Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   glaciers and the flood
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 1 of 96 (59315)
10-04-2003 12:22 AM


I just thought of an interesting test of flood lore. As I understand it the waters of the flood covered the highest mountains to an excess of 15 cubits. What is the effect upon ice covered with warm ocean water to a depth of at least 20000 feet for a period of 40 days?I believe it would have been sufficient to melt all ice upon earth including the polar regions.Please correct me if I am wrong but supply some level of what would have occured to the ice.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Coragyps, posted 10-04-2003 12:40 AM sidelined has not replied
 Message 3 by Rei, posted 10-04-2003 12:40 AM sidelined has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 2 of 96 (59317)
10-04-2003 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
10-04-2003 12:22 AM


At the very least, it seems that all that seawater should have left a layer or two with noticeable salinity in a least a couple of the dozen or three glaciers that have been cored around the world.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 10-04-2003 12:22 AM sidelined has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 3 of 96 (59318)
10-04-2003 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
10-04-2003 12:22 AM


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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 10-04-2003 12:22 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by sidelined, posted 10-04-2003 1:28 PM Rei has not replied
 Message 38 by Zoombwaz, posted 04-08-2004 2:09 AM Rei has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 4 of 96 (59362)
10-04-2003 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Rei
10-04-2003 12:40 AM


Then they must explain the mechanism by which the Antartic ice sheet managed to attain a thickness of up to 3 miles in some areas.This is especially difficult since the precipitation on the continent is comparable to that of the Saharan desert.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Rei, posted 10-04-2003 12:40 AM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by sidelined, posted 10-04-2003 11:31 PM sidelined has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 5 of 96 (59445)
10-04-2003 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by sidelined
10-04-2003 1:28 PM


Sheesh! You would think I could get at least a bite from the other viewpoints.And I'm even using mouthwash.Oh well time will tell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by sidelined, posted 10-04-2003 1:28 PM sidelined has not replied

  
JIM
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 96 (59570)
10-05-2003 6:48 PM


Dr. Hovind believes that there was only one ice age which began sometime after Noah's flood ended, that being around 4300 years ago by his reckoning. Thus, the world moved from a warm, tropical climate to an ice age only a few thousand years ago. There are fatal problems with that view.
First, we now know that there were at least 7 ice eras lasting on the average some 50 million years apiece. Each ice era was, itself, composed of numerous ice epochs which lasted about two or three million years. They, in turn, were composed of iceage cycles which often lasted around 100,000 years. Thus, there have been numerous fluctuations between warm and cold climates. (Chorlton, 1984, pp.20-21). The more recent advances and retreats of the glaciers have resulted in sea level changes which, in turn, have affected the heights of coral reefs, the oxygen isotope ratios in sea floor sediments, and shorelines around the world. Several levels of terraces were carved in the world's shorelines by recent fluctuations in the ocean level, each lasting many thousands of years. I don't
have the space to explore this issue, but numerous facts fit together to document the existence of many "ice ages." Regarding one ancient ice era, we have a remarkable coming together of different facts:
The theory of continental drift led to one of the most remarkable discoveries in ice age studies. During the 1960s, scientists analyzed the magnetic orientation of rocks from many parts of the world and concluded that North Africa had been located over the South Pole during the Ordovician period, about 450 million years ago. If they were correct, there should be traces of ancient glaciation in the Sahara. At about the same time, French petroleum geologists working in southern Algeria stumbled on a series of giant grooves that appeared to have been cut into the underlying sandstone by glaciers. The geologists alerted the scientific world and assembled an international team to examine the evidence. The team saw unmistakable signs of an ice age: scars created by the friction of pebbles incorporated into the base of glaciers; erratic rocks that had been transported from sources hundreds of miles distant; and formations of sand typical of glacial outwash streams.
In some places in the Sahara the grooves made by glaciers can be traced for hundreds of miles. How do creationists explain glaciers in the Sahara?
Second, we have a problem with permafrost. Chorlton informs us that the building up of a 100foot deep layer of permafrost takes thousands of years of freezing weather to accomplish. The bad news for creationists is this:
About 20 per cent of the world's land area remains permanently frozen in some cases to depths of almost a mile.
(Chorlton, 1984, p.30)
Thus, we have direct evidence that some of the frozen parts of our world have been frozen a lot longer than a few thousand years! Try a few million years! (Forget about supercold snowballs crashing into the Earth and instantly freezing thousands of feet of earth. They would have vaporized upon impact.)
Thus, we have direct evidence that some of the frozen parts of our world have been frozen a lot longer than a few thousand years! Try a few million years! (Forget about supercold snowballs crashing into the Earth and instantly freezing thousands of feet of earth. They would have vaporized upon impact.)

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by sidelined, posted 10-05-2003 10:15 PM JIM has not replied
 Message 10 by wmscott, posted 10-06-2003 8:18 PM JIM has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 7 of 96 (59609)
10-05-2003 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by JIM
10-05-2003 6:48 PM


The thing I am missing here is the concensus among believers of how much of the events that go on in the bible are subject to forces that we know deeply. I had a thread in another forum that was way off topic in which I was trying to get some kind of a response to other biblical passages which are not simply improbable but incapable of having not been recorded anywhere else on the planet since their effcts would be catastrophic on a planetwide scale.
I do not know where to move my point in a thread since at one time I'll be told that these passages are descibing real things and yet at other times they are METAPHORICAL or even worse one line is real the next is metaphorical.I do enjoy trying to sort out the viewpoints among the background noise though.
[This message has been edited by sidelined, 10-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by JIM, posted 10-05-2003 6:48 PM JIM has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 10-05-2003 11:19 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 39 by Zoombwaz, posted 04-08-2004 2:26 AM sidelined has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 8 of 96 (59617)
10-05-2003 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by sidelined
10-05-2003 10:15 PM


SL, there is nothing BUT background noise. There isn't any consistency in the viewpoints. I'm not sure there are two creationists who agree on even 80% of the details. And most seem to contradict themselves over time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by sidelined, posted 10-05-2003 10:15 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Bonobojones
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 96 (59636)
10-06-2003 1:49 AM


JIM
Please explain to me the mass extinctions that are shown in the geologic record?

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 10 of 96 (59820)
10-06-2003 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by JIM
10-05-2003 6:48 PM


On the connection between the Ice Age and the Flood
Dear Jim;
Nice post, I have used many of the same points myself in regard to disproving YEC flood theories. I believe however that there is a case to be made for a global flooding event towards the end of the last Ice Age due to a large and sudden transfer of water and ice from the ice sheets into the oceans before isostatic adjustment could compensate for the shift. A rise in sea level that reached the edges of the mountain glaciers and continental ice sheets, would be a global flood since any additional increase in sea level would make no real difference since the ice would float anyway, so no further effective real submergence is possible with any further increases in sea level. There is evidence to support the occurrence of such an event, much of the evidence has been debated extensively in the 'Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood' threads. Currently I am following up on the traces of marine diatoms I have found here in Wisconsin as evidence of a recent marine transgression.
Wm. Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by JIM, posted 10-05-2003 6:48 PM JIM has not replied

  
some_guy
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 96 (60001)
10-07-2003 7:54 PM


Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
This article which has take most of its info from, 'The Lost Squadron’ Life magazine, basically tells of an expedition looking for a squadron of 8 aricraft from world war 2 in greenland. They had landed on the ice due to lack of refueling, and were left there. Fourty-six years later in 1988, the expedition found the squadron barried under 75 meters of ice, when they only expected them to be barely burried in snow.
So your 3 mile deep ice core samples may not nessisarily represent millions of years, if 75 meters of ice can be built up in only 46 years. By that amount it would only take about 3300 years to build up 3 miles of ice.

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by sidelined, posted 10-07-2003 8:39 PM some_guy has not replied
 Message 13 by Coragyps, posted 10-07-2003 8:45 PM some_guy has not replied
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 10-07-2003 9:11 PM some_guy has not replied
 Message 15 by John, posted 10-07-2003 9:13 PM some_guy has not replied
 Message 40 by Bill Birkeland, posted 04-08-2004 10:44 AM some_guy has not replied
 Message 44 by jar, posted 04-21-2004 3:27 PM some_guy has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 12 of 96 (60004)
10-07-2003 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by some_guy
10-07-2003 7:54 PM


some_guy I am not familiar with the circumstances surrounding the "lost squadron" and the physics surrounding the planes location in ice however I will research it and get back to you.
Sorry to burst the bubble old man but Antarctica is not Greenland. The precipitation levels are vastly different as you can see for yourself.
http://bonnet19.cs.qc.edu:7778/...a/rd_prcp.prcp_data_access
This is the website of the World Precipitation Data Center.You will be able to see for yourself what I mean.Greenland(Denmark)code 431
Antarctica code 700
The 3 miles of ice accumulated can be seen to be unattainable in 3000 years.You are free,of course, to deny the evidence or offer a real explanation for the event.It would help to try and bring evidence that occurs on a least the same hemisphere right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by some_guy, posted 10-07-2003 7:54 PM some_guy has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 13 of 96 (60005)
10-07-2003 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by some_guy
10-07-2003 7:54 PM


some guy, you might take a look at R.B. Alley's book The Two-Mile Time Machine. He's one of the leading ice-core researchers, and appears to know what he's talking about: he helped find volcanic ash debris from volcanic eruptions known to have occurred in AD 1783 and AD 79 in ice cores in central Greenland. They are the correct number of layers down, within less than 1% error. The 1783 eruption left ash, chemically matched with ash recovered at the volcano itself, 72 meters from surface.
The snowfall each year is much greater along the coast, where the Lost Squadron was buried, than along the central "spine" of Greenland where the cores were drilled. There is quite a bit of data that calibrates not only the annual layers in Greenland ice sheets, but also a couple of dozen other ice sheets from around the world. And besides the calibration, over 10,000 layers have actually been counted, one by one, in Greenland.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by some_guy, posted 10-07-2003 7:54 PM some_guy has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 14 of 96 (60009)
10-07-2003 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by some_guy
10-07-2003 7:54 PM


You say "when they only expected them to be barely burried in snow.". How do you know this? What is the average snow fall where they are? You should note that it is NOT the snow fall of the interior of Greenland but rather nearer the coast.
If the average snowfall where they crashed is great enough then 75 m of ice in a half century is not a problem. Perhaps you should check your facts.
Additionally, the ice cores are not for "millions of years" they are for about 100,000 years.
see
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eismayewski.html
I'm afraid you have two major points and they are both wrong. Perhaps you should be more careful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by some_guy, posted 10-07-2003 7:54 PM some_guy has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 96 (60010)
10-07-2003 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by some_guy
10-07-2003 7:54 PM


quote:
Fourty-six years later in 1988, the expedition found the squadron barried under 75 meters of ice, when they only expected them to be barely burried in snow.
Did your source tell you that the guys who expected the planes to be under a few feet of snow didn't have a clue about what to expect? They went into the adventure pretty blind. I've seen interviews of the two main people and they were laughing at themselves for the naivete with which they went into the first expedition.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by some_guy, posted 10-07-2003 7:54 PM some_guy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024