Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 5:48 AM
21 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,136 Year: 5,173/19,786 Month: 1,295/873 Week: 191/460 Day: 7/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Author Topic:   How do scientists explain the cause of the Ice Age(s)?
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2620 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 16 of 96 (548184)
02-26-2010 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by slevesque
02-26-2010 1:46 AM


Re: What??????
slevesque writes:

All I said is that in theory a global flood would cause an Ice Age, didn't give any date to it, nor did I affirm it's real historicity.

So if you have no evidence and no actual hypothesis, but only a "maybe" that you've pulled out of thin air, then why bring it up in the first place? It's sort of like me interrupting a discussion of Shakespeare by declaring that in theory the differences between the quarto and and folio editions of Hamlet are because Shakespeare was misnaming the document files on his laptop.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by slevesque, posted 02-26-2010 1:46 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2620 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 17 of 96 (548185)
02-26-2010 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Adequate
02-26-2010 2:14 AM


Who can say?
Dr Adequate writes:

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.

I'll accept that debate challenge. Before I came here I spent a year visiting the blog of a certain mustachioed Kiwi charlatan. Having witnessed the amazing level of deception of both self and others on display there, I assert that very few people could mouth the utter nonesense of creationism and not know on some level that they were full of shit.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-26-2010 2:14 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-26-2010 3:01 AM ZenMonkey has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.1


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 responded

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

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 440 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 yet responded

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 520 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 20 of 96 (548239)
02-26-2010 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by jasonkthompson
02-26-2010 1:06 AM


Re: so what is the explanation
Hey JKT.

From your "source":

"source" writes:

It is obvious that the Ice Age occurred after the Flood, since beautiful horseshoe-shaped moraines are preserved on the surface out from many mountain valleys of the western United States. Moraines are formed at the edges (lateral moraine) and end of a glacier (end moraine) by the deposition and pushing of rocks of all sizes into ridges. These geometric features cannot be formed during Flood runoff, but are typical of glaciation.

Nothing like starting from a conclusion and working your way back. Personally, off the top of my head I can think of perhaps a couple dozen formations in nature which would have obviously had to have happened after the flood, because they sure as hell couldn't have happened before it. This is the only portion of the web page which attempts to convey the assertion that a global flood is "backed up" by observations in nature. Everything else is conjecture.

That's it? Surely you have better material that we can dissect...

And as Otto mentioned, there are absolutely no supporting references. Did the author forget them? This may as well have been a personal opinion blog, for all the actual evidence presented.

So can anyone disprove this web page? I don't think so. There'd have to be some actual evidence to debunk. Please present a better source.

Have a good one.


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jasonkthompson, posted 02-26-2010 1:06 AM jasonkthompson has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by petrophysics1, posted 02-26-2010 2:43 PM Apothecus has not yet responded

    
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 21 of 96 (548267)
02-26-2010 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Apothecus
02-26-2010 10:52 AM


Debunking
Apothecus writes:

So can anyone disprove this web page? I don't think so. There'd have to be some actual evidence to debunk.

Hi Apothecus,

Well both JKT and the fellow who wrote the web page have the amount of water vapor which increases with temperature and relative humity comfused. That's why in the OP he made the stupid statement that less water vapor means less precipitation.

Of course it wll rain, or snow, or the dew will set if the relative humidity reaches 100% and the temperature continues to drop.

Isn't this stuff covered in 9th grade earth science? Didn't these two guys ever watch the weather channel?

The article states that during the ice age the oceans were warm from pole to pole and top to bottom. All this to solve the nonexistant problem mentioned above.

Can we tell that past ocean temperature? Sure, we can look at the oxygen18 to oxygen16 ratios in the tests of forams & radiolarians, in shells and in corals. The strontium to calcium balance in corals is also temperature dependant. All of this tells us the oceans were colder during ice ages.

An explanation can be found here:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/...limatology_OxygenBalance

And here also, check out the graph of the earths temp through time right at the top (click to enlarge).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_isotope_ratio_cycle

Edited by petrophysics1, : fix qute box

Edited by petrophysics1, : typo

Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Apothecus, posted 02-26-2010 10:52 AM Apothecus has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7697
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 22 of 96 (548268)
02-26-2010 2:45 PM
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: http://michael.oards.net/IceAgeModels.htm

Can you actually falsify it or just vaguely say it's been dis-proven or it's a lie.

The ice core data rips this to shreds. Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica have 450,000 years worth of annual ice layers. It is from this data that the link between the Milankovitch cycles and ice ages was first inferred. Here is the temp and CO2 data from the Vostok ice core:

Notice first the time scale at the bottom. 400,000 years. During that time there have been 4 ice ages (4 valleys) that are evenly spaced. It is the even spacing of hot and cold periods that suggests a cyclical cause, most likely the Milankovitch cycles.


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

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2620 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 23 of 96 (548295)
02-26-2010 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dr Adequate
02-26-2010 3:01 AM


Re: Who can say?
Dr Adequate writes:

Very well. I maintain that the vast majority of creationists are sincere, and I shall argue for it. Start a thread.

As you wish. I shall put together an appropriate first post, and then let the festivities commence.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-26-2010 3:01 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Bikerman, posted 08-01-2010 5:16 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 96 (571216)
07-30-2010 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by subbie
02-25-2010 10:38 PM


Classic Response
subbie writes:

Let's begin at the beginning. What makes you think that low temperatures and high precipitation are necessary requirements for an ice age? And from where did you get that notion?
More generally, let me make this observation. Your question is of a general type frequently found among creationists. You acknowledge that you are not scientist, yet you seem to think that you can conceive of a simple problem that will bring an entire scientific discipline crashing to the ground. What makes you think that you, a non-scientist, sitting in your recliner in your living room, know more about a subject than the hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands of people who have spent their entire lives studying it do? If a rational person were to pause for a moment and consider that dilemma, I think he would realize the absurdity of the proposition.

Let me put it another way. I take it you are a person who has spent a great deal of time studying the bible and considering its contents. I am not. How likely do you think it would be for me to be able to make a one sentence argument to get you to see that everything you believe about the bible is wrong?

On the other hand, perhaps you didn't come up with this "problem" with ice ages by yourself. Perhaps you got it from a creationist, either in person, from some book, or from a website. If is this so, I strongly caution you not to advance any such argument here again. Creationists as a rule lie about the evidence. I know several people have told you this already, and I don't really expect you to believe us, particularly since they subscribe to a proposition with which you agree. But you will not find much more than frustration here if all you can put offer is lies and misunderstandings from creationists.

I'm not trying to sound harsh, jason. I'm trying to get you to do a little critical thinking. I hope you see that, and I hope to stay around long enough to learn something.

Subbie, I read this relatively long response of yours to Jason. It's so familiar. It's the classic response we creationists get so often from you people. Tell me, Subbie; what, besides "you've been told" have you said to address Jason's message? The whole message of yours is essentially, "we, the science elite, have the corner on truth because we've been programmed into it all from kidegarten up through doctorate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 02-25-2010 10:38 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by anglagard, posted 07-31-2010 2:19 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 96 (571219)
07-30-2010 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Minnemooseus
02-26-2010 12:11 AM


Re: Hypothetical great flood - How does such lead to an ice age?
Minnemooseous writes:

I think a better route to take, would be to simply ask how this hypothetical flood (regardless of its reality) would lead to an ice age.

The consensus among many creationists, including me, is that the pre-flood earth had a vapor canopy creating a global warm terrarium planet. The flood destroyed this protective canopy, suddenly cooling the planet and freezing the flooded poles, including some tropical type stuff which, by the way, has been found in places like Siberia, etc.

This has been interpreted by secularists as an alleged ice age, allegedly ending about 10,000 years ago.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-26-2010 12:11 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 07-30-2010 8:29 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 26 of 96 (571222)
07-30-2010 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Buzsaw
07-30-2010 8:22 PM


Re: Hypothetical great flood - How does such lead to an ice age?
Buz writes:

The consensus among many creationists, including me, is that the pre-flood earth had a vapor canopy creating a global warm terrarium planet. The flood destroyed this protective canopy, suddenly cooling the planet and freezing the flooded poles, including some tropical type stuff which, by the way, has been found in places like Siberia, etc.

Unfortunately Buz, the Biblical Flood has been absolutely refuted so even if you guys reach a consensus, it is simply wrong.

See Message 5 in "Was there a worldwide flood?"


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Buzsaw, posted 07-30-2010 8:22 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 07-30-2010 9:14 PM jar has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 96 (571231)
07-30-2010 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by jar
07-30-2010 8:29 PM


Re: Hypothetical great flood - How does such lead to an ice age?
jar writes:

Unfortunately Buz, the Biblical Flood has been absolutely refuted so even if you guys reach a consensus, it is simply wrong.

See Message 5 in "Was there a worldwide flood?"

Lol, Jar. Your alleged genetic silver bullet (quote below from flood thread) doesn't shoot down the flood. You people who continually deny the possibility of the flood consistently fail to factor in the implications of a Biblical pre-flood planet and atmosphere relative to radiometric dating metholody. You are assuming a relative uniformity which necessarily assumes the impossibility of a global flood. Your premise and the Biblical record premise are not one and the same premise in interpreting what we observe.

Jar writes:

Well, the geneticists can see bottle neck events in some species, but they are all at different times and most are tens or hundreds of thousands of years in the past.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 07-30-2010 8:29 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 07-30-2010 9:30 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 07-30-2010 10:09 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 30 by DrJones*, posted 07-30-2010 11:47 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 31 by bluescat48, posted 07-31-2010 12:51 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2010 1:48 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 07-31-2010 4:00 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Woodsy, posted 08-01-2010 9:19 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 28 of 96 (571232)
07-30-2010 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Buzsaw
07-30-2010 9:14 PM


Re: Hypothetical great flood - How does such lead to an ice age?
Buz writes:

Lol, Jar. Your alleged genetic silver bullet (quote below from flood thread) doesn't shoot down the flood.

Of course it does Buz. Have you ever read the Bible?

In the version of the myth found in Genesis 6 God instructs Noah to:

quote:
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

In the version of the myth found in Genesis 7 we see similar (close but not the same) instructions:

quote:
2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

We also find similar explanations of what will be destroyed in Genesis 6 it says:

quote:
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

and in Genesis 7:

quote:
4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

In both myths lots of critters get killed, in the myth found in Genesis 6 it seems to be talking about land animals and birds while the myth found in Genesis 7 goes even further and wipes out all living things.

If we play mix and match and take the best scenario from each of the myths we might be able to claim that only the birds and land animals were wiped out based on the passage from the Genesis 6 story and that we have the larger saved population found in Genesis 7.

Based on that mix and match game set we have a situation where all land animals and birds found today will be descended from a population that consisted of at most fourteen critters (seven pairs of clean animals and birds) and at worst case four critters (two pair of unclean animals).

Now that is what I would call a real bottleneck.

We know we can see bottlenecks in the genetic record; a great example is the one in Cheetahs but we even see them in the human genome and most other species.

BUT...

If the flood actually happened we would see a bottleneck in EVERY species of animal living on the land and EVERY bird and EVERY one of the bottlenecks show up in the SAME historical time period.

Talk about a big RED flag.

That bottleneck signature would be something every geneticists in the world would see. It would be like a neon sign, Broadway at midnight on New Years Eve. It would be something even a blind geneticist could see.

So it seems to me to be a very simple test that will support or refute the Flood.

If that genetic marker is there in EVERY species living on land or bird of the air, then there is support for the flood. It does not prove the flood happened but it would be very strong support.

If on the other hand that genetic marker is NOT there, then the Flood is refuted.

That genetic marker is NOT there.

The Biblical Flood has been refuted.

Buz writes:

You are assuming a relative uniformity which necessarily assumes the impossibility of a global flood.

That of course is simply untrue. Nothing in my Genetic Marker test assumes uniformity. The only assumptions are that the Bible accurately describes what the Biblical flood would have been like.

And the evidence shows that the Biblical Flood never happened.

Fact.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 07-30-2010 9:14 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 215 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 29 of 96 (571241)
07-30-2010 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Buzsaw
07-30-2010 9:14 PM


Re: Hypothetical great flood - How does such lead to an ice age?
You people who continually deny the possibility of the flood consistently fail to factor in the implications of a Biblical pre-flood planet and atmosphere relative to radiometric dating metholody. You are assuming a relative uniformity which necessarily assumes the impossibility of a global flood.

We fail to factor in the implications of a biblical pre-flood planet and atmosphere because there is no evidence for such. There are early tribal myths variously interpreted to suggest these factors, but no empirical evidence.

On the other hand, we have good evidence from around the world telling us what the climate was really like for the past 50,000+ years.

We don't have to assume uniformity--there are a number of ways we can read the data directly. No assumptions needed! Tree rings, glacial varves and cores, and coral growth are just a couple of these methods. We also have a lot of different types of sediment cores to cross-check the above methods.

Here's a test: if there was a global flood about 4,350 years ago you should have evidence in your back yard. Everybody should. That time period is very easy to find in either sediments or archaeological deposits. Unfortunately for your position there is no evidence for a flood of global magnitude in these deposits. Study some archaeology or sedimentology or a similar field and start exploring your back yard and see what you find!

Oh, and you can also test to see if there was an ice age since 4,350 years ago. That should be easy too with a little study of paleobotany, pollen analysis, or similar subjects. Plants are quite sensitive to changes in temperature and you should be able to find a record of the ice age pretty easily in your own neighborhood--if it's there.

So quit preaching your tribal myths to us and go out there and learn some science so that you can bring us some actual data.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 07-30-2010 9:14 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1819
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 30 of 96 (571259)
07-30-2010 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Buzsaw
07-30-2010 9:14 PM


Re: Hypothetical great flood - How does such lead to an ice age?
You people who continually deny the possibility of the flood consistently fail to factor in the implications of a Biblical pre-flood planet and atmosphere relative to radiometric dating metholody

And you continually fail to provide a mechanism by which all of the dating techniques are incorrect but still manage to agree with each other. Please Buz tell us what pre-flood planet and atmosphere were and how they affected the various dating methods, be sure to show your math.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 07-30-2010 9:14 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019