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.
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.