glaciers and the flood

YECs already claim that ice cores are wrong, so they'll just say something to that effect, that the glaciers were formed afterward.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

You raised two issues. First, the one about glaciers following valleys. You have three issues going here:1) Pressure in a fixed-volume, constant density material (ok, water ice isn't truly fixed-volume, but let's pretend that it is for now) is linearly proportional to depth (regardless of how wide it is). If you have a glacer that is 100 feet deep on a mountain, and one that is 5,000 feet deep spreading across a continent, the pressure at the bottom of the second glacier will be 50 times greater than that at the bottom of the of the first glacier. Consequently, one would expect it to be much easier to shear rock beneath as it moves. Furthermore, glaciers have varying degrees of plasticity; large glaciers have much faster flow rates in the centers and upper regions than the edges and lower regions. Wherever "fast" moving ice hits rock, the ice slows, and exerts tremendous pressure on it. Consequently, one would expect strong tension on any part that sticks up.2) You have a much, much greater volume moving total. Moving through small valleys isn't really an option when you're having literally thousands of feet of of ice moving. The ice dams that formed the Columbia River Gorge when they broke were as much as 2000 feet high. These are hardly the deepest blocks of ice that spread across North America, however - hudson bay had as much as 2 miles of ice over it at once point.3) I don't know if this pertains to the great lakes in general, but many indirect effects of glaciation are caused due to the force that all of the ice exerted, causing the continents themselves to sink into the mantle. The midwest is currently slowly rising.Issue number two: Migratory birds. This is an easy one. Nature expands to fill a vaccum. There is food in northern latitudes in the summers. If they can survive on that food, they've got themselves a niche which otherwise wouldn't be as heavily competed for.

quote:

---

If you say that Macro Evolution can account for this by rapid adaptation, and the genome can mutate positivly over several generations to capitalize on the newly available habitat, then why do we see extinctions of species instead of rapid species mutation to capitalize on the changing enviroment we witness today?

---

The last ice age began 70,000 years ago, and peaked 20,000 years ago. That's about 50,000 years to adapt. With your average small wild species breeding once yearly, that's 50,000 generations to develop things like thicker coats or winter camouflage. I don't think even most creationists would call thicker coats or winter camouflage as "macroevolution". Just so you know, macroevolution is a creationist term - we are still trying to figure out just where they draw the line.

quote:

---

I'm not discounting any of the claims for long ice ages or the percieved number of major glacial movements, the information seems competent but these few quesions I hope will be addressed without the usual "call him an idiot" first response that seems standard protocol for any in this forum that investigate Creationism with an open mind.

---

That's not how we treat people here. Who would we debate with if we did that? Everyone would leave [This message has been edited by Rei, 10-20-2003]