Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There were no ice caps until after the flood. And of course there was a platypus pair on board the Ark.
So I guess the Antarctic Ice cores dating to approx 740,000 years is just a gran' ol' conspiracy?
The first results confirm that over the last 740,000 years the Earth experienced eight ice ages, when Earth's climate was much colder than today, and eight warmer periods (interglacials).
So I guess the Antarctic Ice cores dating to approx 740,000 years is just a gran' ol' conspiracy?
The first results confirm that over the last 740,000 years the Earth experienced eight ice ages, when Earth's climate was much colder than today, and eight warmer periods (interglacials).
Yep them ice caps formed mighty quick!!! lets see we have gone through creation, dinosaurs, a world flood, a couple ice ages, the forming of mountain, gran canyon and extinctions of who knows how many animals plants and so on, in a mere 6000 yrs!!!! Tell ya it makes your head hurt to read this stuff.
Yep them ice caps formed mighty quick!!! lets see we have gone through creation, dinosaurs, a world flood, a couple ice ages, the forming of mountain, gran canyon and extinctions of who knows how many animals plants and so on, in a mere 6000 yrs!!!! Tell ya it makes your head hurt to read this stuff.
The age of the "ice caps" is not older than the flood, and there was only one "ice age", which is still not over. WW2 planes which crashed 50 years before they were found were under hundreds of feet of ice.
Grand canyon was formed after the flood, and in 'days', or a short amount of time [ http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVER...%20CANYON.html "The Grand Canyon could never have been formed by a river even flowing for millions and millions of years . . . unless, of course, water could run up hill!"
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...ndCanyon7.html ]; and you have no idea how many plants and animals are "extinct" because you have never been in all the earth at one time to see. So called "extinct" plants and animals are proving to be not extinct after all, all the time, and in those that are classified as different species in fossils, there are undoubtedly many mistakes in classifications because of not understanding what the young vs adult of some kinds would look like, nor what those of great ages would look like, as certain bones thicken with age in animals.
So I guess the Antarctic Ice cores dating to approx 740,000 years is just a gran' ol' conspiracy?
The first results confirm that over the last 740,000 years the Earth experienced eight ice ages, when Earth's climate was much colder than today, and eight warmer periods (interglacials).
That is not "confirmed", it is a "Just So" fable, and there was only one ice age, and it is not over, with retreats and advances of ice sheets over the few thousand years since the flood.
yeshuasavedme,
Do you realize that Antartica receives such a small amount of moisture each year that it's actually considered to be a desert? These ice cores are very similar to the annual rings on a tree because they reveal cycles and changes that have taken place over very long periods of time. If there was really only one ice age it would have to have happened in the last 6,000 according to your timetable (actually it's probably less than that because that is supposed to be the starting point of the universe as opposed to the timespan after the flood). How could these sheets of ice gotten so thick in such a short amount of time? The problem with your theory is that human beings had spread all over the globe and were living in areas that would have been covered with massive sheets of ice. Why is it then that we can find evidence of human activity at ground level all over the world during this time period? Also, this is within the timeframe of historical records, not necessarily written records but evidence of art, human habitation including remnants of settlements, layers of fire pits, the remains of butchered animals, etc.
A great deal of North America was covered with thick sheets of ice during all of the ice ages (yes, there's been more than one) which would not have been suitable for human habitation and yet we find all of this evidence of human activity in these locations during the past few thousand years. The same is true in the rest of the world. In other words your scenario is impossible. Mankind obviously survived these ice ages but were forced to retreat into more habitable areas long before this 6,000 year timeframe. The evidence is overwhelming.
yeshuasavedme,
Do you realize that Antartica receives such a small amount of moisture each year that it's actually considered to be a desert? These ice cores are very similar to the annual rings on a tree because they reveal cycles and changes that have taken place over very long periods of time. If there was really only one ice age it would have to have happened in the last 6,000 according to your timetable (actually it's probably less than that because that is supposed to be the starting point of the universe as opposed to the timespan after the flood). How could these sheets of ice gotten so thick in such a short amount of time? The problem with your theory is that human beings had spread all over the globe and were living in areas that would have been covered with massive sheets of ice. Why is it then that we can find evidence of human activity at ground level all over the world during this time period? Also, this is within the timeframe of historical records, not necessarily written records but evidence of art, human habitation including remnants of settlements, layers of fire pits, the remains of butchered animals, etc.
A great deal of North America was covered with thick sheets of ice during all of the ice ages (yes, there's been more than one) which would not have been suitable for human habitation and yet we find all of this evidence of human activity in these locations during the past few thousand years. The same is true in the rest of the world. In other words your scenario is impossible. Mankind obviously survived these ice ages but were forced to retreat into more habitable areas long before this 6,000 year timeframe. The evidence is overwhelming.
That there were more than one ice age is only a theory, and it all happened after the flood and is still happening.
Antarctica was "mapped" without the present ice before modern men "rediscovered it".
The question of why the moon is covered in craters and the earth is not would still be relevant regardless of the earth's age. I happen to believe it is billions of years old. But then why isn't it covered with craters? The earths atmosphere protects it and burns most of the incoming. The moon doesn't have that advantage. And there is a lack of erosion and gravity so that every strike remains visible. Is this really a Y.E.C. question?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
