Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 4:03 AM
20 online now:
Dr Adequate, Heathen, PaulK (3 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,106 Year: 5,143/19,786 Month: 1,265/873 Week: 161/460 Day: 6/97 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Author Topic:   How do scientists explain the cause of the Ice Age(s)?
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2298 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 31 of 96 (571264)
07-31-2010 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Buzsaw
07-30-2010 9:14 PM


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

So what was this pre-flood atmosphere, and what evidence shows this?


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 07-30-2010 9:14 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 96 (571270)
07-31-2010 1:48 AM
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're right, Buz, we don't assume that when it gets warm and humid out some kind of magic happens that increases radioactive decay rates several orders of magnitude.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 07-30-2010 9:14 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 33 of 96 (571273)
07-31-2010 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Buzsaw
07-30-2010 8:10 PM


Classic Buz Response
Buzsaw writes:

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.

Of course, had you been born in Mecca, you would have spouted the same Christian fundamentalist BS there that you do here because you are self-proclaimed immune from any so-called 'programming.'

I will simply repeat for the umpteenth time what you will never understand, namely that the evidence provided by the universe, be it from any purported deity or from blind chance, all of it supports the common sense basic rules of physics, chemistry, geology, biology, and history.

It is IMO your total lack of empathy for others that prevents you from understanding anything outside that which rotates around your own navel. For this reason alone you will never understand other nations, cultures, religions, or indeed even your own Bible, and most certainly never under any circumstances the philosophy, methodology, or conclusions of science.

The opinion I have come to over these several years is simply that you are not qualified to lecture us on your infallibility concerning God's creation or God's supposed word.

So what is the answer to the ice cores -- which record a series of annual layers -- which can be observed today depositing annual layers all the while showing no evidence of any melting and reforming in the record? It is in Greenland, in the Antarctic, in glacial lakes in Asia and South America. Is it a trick of your interpretation of some deity that seeks to preserve hunger and curable disease?

That is one piece of evidence against any global flood, I have over 100 more, but it is not just my opinion - see RAZD, Glen Morton, TalkOrigins and many of the posters here for their references.

Of course providing evidence to you (like too many others) is like casting pearls before swine, there is you and there is the universe, and that is one too many for your claims of the perfect interpretation of either.

Jar even has to show you what is in the Bible, since you don't even seem to know, or is it want to know?

Evidence detractors (and Buz who seemingly looks down on all people other than Buz), EVIDENCE!

Edited by anglagard, : remove the term virtually before all of it supports ...., there is no hedge, all evidence supports basic common sense science.


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
ó Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. Itís us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 07-30-2010 8:10 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14818
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 34 of 96 (571276)
07-31-2010 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Buzsaw
07-30-2010 9:14 PM


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

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.

Since you haven't been able to show ANY implications of those things for radiometric dating there isn't anything to take into account. You know that. And in fact you know that you don't have any basis for claiming that there are implications. So why this charade ? Why not just be honest and admit the fact that you have no answer to the scientific evidence ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 07-30-2010 9:14 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 35 of 96 (571572)
08-01-2010 9:19 AM
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. Your premise and the Biblical record premise are not one and the same premise in interpreting what we observe.

Well Buz, you have once again demonstrated the catastrophic effects of religion on morality.

You have been repeatedly and very clearly shown that these statements about a world-wide flood of yours are utter balderdash, yet you continue to produce them. How is this not bald-faced lieing, given that you have offered no real support for these statements (ancient myths do not count)?

Further, you have been shown that observation of the real world shows that it is impossible for there to have been a world-wide flood. How is it not lieing to keep saying there was?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 07-30-2010 9:14 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 3064 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 36 of 96 (571639)
08-01-2010 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ZenMonkey
02-26-2010 5:03 PM


Re: Who can say?
RE : Thread on the honesty (or otherwise) of creationists

Did you start this thread? I would be very interested in joining in - 15 years debating creationists, sometimes in public arenas as well as on the internet, has given me some knowledge and experience which I'll share.....

Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ZenMonkey, posted 02-26-2010 5:03 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 01-16-2011 5:00 PM Bikerman has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1970 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 37 of 96 (580281)
09-08-2010 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jasonkthompson
02-25-2010 6:15 PM


no, a worldwide flud wouldn't cause an iceage
Hi Jason,

I'm going to go out on a limb here and discuss something I know very little about, but at which I still believe that I am correct.

firstly, I firmly believe that a worldwide flood wouldn't cause an iceage.

It's nothing to do with precipitation, it's everything to do with the colour of water. Water is rather dark, and it absorbs heat very well, as far as I know. Water is also a major, and I mean major, greenhouse gas.

IMHO (and no, I don't have the math to back it up!) if you have water, water everywhere, you're going to get two things:

1) a dark surface covering the planet, which would raise temperatures all over the entire planet, and melt the icecaps to boot
2) lots and lots of water in the air, which would also absorb lots and lots of heat, raising the temperature (and melting icecaps, releasing more water, etc, etc)

with those two facts alone, I am more than certain that IF a worldwide flood had happened, we would not have an iceage.

now, in addition to that, there's two things you need to know

1) the bible doesn't describe an iceage - why wouldn't it?
2) how long do you think an iceage lasts? how long do you think an iceage takes to actually cover a significant portion of the planet, stay that way, and then finally recede?

so that's two certain things against your theory, and the kicker is my pet theory which I would honestly like examined.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jasonkthompson, posted 02-25-2010 6:15 PM jasonkthompson has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Coragyps, posted 09-08-2010 3:26 PM greyseal has responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5381
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 38 of 96 (580304)
09-08-2010 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by greyseal
09-08-2010 1:03 PM


Re: no, a worldwide flud wouldn't cause an iceage
Isaac Newton, a Famous Christian Creationist Scientist, said that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction." So a hot humid Fludde would automatically cause a Cold Freezy Ice Age. So there, Mr Smarty Pants Secularist!!1! [/creationist hat]
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by greyseal, posted 09-08-2010 1:03 PM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by greyseal, posted 09-08-2010 4:00 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1970 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 39 of 96 (580314)
09-08-2010 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Coragyps
09-08-2010 3:26 PM


Re: no, a worldwide flud wouldn't cause an iceage
coragyps writes:

Isaac Newton, a Famous Christian Creationist Scientist, said that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction." So a hot humid Fludde would automatically cause a Cold Freezy Ice Age. So there, Mr Smarty Pants Secularist!!1! [/creationist hat]

your logic...it is irrefutable!!!111oneoneoneleven

It's all so simple now - I renounce my evil ways. I just hope Thor can forgive me for all these years...it's only through his awesome hammer that we don't have to deal with ice trolls, so he's surely the reason we're not in an iceage, right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Coragyps, posted 09-08-2010 3:26 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Jeff Davis
Junior Member (Idle past 3027 days)
Posts: 29
Joined: 09-05-2010


Message 40 of 96 (581194)
09-14-2010 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jasonkthompson
02-25-2010 6:15 PM


Hello,

These huge threads are difficult to catch up on, so I apologize if I repeat anything.

First of all, we are still in an ice age. As long as there are continental glaciers on the planet, we are in an ice age. We are merely in the warming phase. Global warming has slightly altered the cycle a bit, but the cooling phase will come nonetheless. 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, but evidence suggests it will again.

I would like also to address the question about colder temperatures producing less precipitation. If this were the case, then why do we have devastating snowstorms in below freezing temperatures? The answer is (sorry for the long-winded answer, but its necessary), yes, colder air does decrease the rate of evaporation relative to condensation (reason for cloud formation leading to precipitation), but one must look at weather systems with respect to density and pressure differentials. The greater the difference in density between two airmasses, the greater the pressure difference. This can cause an extremely powerful moisture pump as long as there is a moisture source - the oceans. Well, we are called the water planet for a reason. Also, we need a power source for production of precipitation, the Sun. Since the Sun produces nearly 50 billion kilowatts of energy to the Earth per day, the energy source is here to stay.

There is another correlation in connection to continental glacial advances than just the Milankovitch cycles. From a paleontology perspective, when we look at every ice age throughout Earth history, we see that a continent is located at one of the poles (especially the South Pole). The reason why this is important is because it creates extreme cold temperatures. Frozen oceans at the poles do not cool down as much, thus, will not produce the pressure differentials needed to sustain a cooling phase. Take for example the reason why the coldest temperatures on the planet are at the South Pole and not the North Pole. The North Pole presently has no continent underneath it.

Best,

Edited by Jeff Davis, : No reason given.

Edited by Jeff Davis, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jasonkthompson, posted 02-25-2010 6:15 PM jasonkthompson has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Taq, posted 09-14-2010 3:20 PM Jeff Davis has responded
 Message 42 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-14-2010 4:11 PM Jeff Davis has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7694
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 41 of 96 (581215)
09-14-2010 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Jeff Davis
09-14-2010 12:14 PM


First of all, we are still in an ice age.

Actually, this isn't quite accurate. We are in an interglacial period. Take a look at this chart:


source here: http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/...rgument.htm

You will see that we are at a temperature peak right now (the y-intercept). The valleys in the chart represent the ice ages.

I would like also to address the question about colder temperatures producing less precipitation. If this were the case, then why do we have devastating snowstorms in below freezing temperatures?

It is because of warm ocean waters that push water vapor into the air. The moisture that falls as snow comes from warmer areas of the globe. This is why you see such a difference between snow accumulation on the coasts of Greenland (several feet a year) compared to the middle of Greenland (just a few inches a year). The warm, moist air hits the cold air on the continent and precipitates out. By the time it gets to the middle of Greenland there is hardly any moisture left.

Since the Sun produces nearly 50 billion kilowatts of energy to the Earth per day, the energy source is here to stay.

You also have to factor in the rate at which this energy is absorbed. Ice reflects this energy back into space while bare ground and liquid water absorb the energy.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Jeff Davis, posted 09-14-2010 9:48 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


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 responded

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

  
Jeff Davis
Junior Member (Idle past 3027 days)
Posts: 29
Joined: 09-05-2010


Message 43 of 96 (581282)
09-14-2010 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Dr Adequate
09-14-2010 4:11 PM


I believe you are missing my point. The ice sheet is not in motion at all, so it is not considered a glacier.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-14-2010 4:11 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-14-2010 10:55 PM Jeff Davis has responded

    
Jeff Davis
Junior Member (Idle past 3027 days)
Posts: 29
Joined: 09-05-2010


Message 44 of 96 (581283)
09-14-2010 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Taq
09-14-2010 3:20 PM


Taq,

I have to disagree. What you are seeing on the chart you posted is a warming and cooling cycle. The fact that it is a cycle means it is all connected. There has been a causal relationship for 2.2 million years and it seems not to be done. Prior to this, there was no cycle at all (accept for a few times in the ancienct past). Your argument seems to be: ige age, no ice age, ice age, no ice age, ice age, etc. Can you not see that a cooling phase or warming phase, or interglacial period, best conforms to the evidence?

best,

Edited by Jeff Davis, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Taq, posted 09-14-2010 3:20 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


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 responded

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

  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019