No announcement yet.

There Was No Ice Age

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by polite_disagreement View Post
    This is why you had so much conflict with TN. You really don't use much thought or logic. Yes, the surface of the earth moved very fast, in minutes. So, how can any rational person assume that means I think the earth is 6,000 years old? The answer is, of course, no rational person would assume that. But, you did.
    No.... no me...

    Someone took the time to work up the genealogies on the bible... as it says who is the father of who and how long they lived and stuff... you can work out the maths all the way up to Adam and Eve... 6000 years... after this number.. well... they have now a problem with the numbers science work with...


    • #17
      Originally posted by polite_disagreement View Post
      Since I don't believe academics so out of touch with reality to believe that at times the entire planet freezes over

      Which means not that the entire planet was barren of ice and snow, but only that specific location.

      No one's claiming the entire world was covered in ice. The claim is that the Earth went through a period of time when the average temperature was much lower which allowed the polar caps to be extended further than they currently are.

      Originally posted by polite_disagreement View Post
      This is again consistent with the surface of the earth having moved in the past.
      Perhaps I'm mistaken, but you seem to be unaware of Pangea and Plate Tectonics. Because everyone says the surface of the Earth has moved in the past; and still is moving.

      Originally posted by polite_disagreement View Post
      The next alleged fact had to do with small magnetic particles being deposited in rocks found on the ocean bottom. They tend to deposit in a direction based on the same principles as a compass which points north. As investigators worked down through a rock, at times the particles would change their orientation by many degrees, in some cases reversing in very short time periods, based on the suggested age of the rocks. This is also consistent with dramatic, rapid movements of the surface of the earth.
      Or.... Magnetic shift

      Originally posted by polite_disagreement View Post
      Then, there are years of personal observation in the outdoors. I was a farm kid, which meant being outside in all conditions and watching what happens in the real world. For example, related to a comment above, how does snow melt in a large, snowy area? I can tell you. Imagine a large or small field, relatively flat, and a couple feet deep snow on it. When spring comes, does it melt from outside in, like a ice cream bar?

      No, it melts all at the same time, more or less. That means in the middle of the field there will be pools of trapped water by snow not yet melted. Eventually, as the rest of the snow melts, those pools will be free,
      Agree so far.....

      Originally posted by polite_disagreement View Post
      and that water will run off very fast.
      And now, I disagree. On flat ground, it won't run off very fast at all, it will simply expand, maybe, a couple of feet and then just sit there (depending on the size of the pool, of course). Basically it just creates mud puddles. Sloshy, nasty, mud puddles. You're not the only one that's been outdoors or worked on farms. Now, IF the ground is somewhat angled THEN, yeah, it will run off like you said. The more angled (or sloped) the more quickly it will run off.

      Originally posted by polite_disagreement View Post
      So, if an entire snow and ice covered polar region is rapidly moved into a temperate area, there will be large lakes of water formed but trapped by piles of snow. And, the expected outflow of those lakes later in the melt.

      So, in the early years of this century, when National Geographic printed a small article claiming that a large lake of water broke loose and created the Grand Canyon in a few months, that was one reason to know it was true.

      The second reason was because I had observed the creation of gullies causes by rain eroding the earth. A flow of water across an unprotected field will start a small ravine. As the rain continues, the edges of the ravine will widen and will fall into the center. This continues until you have a large gully over time.

      Look at a good picture of the Grand Canyon. There is no way that mess could have been created with a small river running down through there for millions of years. NOT POSSIBLE. You don't need a lot of smarts. Just look at that photo and THINK.
      The gullies you're referring to occur within top soil. The Grand Canyon is bedrock. The two do not erode the same way. This is because they have very different consistencies. Try pouring gravy over mashed potatoes vs steak. Something like that. Yes, a river could have carved out the Grand Canyon over an EXTRAORDINARILY long time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're wrong when you say that's not what happened, I'm saying you're wrong when you say that it's not possible.

      Originally posted by polite_disagreement View Post
      Later, another article suggested a major flood, I think it was down the St. Lawrence River Valley, as shown by soil sampled showing a specific not common element in a flood profile.
      Haven't seen anything about that so I won't comment for or against it.

      Originally posted by polite_disagreement View Post
      I have traveled to the Arctic Ocean, and since I retired 20 years ago, have driven more than 350,000 miles around the US and Mexico. The terrain I observe during all that driving is inconsistent with slow, gradual movement of the earth's surface, but is consistent with rapid and violent change.

      OF course, this is just extra data. The original two facts make it obvious that the surface of the earth at times moves around the core.
      From a Geological point of view, which measures time in eons and epochs vs days and weeks.... yeah, there have been periods of time when the Earth's surface has moved very rapidly. This is not disputed. So the question is, how rapid do you consider rapid to be? Inches per century? Miles per second? A frame of reference is needed here.


      • #18

        Not only mammoths, but also lions froze stiff. Note they have no idea how long ago it was.

        I am well aware of plate tectonics. A few weeks ago, we had a major earthquake where I live. A man I know told me that in Mexico, 186,000 houses either collapsed or had to be demolished.

        In the case of the two facts I posted, I would say a thousand miles, though that is pure guess, in a few days. Those two facts are undeniable proof for anyone who actually took the time to think about them, instead of instantly writing disagreements based on conventional wisdom, i.e. conventional ignorance.

        Academics use a combination of consensus science, which is not really science, and bullying. No one gets a Ph. D. without falling in line with conventional wisdom. The two facts I posted very plainly and simply destroy conventional wisdom about slow continental drift. Yes, that exists, of course, but also very many times in earth's history, they had cataclysmic rapid change.

        Did you actually understand the significance of those two facts?

        Let me add that I have been studying this very issue since the Fifties. I am not shooting from the hip at all.


        • #19
          I wasn't attempting to refute you. I was pointing out other theories that could also explain what you were talking about. Well, except for the part about gushing puddles. I refuted that but that was because you were talking about it happening on flat ground and on flat ground it doesn't happen the way you described. On a slope or a hill side though.....

          Also, a thousand miles in a few days? That's a hard pill to swallow. I'd need something more concrete than food preserved in a body to buy that. It does seem rather far fetched.

          Current tectonic drift is, more or less, 1 inch per year. To travel 1,000 miles in 3 days would mean the plates moved at a rate 7,708,800,000 times faster than it currently does. A cataclysmic event would have been required to do that and wouldn't have left the poor mammoth intact to be preserved. Since we're talking about moving the temperate zone into the arctic zone then we're talking about moving the tectonic plate north. Currently, it moves west. This is why the Rocky and Appalachian Mountains run from North to South. If something had shoved the tectonic plate that far north, that quickly, we'd have a mountain range going from East to West. We don't. So either something happened to destroy that mountain range, or what you propose didn't happen.
          Last edited by JamesNunya; 11-09-2017, 10:53 PM.


          • #20
            Originally posted by polite_disagreement View Post
            Those who don't, probably should go watch NFL.
            Pre-emptively offering insults to anyone who disagrees? So much for polite disagreement lol

            Originally posted by polite_disagreement View Post
            Fact 1. Somewhere in Siberia are furry creatures frozen in the Permafrost, still nearly edible, after thousands of years. The contents of their stomachs make it clear that at the moment of their death they were in a temperate zone, munching on buttercups in a grassy field. Since the massive bodies would have decomposed those plants in a few minutes, it is obvious they were snap frozen and have stayed frozen for thousands of years, in the same place.
            1. Since we don't truly know how their digestive system worked, saying their bodies would have digested those plants in a few minutes is pure speculation.
            2. The nearest thing to Mammoths is Elephants who only digest 40 ~ 45% of what they ingest leaving plenty of plant material still undigested. While speculative, it is not unreasonable to assume the Mammoth's digestive system would be comparable. This would indicate that any foods in a Mammoth's digestive system, at the time of death, would largely remain intact.
            3. If you've ever been to a glacial field then you'd know that vegetation continues to grow pretty much right next to glaciers today. Continuing the idea of using an Elephant as a stand in for Mammoths, it is very likely that a Mammoth could have traveled back and forth between glaciers and vegetation growths. This means that a Mammoth could very well have undigested, or largely undigested, foods in their digestive tract while traversing along a glacier.
            4. Given those previous three high probabilities, it is not unreasonable to assume that Mammoths could have been caught in an avalanche or cascade, killed, and then preserved by the very ice which killed them. Same goes for Tigers.

            Just an alternative theory that would also explain these animals being preserved within the permafrost. However, snap freezing is also a legitimate theory, just not the only one.

            Originally posted by polite_disagreement View Post
            Don't take my word on this fact. Search it out and learn the truth about the mammoths.
            I won't; and I have done so before.

            Originally posted by polite_disagreement View Post
            Fact 2. Since I was a little boy in the 40's, I have read of the terrible Ice Age.
            I'll take your word that this is a fact.

            Originally posted by polite_disagreement View Post
            The entire planet was frozen and covered with ice and snow.
            No it wasn't. No scientist says this.

            Originally posted by polite_disagreement View Post
            There were glaciers in Minnesota! Today, the same location is in the temperate zone. As with Fact 1, check it out.
            Yes, this is true. But it doesn't prove anything about glaciers appearing over night.

            These two facts, together or alone, don't actually prove anything. They merely suggest one of a number of possibilities.


            • #21
              There is one detail in one of the facts I wrote which nails the fast movement. No one really wants to think about it, just start disputing what I wrote because it contradicts the 'wisdom' memorized by consensus science.

              That detail is the plant material, not decomposed in the mammoths. Too many academics are specialists, who cannot function outside their specialty. (Not to mention how well they do inside it.)

              When I first read about those frozen mammoths, many decades ago, they talked to refrigeration experts, who told them for a creature that large to have non-decomposed plant material in their tracts, they had to be snap frozen in a few minutes. In a creature that large, weighing many hundreds of pounds, the body heat would be such that simply dying while cold weather blew in, taking several hours, could not cool that creature fast enough to prevent total decomposing of the plant material. It takes a long time to cool down that much flesh. And, the digestive acids will work even when the creature is dead, as long as the body is warm.

              So, the body clearly went from warm, sunny day to a tremendous temperature far below zero in a few minutes. You say there may be other explanations. Well, share them with us. How to freeze a multi-ton creature in a few minutes without moving it elsewhere. Don't just keep saying there may be other explanations. Give us realistic example of other explanations. Just remember any other explanation has to include keeping it frozen well below zero for an unknown number of thousands of years. 20 degrees C. to -50 C in a few minutes, then stays cold for thousands of years. Those mammoths were in a warm, grassy field one minute, then moved in a few minutes to an extremely cold environment and stayed there for thousands of years. That has to be one hummer of an explanation for someone trying to prove the surface did not move much nor fast.

              It also does not explain away the fact that two specific locations on the earth both moved a long ways. Siberia from temperate weather to Arctic, and Minnesota from Arctic to temperate. At the same time, and holding that cold temperature.

              And, the magnetic particles changing bearing. No, it is just standard defending traditional beliefs, not scientific refutation.

              So, how did the animals get frozen that fast? It took Bob and me a full month to figure that out. We could not simply state it didn't matter, with vague and imaginary alternative explanations. Neither Bob nor I would tolerate that sort of nonsense.

              To understand this, you need to see time lapse photos of a ball, of any type, when it is hit, with a tennis racket or baseball bat, or ?. It goes way out of round.

              When the large object hit earth, hard enough to move the surface of the earth a thousand miles or more, the earth went out of round. There is only one place close enough to a warm, sunny grassy field with large creatures grazing in it, fast enough to snap freeze it. And, that is UP!

              Mt. Everest, which seems to be a new mountain, not an old one, is only 5 miles, and it is pretty cold up there, but not cold enough to snap freeze a mammoth. However, a slam hard enough to move the surface of the earth a long ways can certainly drive it out of round a great altitude. I believe it gets colder as you go up, but at an extreme altitude it gets hot.

              Once it goes up, the entire planet is going to be in motion. The out of round, hit by an object moving 20,000 miles an hour, went up fast, but it will work its way down much more slowly. And, when it stops, it is in the Arctic zone, and stays there for thousands of years until the next strike. And, my hills, now at 5,740 feet and more, are forcibly dragged out of the ocean and raised way up. Not that I am saying this was the only major strike; evidence is there have been many of them. My hills may have been dragged out a long time ago. We would need more data to date the movement that dragged my hills out of the ocean.

              When those two stated places moved a great distance, that also meant the entire Polar snow and ice load was moved. Well out into the temperate zone. The first summer, that snow load will start to melt, and the entire earth will be laden with very high humidity, and rain. (Thus The Flood, which is allegedly in the ancestral history of peoples all over the planet.) This will continue until large quantities of precipitation move into the new dark and cold zone, now known as the Arctic region.

              Oh, but wait a minute. It was already summer in that hemisphere, wasn't it?

              And, also the Grand Canyon. It was not made by the slow erosion of a small river over a zillion years. I am going to repeat, it is not possible for a small river over time to make what the Grand Canyon has become. There are many channels cut across there. It might be possible for a small river to cut a single channel a mile deep, although a couple miles wide stretches the imagination. But, then how do you get the river back up to cut out the next mile deep channel? As I said, it is not possible. Try to make an algorithm to explain the complex patterns in the Grand Canyon, and it won't be long before you realize you can't do it.

              How can the entire science program of the world fail to see the obvious violent changes in the earth's surface? Ph. D's are not my favorite people. To become a Ph.D. you must accept without question the entire field you are working in, without the slightest disagreement. Any disagreement and your career is toast. And, after you get it, any disagreement subjects you to extreme bullying of every type.

              So, you have a lot of people who buy into tectonics and they are all trained that the earth moves an inch a year or some trivial amount. They are so indoctrinated to conventional ignorance that they are incapable of accepting anything dramatically different. And, if someone does figure it out, and says so, his funds stop and his career is toast.

              In my negative view of Ph.D.'s I do not totally exempt my eldest son.

              The first medical paper on low carb was written in 1802, though I have not been able to get it. I do have the one written around 1865, and the books on the topic written in 1972, Also, Guyton & Hall, the physiology text book used in both USA and Mexico in many medical schools describe what is essentially Atkins Diet in excruciating detail. Yet, most doctors, hit by the same consensus science that messes up Ph.D minds are still preaching the need for lots of carbs, even as the health of both nations evaporates.

              Comment about my user name. When I introduced myself, I said that name was a goal, not a promise, that I have no intention of wearing concentric circles on my chest while people beat up on me. There are some pretty snarky comments on this board.