[_ Old Earth _] Has there ever been the ice age?

[PetriFB]

The comprehension from the ice age is not very old. It doesn't thought about in 1700's, such as evolution theory has not been yet the thing, which interested people. Instead of this comprehension gain a foothold just in 1840's, whereby two researchers, Charpentier and Agassiz presented it initially for the explanation of environment landscape forms of the alps and later concern for the whole north Europe. Actually is indeed surprising, that this theory came into view almost at the same time as the thoughts of Darwin from the birth of animal species. Both theories won simultaneously position in the hearts of the people.



In any case into question of the ice age has thought about that on the globe has been several ice age. There has said, that such tropical and hot areas as Sahara, Africa, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Australia, India, Madagascar and South America (like this way has been presented for instance in the books "Jääkausi" / Björ Kurten and "Muuttuva maa" / Pentti Eskola) would been covered with large ice sheet, in other words sometimes tens of million years ago. Latest ice age is assumed started "just" about 500,000 years ago and come to an end 10,000 years ago. At that time ice sheet is supposed covered in the widest 55 million square kilometre and also thickness of the ice should be over 3,2 yard.



But what we have to think from the ice age? Have we any reason to believe it? If those marks, which has expound for the ice age have caused some other thing than ice age? The coming lines we think about the enigma of the ice age.



http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/Has_there_ever_been_the_ice_age.html

 

[mh13]

go to http://www.creationism.org go to the books section and read the great flood and the ice epoch it is fascinating

 

[Featherbop]

I'm sure that there has been some kind of ice age.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

According to my copy of A short history of nearly everything, we are living in an iceage, just a particularly balmy period. The age started ~40 million years ago and with the odd spot of warm weather for a few tens of thousands of years, it's been pretty much frozen most of the time.

 

[Quath]

It seems that Earth naturally favors an ice age. We could be in a metastable phase of warmth. That is one of the worries of global warming. We may knock it out of its state and into one that favors an ice age. The process would be that warming certain parts of the Earth may make the air more reflective so less sunlight makes it to Earth. From there it would spiral down to an ice age.

Quath

 

[vpecc118]

Geological evidence shows there were a lot of glacier-type evidence of something.

Big thing for me is the piles of frozen animals in the artic. I'll try & post more later. :P

 

[Asimov]

go to http://www.creationism.org go to the books section and read the great flood and the ice epoch it is fascinating

Or how about you don't buy into fallacy.

 

[vpecc118]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/mammoth.asp

cool article on the mammoths.

 

[vpecc118]

go to http://www.creationism.org go to the books section and read the great flood and the ice epoch it is fascinating

Or how about you don't buy into fallacy.

Oh wow, you totally won the argument... fellas, let's just stop right now cuz this dude makes so much sense!

Uh huh, yeah, sure. :smt017

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

It seems that Earth naturally favors an ice age. We could be in a metastable phase of warmth. That is one of the worries of global warming. We may knock it out of its state and into one that favors an ice age. The process would be that warming certain parts of the Earth may make the air more reflective so less sunlight makes it to Earth. From there it would spiral down to an ice age.

Quath

It has for the past 40 million years or so. Though it was quite a bit different before hand, IIRC.

In regards to that 'cool' article:

Evolutionists find the cause of the Ice Age a mystery. Obviously the climate would need to be colder. But global cooling by itself is not enough, because then there would be less evaporation, so less snow. How is it possible to have both a cold climate and lots of evaporation?

HAHAHAHAHA
Very funny.

The article is Riddled with holes, it looks like it got on the bad end of Scarface's 'little friend.'

 

[vpecc118]

PDF--> http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/docs/tj14_3-mo_mammoth.pdf

Mammoths were not made for the & ice, they'd freeze to death... so um, that's why they froze to death. :smt037 They did not have any sabacous (sp?) glands which are needed for survival in that type of environment. How do we know this? Every part of them is perfectly preserved. But that brings up another question...

How the heck could a big ol' mammoth freeze & not have the inside rot out? Think about it, if I put an elephant in my freezer (granted I've got one that's big enough), how long would it take him to completely freeze? These mammoths that have been found still have food in their stomachs, only partically digested. Some still have buttercups stuck in their teeth.

There is a theory that suggests that God may have used a comet to pop (sorry, can't think of another word) the water canopy. In doing so the ice slammed into the poles. There's obviously a lot missing here that is in the theory. Please see the above PDF file (can't copy & paste).

 

[vpecc118]

Thought this was cool... I'm just ranting now :turn-l:




DID THE FROZEN MAMMOTHS DIE IN THE FLOOD OR THE ICE AGE?
- BTG No. 59b November 1993
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.*

© Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved.

"And Adam called his wife's name Eve: because she was the mother of all living" (Genesis 3:20).

We've all heard the stories of how "millions of frozen mammoths are found preserved in Siberia, frozen so quickly their flesh could still be eaten today, complete with sub-tropical vegetation in their mouths." Temperatures two hundred degrees below zero are needed to quick-freeze an animal of such large bulk, it is claimed, requiring extraordinary catastrophism, the likes of: which creationists feel could only be associated with Noah's Flood. The specific scenario proposed might be a temperature drop due to the precipitation of the pre-Flood canopy or a cometary ice dump. What is the truth, what is the solution?

To answer these questions, we must first establish the facts, checking the original sources. And when we do, we find that no more than several dozen mammoths have been found frozen or partially frozen. It is true that tens of thousands of mammoth bones are found, and mammoth ivory has been mined commercially in some places, but those were not quick-frozen. These bones are found in the frozen tundra (or frozen soil below the surface), and are not found in the thick sequences (ten thousand feet thick in places) of sedimentary rock lying stratigraphically below the frozen soil. The frozen parts, are, with few exceptions, found in the frozen banks of modern rivers, usually in small lenses within the larger tundra layer. Some specimens seem to have drowned after breaking through ice covering a river.

Furthermore, the stomach contents and unswallowed food (actually caught between the teeth) are that of a mountain meadow, not unlike that of alpine regions today. The frozen meat itself, while wolves and sled dogs have been known to sample it on occasion, is usually somewhat rancid, not quick frozen and ready to be sold.

Putting all the pieces of the puzzle together, it seems to me that the best interpretation is that these mammoth herds descended from those representatives of the "elephant kind" (including also elephants and mastodons) that survived the Flood on Noah's Ark. If the Flood deposited sedimentary rock (as a rule) then the soil layer in which the mammoths are found must be a later deposit. The soil and the carasses couldn't have floated around for months while other sediments were deposited, especially in a quick-frozen condition. These are post-Flood features, as further confirmed by the numerous worldwide discoveries of Ice Age: human fossils or artifacts in association with mammoth bones.

These creatures seem to have been well suited to an Ice Age climate, but not well adapted to an ideal pre-Flood world. In the early years after the Flood, there would have been few predators of large animals, and enough vegetation to support large herds.

An interesting comparison could be drawn with the elk population on Mount St. Helens following that catastrophic destruction in 1980. Since then, a higher incidence of multiple births per cow has been noted, allowing the herd to grow rapidly.

I think we can reasonably say that the "elephant kind," in obedience to God’s command given in Genesis 8:17, were filling the recently devastated earth, adapting to various areas as they went. They flourished initially, but some varieties were eventually overwhelmed in major storms during the Ice Age, others hunted to extinction by humans, while still others survived to the present day.

*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-059b.htm

 

[mh13]

PDF--> http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/docs/tj14_3-mo_mammoth.pdf

Mammoths were not made for the & ice, they'd freeze to death... so um, that's why they froze to death. :smt037 They did not have any sabacous (sp?) glands which are needed for survival in that type of environment. How do we know this? Every part of them is perfectly preserved. But that brings up another question...

How the heck could a big ol' mammoth freeze & not have the inside rot out? Think about it, if I put an elephant in my freezer (granted I've got one that's big enough), how long would it take him to completely freeze? These mammoths that have been found still have food in their stomachs, only partically digested. Some still have buttercups stuck in their teeth.

There is a theory that suggests that God may have used a comet to pop (sorry, can't think of another word) the water canopy. In doing so the ice slammed into the poles. There's obviously a lot missing here that is in the theory. Please see the above PDF file (can't copy & paste).

The Hovind theory goes into this. go to http://www.drdino.com and listen

 

[keebs]

Kent Hovind knows nothing about evolution. Put any claim on here that Hovind makes about evolution that shows it is false, and I'm positive that it can easily been shown to be wrong.