Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: There Was No Ice Age

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by simpleman View Post
    But... there have being snowball earth at least 4 times?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

    Also, apparently life likes warm weather better than frozen... that is why life was bigger and more abundant when the weather was in average 60 degrees... in jurassic times.
    I read the Wiki. It assumes that what was at the North Pole millions of years ago, is still there. If you actually think about the two facts in the OP it becomes obvious those two points listed, Siberia and Minnesota, not only moved in relation to the inner planet, but drastically so and very fast.

    The cistern in front of my door, with my Garmin GPS sitting on it until it becomes totally stable, shows at 5740 feet altitude. There are rocks here with fossils of fish in them. Ocean fish. And, half a mile away are rocks with camel tracks in them. The closest ocean is nearly 200 miles away.

    No, the earth does not involve slow movement over the years, and even smart kids can understand it if you show them the facts.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by polite_disagreement View Post
    I read the Wiki. It assumes that what was at the North Pole millions of years ago, is still there. If you actually think about the two facts in the OP it becomes obvious those two points listed, Siberia and Minnesota, not only moved in relation to the inner planet, but drastically so and very fast.
    Incorrect, the planet have being through several cycles of freezing and melting... What you see now covered by ice... before was a tropical jungle, and before that it was covered by ice... and so on...

    The cistern in front of my door, with my Garmin GPS sitting on it until it becomes totally stable, shows at 5740 feet altitude. There are rocks here with fossils of fish in them. Ocean fish.
    Maybe it was under the sea some millions of years ago?

    And, half a mile away are rocks with camel tracks in them. The closest ocean is nearly 200 miles away.
    I would think... you are mistaking about the camel tracks... how old are they dated, and how is it explained?

    No, the earth does not involve slow movement over the years, and even smart kids can understand it if you show them the facts.
    Somethings goes faster somethings goes slower... no surprises there either... But just in case... if what you try to imply there is that the universe is 6000 years old... then I'm out... I don't talk science with religious nuts...

  3. #13
    I did not say anything about the age of the universe. You seem to be one messed up dude. Where is TN when we need him?

    The facts about Siberia and Minnesota are so simple that kids can understand it if they stop to think about it. There is absolutely no room for debate nor theories. Two locations on the earths surface moved quite a ways in a very short time. Your statement about cycles of freezing and melting simply do not connect with reality. Please stop making stuff up and calling it science.

    It is UNAM scientists who said those tracks are camel tracks. The people who live here thought it was cow tracks.

    You don't talk science with religious nuts. My personal group to avoid are mindless idiots who pay no attention to hard facts, and make stuff up as it suits their fancy.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by polite_disagreement View Post
    I did not say anything about the age of the universe. You seem to be one messed up dude. Where is TN when we need him?
    Somewhere I though you was making an argument about things happening fast or something... I just wanted to make sure.

    The facts about Siberia and Minnesota are so simple that kids can understand it if they stop to think about it. There is absolutely no room for debate nor theories. Two locations on the earths surface moved quite a ways in a very short time. Your statement about cycles of freezing and melting simply do not connect with reality. Please stop making stuff up and calling it science.
    I don't see how both of our claims are mutually exclusive... you talk about some freeze about 50k years ago, I talk about several freezes some 150 millions years ago... As I say, the planet freezes and warms in cycles... it have happened many times already and it will happen again... in 8k years... or some like that...

    It is UNAM scientists who said those tracks are camel tracks. The people who live here thought it was cow tracks.
    Did they dated the tracks? what explanations they offer?

    You don't talk science with religious nuts. My personal group to avoid are mindless idiots who pay no attention to hard facts, and make stuff up as it suits their fancy.
    My fancy... today... is video games... I have some natural curiosity instinct... and that is all that keeps me around this topic of yours... For my day to day life, it does not matter a single bit if those are camel tracks or if your grandmother walked on her hands... I still get pay the same money for my job, and I still have to pay the same taxes... in my practical life it means nothing... because I am a curious creature I show some interest in... basically everything... if you don't like questions, that is fine, then write down your essays... I maybe read them...

  5. #15
    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.

    Also, you simply change things around. I do not believe I said fifty thousand years. You made that up. Please stop making stuff up. I don't know how long ago it happened. The usual figures given range from 10,000 to perhaps 20,000 years. Since I don't believe academics so out of touch with reality to believe that at times the entire planet freezes over, have any idea how many years or much of anything else, I did not state how many thousands of years ago, were involved.

    Since you make it clear you do not even know how to discuss things in a rational manner, I am not going to waste much more time on you. However, yes, I do plan on writing more.

    There are other facts, or at least alleged facts, we used to develop the asteroid strike theory. One of the popular science shows in past years, I am not sure if it was Nimoy or someone else, reported that scientists had drilled down in the ice at one of the poles. Since the North Pole is over water, I assume it must have been the South Pole, but my memory is not clear. They extracted layers of snow and ice corresponding to one year each ring or band. The number of years of ice and snow down to bed rock was well under 20,000, but I do not remember the exact number given. That means 20,000 years ago, or less, that pole was bare of snow. Which means not that the entire planet was barren of ice and snow, but only that specific location. This is again consistent with the surface of the earth having moved in the past.

    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.

    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, and that water will run off very fast. 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.

    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.

    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.

  6. #16
    Quote 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...

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    558
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    16
    Quote 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.
    2226_ban.jpg

    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.

    Quote 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.



    Quote 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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

    Quote 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.....

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

  8. #18
    https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/lat...nosaur-Siberia

    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.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    558
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    16
    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 at 11:53 PM.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    558
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    16
    Quote 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

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •