Creation "Scientists" and believers in the young earth version of Creation. A question?

Question

How do you explain evidence of Glaciation in Israel during the Mid-Pleistocene era?
Why is there no mention of Glacial periods in the Bible.
Surely if the climate changed so radicaly that glaciers formed in Israel they'd be mentioned in the Bible, somewhere?

The actions and traces of glaciation are obvious and consistent worldwide and can be seen and studied today at current glaciation sites. They do not vary.

Could it be that the Geological time scale is correct and these Glaciers were in Israel about one million years ago?


Click on the site and see for yourself!


http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/20...

I've asked this before and had no answers that made any sense. If it is over your heads then why are you trying to usurp logic and science?

Damian, your a Paleontologist?!! Me thinks you lie!! Didn't you just cut n paste that out of a standard Creation "science" dogmatic reply to such questions and forget to edit the bit about being a Paleontoligist?
Awaiting you rebuttle!

Answer 1

I think what is construed as evidence of glaciation is more likely the results of catastrophic movements of water. This idea that the climate changed (over millions of years) and caused to formations of glaciers is kind of hard to believe when you find woolly mammoths quick frozen with food still in their mouths. There is no mechanism today that could quick freeze an animal that size, other than immersing it in liquid nitrogen, or some other liquid at that temperature.

The evidence points to an object like a comet that came too close to the earth. It caused the mountains to uplift. When it got close enough, a phenomenon known as Roche's Limit caused it to disintegrate. Particles of ice close to absolute zero in temperature rained down over parts of the earth. This is the primary source of the water for the Flood. The geological forces caused further breakup of the earth's crust releasing subterranean water.

If this doesn't make sense to you, please explain how the mammoths were quick frozen, and animals were fossilized, rather than decomposing. To form a fossil, an animal has to be completely buried before it decomposes. These animals were inundated by cataclysmic movements of water and mud.

Answer 2

Kent Hovind has been sentenced to 288 years for tax evasion and fraud.
Now towards your question. If this glaciation was over 1,000,000 years ago then it was before the world was created and could not have happened. Do you really expect sensible answers out of ID or Young Earth Creationists.

As for the "genesis flood caused the ice age" his statement in the quote that ice sheets are not forming or melting today is patently false. Just check the news services on the melting of the polar ice caps and the idea that in about 40 years there will be no summer ice at the north pole.

Answer 3

The Genesis flood caused the Ice Age

In order to understand the mysteries of the woolly mammoth, we need to first understand the Ice Age. This is because the woolly mammoth is a denizen of the Ice Age (see appendix 4). I will first delve into a biblical theory for the development of one Ice Age. We will then be prepared to answer the questions surrounding the woolly mammoth.

Scientists have collected mounds of evidence proving that ice once covered most of Canada and parts of the northern and central United States. Evidence is also found in northern Europe, northwest Asia, many of the large mountain ranges of Eurasia, and high mountainous areas of the Southern Hemisphere and tropics. But the truth is, scientists still do not know the cause of the Ice Age as succinctly stated by David Alt1: “Although theories abound, no one really knows what causes ice ages.” Uniformitarianism has not been able to explain the Ice Age, or events related to the Ice Age. Ice sheets are not developing and melting today so we have no way to actually observe how they developed in the past. The woolly mammoths are extinct, so we cannot witness whether they could survive in Siberia. Large lakes are not filling the deserts of the earth. Animal and plant distributions were different during the Ice Age, unlike any pattern observed today. And, we have not observed the kind of mass extinctions that occurred at the end of the Ice Age.

It is doubtful that evolutionists will find a present process that can explain the origin of the Ice Age or the mass extinctions of large mammals. It is very likely the difficulty in knowing the cause of the Ice Age does not lie in the data that has been gathered for over two centuries but in the assumptions. It is my conviction, and that of many others, that the assumption of uniformitarianism needs to be rejected. I believe it is this assumption and the antagonism of mainstream scientists toward catastrophism that has blinded their minds toward a solution of the Ice Age, as well as for the woolly mammoths. Guthrie,2 speaking in regard to the common disharmonious associations and subsequent extinctions associated with the Ice Age, discovered early in his career:

Looking at the extinction problem through the eyes of a young paleontologist in the early 1960s, I encountered my first important lesson — that the present can be used to understand the past only with sensitive discretion. In fact, much of the past may have no modern analogue.

Larry Marshall3 sums up a book on Ice Age extinctions by saying:

Many chapter authors argue that the old axiom — the present is the key to the past — no longer stands. Guthrie (chap. 13) speaks of the standards tied to normalcy of present as being erroneous when looking at the Pleistocene. The present can no longer be regarded as the norm.

Answer 4

This is way above their heads dude. If they really knew anything about glaciation they wouldn't be creationists!!!

It is obvious from the above answer that these people don't even read real scientific journals that quickly and effectively shatter everything that it claims to "prove". I suggest they go back to school at a real university and get a real education.

I have an open mind, it's just not so open my brains fall out.

Answer 5

Why even bother arguing with creationists? Their entire belief structure is built around heavily illogical superstition, and deep psychological conditioning. They have been trained to reject reality and logical method in order to cling to a horribly atavistic theology. There is far, far, far superior evidence that creationism is a joke than some glaciers in Israel, for instance the very existence and state of the universe, and creationists laugh in the face of it. They're not going to give a crap about glaciers in the mid-Pleistocene.

Answer 6

Who is man to question what is in the Bible? God CREATED the earth, and EVERYTHING on it. How, or rather, why, would one want to disprove the existance of a being that has ultimate power?

I won't even pretend that I understand "glaciation" or much science, but I have my convictions, and in my opinion, that's all I need.

Answer 7

I am not a believer in the young earth theory. This earth was created perhaps billions of years ago, the days of creation were not literal days as we understand them but are creative days of God, therefore there was plenty of time for glacial periods. Man himself has actually been on the earth less than 7000 years but everything else is older.

Answer 8

According to fundies, the universe is about 6000 years old, which means the light from the stars less than halfway across our own galaxy should not be visible yet. Every night new stars should appear in the sky as their light finally reaches earth and the light from the nearest galaxy to ours (Andromeda) should not arrive for another almost 2.2 million years. They are insane.

Answer 9

I believe that the Bible is collection of family history and moral lessons from a specific time period and geographical location, not an all encompassing history of time and the planet. It wasn't mentioned because it happened so long ago that they didn't know about it.

Answer 10

in case you had studied geology (which I incredibly doubt), you will possibly understand that there are 2 significant branches: actual geology and historic geology. actual geology is the style they use on a daily basis and is in line with watching, attempting out, and demonstrating. it relatively is the style they use to do their mining and such. historic geology is the attempt to understand the historic previous of the earth and its foundation. That has no place in useful existence.