• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Ice Age Hoax

WondrWmn

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
21
There has been speculation that the ICE AGE was an invention. IT was a way of explaining the genesis flood. At the time that the ice age was invented, there was evidence of a massive flood. Sedimentary evidence, as well as the bones of animals of vastly different regions found swept into caves, in places to which they were not native to. Also, no one ever says that many of the more primitive settlements that date back 10,000 years were discovered on higher land, like mountains and hilly places. Why?
Was there really an iceage? Or was the ice age theory concocted solely for the purpose of downplaying the fact that a massive flood did take place?
What do you all think?

WW
 
I think I'd need to see your evidence because I've seen the evidence for the presence of Ice Ages and it is pretty damn solid.
 
I think scouring marks from ice and water would be different. So that should be help determine it.
 
Why play down the fact of a massive flood? Why invent an ice age? What can be achieved by the conspirisy? Disproof of God is hardly likely as the Noah story is accepted by the RC Church as largely allegorical. Same with most pentatuchal stuff.
 
The only people who say this are probably loopy, young-earth creationists.
Anyway, bones can get swept along in rivers to places a long way from where the animal died.
 
Timble2 said:
The only people who say this are probably loopy, young-earth creationists.
Anyway, bones can get swept along in rivers to places a long way from where the animal died.

Too right. This whole thing is just utter nonsense. Things like the Welsh Valleys and other examples of glaciation prove these people completely wrong. :roll:
 
Many of the first geologists were catastrophists. They believed that events mentioned in the bible, such as the great flood, had really happened, and they went to great lengths to find geological data to support their beliefs.

But the data which the catastrophists used to prove that the flood happened was often found in the same strata as contradictory data. When this happened, some geologists just discarded and suppressed the dischordant data. But others worked at creating theories that would make better sense of all the available information.

Eventually, when geologists used all of the available geological data, they arrived at the theory that the earth went through periodic glacial periods. The ice age theory has been modified, clarified and even slightly revised since it was first officially presented in 1837, but no data has emerged to refute the theory.

WonderWmn, your post seems to suggest that there is an either/or situation going on in respect to the great flood and ice-age scenarios, but I can't see that this is the case. The data that early geologists saw as proof of a flood was just misinterpreted. This doesn't mean that there isn't evidence out there waiting to be found that would conclusively support evidence of a flood. The current glacial epoch theory itself sort of lends credence to the flood theory, when it notes that new water bodies, shorelines, etc. were created in inter-glacial melt periods.

Most of us are on these boards because we suspect that there is often more to the world than can be explained or proved by the various scientific disciplines. But at the same time, we comfortably accept that there are some things that science explains and proves very well. The theory that the earth is beset by periodic ice ages is definitely one of them.
 
tattooted said:
WonderWmn, your post seems to suggest that there is an either/or situation going on in respect to the great flood and ice-age scenarios, but I can't see that this is the case. The data that early geologists saw as proof of a flood was just misinterpreted. This doesn't mean that there isn't evidence out there waiting to be found that would conclusively support evidence of a flood. The current glacial epoch theory itself sort of lends credence to the flood theory, when it notes that new water bodies, shorelines, etc. were created in inter-glacial melt periods.

That's my feelings on this, too. I don't see why it's an either/or situation.

Also, perhaps it's just me, but I was always under the assumption that the Genesis flood was the 'hyping' of a localised event and because the survivors and storytellers of the flood were then dispersed in various places this gives the impression that the flood was on a much larger scale.
 
(Okay, Ice Age, must control myself)

Actually, the Ice Age is presently a neatly parsimonious theory for the source of the Great Flood legend.

The geology shows that, toward the end of the Ice Age, the glaciars did not quietly melt off a few inches a year and retreat. Instead, local conditions created enormous lakes (proglacial lakes) held back by ice dams. Eventually, these ice dams weakened and broke, causing catastrophic flooding as the water raced to the sea to raise sea levels. Some glaciars caused several floods in succession in this way until the they melted far enough back that the conditions for the phenomenon became inapplicable. The Black Sea basin filled up with glacial runoff at the end of the Ice Age, and the Mediterranean's level rose.

Wonder Woman, I recommend that you read up on the standard geology of the Ice Ages so that you can compare it to this theory and test their weaknesses and strengths against each other. Geology does not have to be completely dry and boring, and a number of popular works on the Ice Age exist. *After the Ice Age* by E.C. Pielou will tel you wonderful fascinating stuff about the transitional period in North America. *Noah's Flood* by William Ryan and Walter Pittman will give you the Black Sea inundation story and the argument that this is the specific source of the Mideastern (Babylonian and Hebrew) flood stories.

And by all means, post your sources for this bit of fringe geology so we can judge them on their own merits rather than on our prejudices about who would build such a case.
 
Isostatic Reactions

One of the better evidences for the presence of heavy glacial ice packs, as much as miles thick, covering Northern Europe and Northern America as recently as 12,000 to 14,000 years ago is the fact that the landscapes so severely pressed down by the immense weight of all that ice are STILL popping back up into shape.

These isostatic reactions are very often accompanied by "booming" noises that are occasionally mistaken for earthquakes, save that the process does little or no damage to either people or property.

In America these booms are commonly referred to as "Moodus noises" but I believe that in Europe they are known as "Barisol guns."

So if you reject the "Ice Ages" you're going to have to come up with some OTHER heavy covering overlaying and pressing down the landscapes of two continents, and then explain how that monstrous blanket later disappeared.
 
Luckily, geologists still have some modern glaciers left to compare their action on the landscape with the action of the mega-glaciers of previous ice ages. So, they really can tell the difference between the deposition of glacial erratics and alluvial deposition through the action of rivers. Basically, glaciers can pick up bigger objects and carry them much further.

The history of the Earth is written quite clearly in its many layers. Although my Grandfather was a devout Christian, his time working as a coalminer and even studing for a mine manager's exam, convinced him of the immense age of the World and of its gradual evolution. That would have been some 70, or 80 years ago. What a pity young Christians are being encouraged to give up the use of their intellectual abilities and to slowly revert back to apes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier
 
That thing about the landscape "booming" back into place sounded interesting. Didn't Charles Fort mention a few cases of sounds of cannonballs being fired seemingly coming from nowhere? A connection perhaps?
 
Coming from Scotland as I do the evidence for Glaciation in the hills and mountains is very obvious even to the naked eye. Especially when you compare the shapes of the hills etc to areas of the world that still have active glaciation and you can clearly see the process that formed them, corries etc. Floodwaters alone would not have carved solid rock like that. Also I believe they have calculated that Britain is slowly tilting, Scotland is ever so slowly rising up now that the weight of huge glaciers is no longer presesnt.

I'm sure there was a lot of flooding, sea levels rising etc at the same time which gave rise to flood myths all over the world in variosu mythologies, not just the Noah one. Since a lot of villages would have been next to rives, lakes and seas for basic reasons, the majority would have eperienced at least some level of flooding across the globe.
 
Tire Chains Glaciation

Just a few years back geologists discovered glacial striations on rocks in the American Carolinas, indicating that the ice packs had extended much further south than previously believed.

Alas, further examination rather conclusively demonstrated that these "glacial striations" had been made by a truck's tire chains.
 
Perhaps this will help the debate along.

New Technique Shows Glacial Pace Of Erosion Was Not So Slow

A flood glacier in the Boundary Ranges of the Coast Mountains, British Columbia.
Ann Arbor MI (SPX) Dec 09, 2005
Glaciers, rivers and shifting tectonic plates have shaped mountains over millions of years, but earth scientists have struggled to understand the relative roles of these forces and the rates at which they work.
Now, using a new technique, researchers at the University of Michigan, California Institute of Technology and Occidental College have documented how fast glaciers eroded the spectacular mountain topography of the Coast Mountains of British Columbia.

Their work is described in the Dec.9 issue of the journal Science.

U-M assistant professor of geological sciences Todd Ehlers has been working in a remote region of the Coast Mountains for the past three years, studying rates of glacial erosion and topographic change. Using a new geochemical tool developed by the Caltech researchers, he and his collaborators were able to quantify the rates and magnitude of glacial erosion across a major valley. They found that glaciers radically altered the landscape around 1.8 million years ago, about the time that Earth began to experience a number of ice ages.

The erosion rates documented in the study suggest that glaciers eroded the mountains six times faster than rivers and landslides had before glaciation began. The researchers also found that glaciers scraped at least 2 kilometers (about 1.2 miles) of rock from the mountains.

"These results are exciting," Ehlers said, "because they clearly document that glaciers are the most efficient method for sculpting the topography of the range. They also demonstrate the utility of a new geochemical tool that can be applied to study erosion in other mountain ranges."

The study relied on a technique called helium-helium thermochronometry, developed by Caltech's Ken Farley and his former student David Shuster, now at Berkeley Geochronology Center in Berkeley, California. "It's an unwieldy name, but it gives us a new way to study the rate at which rocks approached Earth's surface in the past," Shuster said.

The new technique rests on three facts: one, that rocks on the surface have often come from beneath the surface; two, that the ground gets steadily warmer as depth increases; and three, that helium leaks out of a warm rock faster than a cold one. By determining how fast the helium leaked out of a rock, it's also possible to determine how fast the rock cooled and, ultimately, how deeply it was buried, as well as when and how fast it got uncovered.

The team showed that the cooling of the rock happened very quickly and that the entire valley was carved out in about 300,000 years.

"We can say that the glacier was ripping out a huge amount of material and dumping it into the ocean," Farley said. "And rather than taking evidence from a single instant, we can for the first time see an integral of hundreds of thousands of years. So this is a new way to get at the rate at which glaciers do their work."

Why the intense erosion occurred 1.8 million years ago is not `well understood, Shuster said, "but it seems to coincide with some very interesting changes that took place in Earth's climate system at that time."

In addition to Ehlers, Farley and Shuster, Margaret Rusmore, a geology professor at Occidental College in Los Angeles, was a coauthor on the paper. The research was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation.


http://www.terradaily.com/news/earth-05zc.html
 
How Long Did the Melt Take?

Three or four years back I read a news item which stated that then- recent readings of polar ice core samples suggested that the melting of the North American and European glaciers had taken no more than 50 years at most, with approximately half of that melt taking place during the first five years of that half-century period.

If that's indeed the case, NO WONDER littorel and island cultures got entirely wiped out!
 
Back
Top