winters are the cause of (and are concurrent with) an ice age. And he seems quite convinced by this story he has made up -- no doubts whatsoever, even with the total lack of both evidence and scriptural content to back up the claims.
BTW, it's not the "evolutionary science dating scheme"; it's the geological science dating scheme, which explains lots of stuff about the earth in addition to the fossil record.
If you look at the Wikipedia page for "Ice age", the difference is pretty striking -- there you'll see lots of charts, tables, maps, details, and references to additional research and data that support the explanations. Things tie together and make sense, and when there is doubt or conflicting hypotheses or insufficient data, they tell you this, rather than just pretending that everything to be said about the subject is absolutely certain.
It's really important to know the limits of what the available evidence can tell you -- for one thing, it helps you see what additional evidence would be needed to resolve the unanswered questions, and whenever you can get a better idea of what to look for, there's a better chance you can find it and answer those questions. That's how science works.
For michael.oards.net, it seems there are no unanswered questions -- or rather, there are no further questions you should be asking about this subject (such as "why do mild winters and warm oceans produce an ice age?" or "what evidence is there for lots of meteors, volcanoes, and rapid, violent tectonic shifts during the flood?"). The less you question the author of that material, the better he likes you.
An honest scientist, on the other hand, likes you more when you ask more questions.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jasonkthompson, posted 02-26-2010 1:06 AM jasonkthompson 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