|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
The "Ice Age" - 8/5/2008 10:09:49 AM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
Louis Agassiz, the one responsible for inventing the myth of an ice age, did so because he found some rocks in the upper Midwest that were not indigenous to the upper Midwest. So he correctly surmised that they had to be carried there by water...but wait, that would prove the bible right and that God exists, so he couldn't say that. So the way to get around that is to "decide" that it was frozen water.  Now how he can decide all by himself what happened in history, is anybody's guess, particularly since no one in history has passed along accounts of a global ice age & over 200 ancient cultures (including native Americans who never read the bible) have passed along accounts of a global flood nevertheless, since this is the age of science fiction, then the imagination is considered evidence in today's world. 
But what he neglects to understand is that ice doesn't just "appear'. Ice comes from water. All glaciers exist where water is the abundant element. Therefore if the world was once covered in ice, then the world had to be first covered in water.
But why should Louis Agassiz have to be logical or explain anything he says since he considered himself a scientist? He will automatically be believed so he doesn't have to be logical or offer historical proof since scientists are worshiped as gods in the secular world. But it doesn't take advanced thinking to see through ridiculous claims such as a global ice age. All it takes is common sense, a minimal knowledge of history and good contact with reality to see that a global ice age is as much a myth as the notion that our ancestors once looked like the apes of the jungle.
< Message edited by Carico -- 8/5/2008 10:21:33 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The "Ice Age" - 8/5/2008 10:10:58 AM
|
|
|
bluestone
Posts: 2934
Joined: 2/25/2008
From: United States of America
Status: offline
|
Please provide some documentation for your statements.
_____________________________
I need Christ. Not something that resembles Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The "Ice Age" - 8/5/2008 10:13:50 AM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bluestone
Please provide some documentation for your statements.
For some reason, my computer won't allow me to provide links, or I don't understand how to do it. But all you have to do is google Ice Age or Louis Agassiz and you will see how he invented the story...that is, if you're truly interested in how this myth developed.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The "Ice Age" - 8/5/2008 10:16:46 AM
|
|
|
bluestone
Posts: 2934
Joined: 2/25/2008
From: United States of America
Status: offline
|
thanks. I am truly interested .
_____________________________
I need Christ. Not something that resembles Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The "Ice Age" - 8/5/2008 11:26:02 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Louis Agassiz, the one responsible for inventing the myth of an ice age, did so because he found some rocks in the upper Midwest that were not indigenous to the upper Midwest. So he correctly surmised that they had to be carried there by water...but wait, that would prove the bible right and that God exists, so he couldn't say that. So the way to get around that is to "decide" that it was frozen water. Now how he can decide all by himself what happened in history, is anybody's guess, particularly since no one in history has passed along accounts of a global ice age & over 200 ancient cultures (including native Americans who never read the bible) have passed along accounts of a global flood nevertheless, since this is the age of science fiction, then the imagination is considered evidence in today's world.
But what he neglects to understand is that ice doesn't just "appear'. Ice comes from water. All glaciers exist where water is the abundant element. Therefore if the world was once covered in ice, then the world had to be first covered in water.
But why should Louis Agassiz have to be logical or explain anything he says since he considered himself a scientist? He will automatically be believed so he doesn't have to be logical or offer historical proof since scientists are worshiped as gods in the secular world. But it doesn't take advanced thinking to see through ridiculous claims such as a global ice age. All it takes is common sense, a minimal knowledge of history and good contact with reality to see that a global ice age is as much a myth as the notion that our ancestors once looked like the apes of the jungle.
For which of the four supposed major ice ages did he propagate this devisive myth?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The "Ice Age" - 8/5/2008 11:38:16 AM
|
|
|
triode
Posts: 46
Joined: 8/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Louis Agassiz, the one responsible for inventing the myth of an ice age, did so because he found some rocks in the upper Midwest that were not indigenous to the upper Midwest. So he correctly surmised that they had to be carried there by water...but wait, that would prove the bible right and that God exists, so he couldn't say that. So the way to get around that is to "decide" that it was frozen water. Now how he can decide all by himself what happened in history, is anybody's guess, particularly since no one in history has passed along accounts of a global ice age & over 200 ancient cultures (including native Americans who never read the bible) have passed along accounts of a global flood nevertheless, since this is the age of science fiction, then the imagination is considered evidence in today's world.
But what he neglects to understand is that ice doesn't just "appear'. Ice comes from water. All glaciers exist where water is the abundant element. Therefore if the world was once covered in ice, then the world had to be first covered in water.
But why should Louis Agassiz have to be logical or explain anything he says since he considered himself a scientist? He will automatically be believed so he doesn't have to be logical or offer historical proof since scientists are worshiped as gods in the secular world. But it doesn't take advanced thinking to see through ridiculous claims such as a global ice age. All it takes is common sense, a minimal knowledge of history and good contact with reality to see that a global ice age is as much a myth as the notion that our ancestors once looked like the apes of the jungle.
Ice doesn't COME from water, it IS water. I don't believe anyone says the entire Earth was completely covered with ice, either.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The "Ice Age" - 8/5/2008 3:31:54 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Louis Agassiz, the one responsible for inventing the myth of an ice age, did so because he found some rocks in the upper Midwest that were not indigenous to the upper Midwest. So he correctly surmised that they had to be carried there by water...but wait, that would prove the bible right and that God exists, so he couldn't say that. So the way to get around that is to "decide" that it was frozen water. Now how he can decide all by himself what happened in history, is anybody's guess, particularly since no one in history has passed along accounts of a global ice age & over 200 ancient cultures (including native Americans who never read the bible) have passed along accounts of a global flood nevertheless, since this is the age of science fiction, then the imagination is considered evidence in today's world.
But what he neglects to understand is that ice doesn't just "appear'. Ice comes from water. All glaciers exist where water is the abundant element. Therefore if the world was once covered in ice, then the world had to be first covered in water.
But why should Louis Agassiz have to be logical or explain anything he says since he considered himself a scientist? He will automatically be believed so he doesn't have to be logical or offer historical proof since scientists are worshiped as gods in the secular world. But it doesn't take advanced thinking to see through ridiculous claims such as a global ice age. All it takes is common sense, a minimal knowledge of history and good contact with reality to see that a global ice age is as much a myth as the notion that our ancestors once looked like the apes of the jungle.
You err on at least three counts.
1. Agassiz was a Deist, so he had no reason to try and prove the non-existence of God. He was also a staunch anti-Darwinist.
2. Agassiz' research on ice ages began in Europe, not America. It was only after he had shown decisively that much of the topical landscape of Europe was better explained by glaciation than by flooding that he ever visited America and found much the same sort of evidence here.
3. Agassiz did believe that the ice age was Noah's flood or occurred shortly after Noah's flood--a position also taken by some YECs.
Agassiz is an interesting character. And his mixture of beliefs seems a bit bizarre today. Not related to this topic, is his belief in polygenism i.e. that humans of different races were separate creations unrelated to each other.
btw, for bluestone: some of this info comes from a book called Darwin's Forgotten Defenders which is mostly about 19th century evangelical Christian reaction to Darwin especially positive appreciations of his work. Definitely a must-read.
And for a quick review on the flood: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The "Ice Age" - 8/5/2008 3:42:32 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Louis Agassiz, the one responsible for inventing the myth of an ice age, did so because he found some rocks in the upper Midwest that were not indigenous to the upper Midwest. So he correctly surmised that they had to be carried there by water...but wait, that would prove the bible right and that God exists, so he couldn't say that. So the way to get around that is to "decide" that it was frozen water. Now how he can decide all by himself what happened in history, is anybody's guess, particularly since no one in history has passed along accounts of a global ice age & over 200 ancient cultures (including native Americans who never read the bible) have passed along accounts of a global flood nevertheless, since this is the age of science fiction, then the imagination is considered evidence in today's world.
But what he neglects to understand is that ice doesn't just "appear'. Ice comes from water. All glaciers exist where water is the abundant element. Therefore if the world was once covered in ice, then the world had to be first covered in water.
But why should Louis Agassiz have to be logical or explain anything he says since he considered himself a scientist? He will automatically be believed so he doesn't have to be logical or offer historical proof since scientists are worshiped as gods in the secular world. But it doesn't take advanced thinking to see through ridiculous claims such as a global ice age. All it takes is common sense, a minimal knowledge of history and good contact with reality to see that a global ice age is as much a myth as the notion that our ancestors once looked like the apes of the jungle.
You err on at least three counts.
1. Agassiz was a Deist, so he had no reason to try and prove the non-existence of God. He was also a staunch anti-Darwinist.
2. Agassiz' research on ice ages began in Europe, not America. It was only after he had shown decisively that much of the topical landscape of Europe was better explained by glaciation than by flooding that he ever visited America and found much the same sort of evidence here.
3. Agassiz did believe that the ice age was Noah's flood or occurred shortly after Noah's flood--a position also taken by some YECs.
Agassiz is an interesting character. And his mixture of beliefs seems a bit bizarre today. Not related to this topic, is his belief in polygenism i.e. that humans of different races were separate creations unrelated to each other.
btw, for bluestone: some of this info comes from a book called Darwin's Forgotten Defenders which is mostly about 19th century evangelical Christian reaction to Darwin especially positive appreciations of his work. Definitely a must-read.
And for a quick review on the flood: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm
Sorry, but the errors are yours. One can't believe God and not believe him at the same time. So if Agassiz was a Darwinist, he didn't believe that God created man out of the dust of the ground. That means that he rejected God's account of creation and the Flood since no one described an ice age after the Flood.
Secondly, ice comes from water. So if he explained the European terrain by ice, he has to first acknowledge that the land was once covered in water.
And thirdly, ancient cultures talked about a Flood where one family survived. If there was an ice age after Noah survived, that would mean that it would have been recounted somewhere in history,since Noah had more brains than an ape. But unfortunately, it is conspicuously absent which makes it made up history.
So either Agassiz didn't think things through too well, or your details about his beliefs are incorrect, or both.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The "Ice Age" - 8/5/2008 3:46:07 PM
|
|
|
bluestone
Posts: 2934
Joined: 2/25/2008
From: United States of America
Status: offline
|
plenty of people believe God, trust Jesus as their savior, and still believe evolution was part of the creation process.
you posted erroneous information, the burden of proof is one you.
_____________________________
I need Christ. Not something that resembles Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The "Ice Age" - 8/5/2008 3:49:07 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bluestone
plenty of people believe God, trust Jesus as their savior, and still believe evolution was part of the creation process.
you posted erroneous information, the burden of proof is one you.
Wrong again. Many people call themselves sheep but underneath are wolves as Jesus tells us. We can recognize them by their fruit, as Jesus also tells us. Jesus also tells us, "He who is not with me is against me." And Agassiz was definitely not with Jesus on His account of creation. So it's not hard to see the wolf underneath the sheep's clothing in Agassiz's case.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The "Ice Age" - 8/5/2008 3:51:06 PM
|
|
|
bluestone
Posts: 2934
Joined: 2/25/2008
From: United States of America
Status: offline
|
So are you saying that I am not saved?
_____________________________
I need Christ. Not something that resembles Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The "Ice Age" - 8/5/2008 3:55:37 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bluestone
So are you saying that I am not saved?
You need to go to the shepherd, not the sheep to find out the truth. And Jesus tells us that one cannot believe him and not believe him at the same time. If you believe Jesus when he says; "He who is not with me is against me," then you'll know that you can't claim to agree with him and disagree with him at the same time. But if you don't believe Jesus either in His account of creation or when he says; "He who is not with me" is against me, then Jesus says you are not saved because you don't believe him. Those are His words, not mine.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The "Ice Age" - 8/5/2008 3:59:54 PM
|
|
|
bluestone
Posts: 2934
Joined: 2/25/2008
From: United States of America
Status: offline
|
So your interpretation is right, and those that disagree with you are hell bound, huh?
"No one is disagreeing with Jesus" by believing the creation process could have included evolutionary processes.
_____________________________
I need Christ. Not something that resembles Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The "Ice Age" - 8/5/2008 4:00:13 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
1.. Agassiz was a Deist, so he had no reason to try and prove the non-existence of God. He was also a staunch anti-Darwinist.
So if Agassiz was a Darwinist,
Apparently you misread point 1 above. I bolded it for you this time. Agassiz actually used his position at Harvard to block the teaching of evolution.
quote:
And thirdly, ancient cultures talked about a Flood where one family survived. If there was an ice age after Noah survived, that would mean that it would have been recounted somewhere in history,since Noah had more brains than an ape. But unfortunately, it is conspicuously absent which makes it made up history.
You can take that up with your fellow young-earth creationists. Some of them are the ones who make that claim.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The "Ice Age" - 8/5/2008 4:03:42 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bluestone
So your interpretation is right, and those that disagree with you are hell bound, huh?
"No one is disagreeing with Jesus" by believing the creation process could have included evolutionary processes.
I don't interpret the bible, I simply believe the simple words in it. Now if you think I should "interpret" the bible, which means to put my own slant on it so I can agree with the secular world which is ruled by Satan, then I would make Genesis 2:7 read like this:
"For the Lord God formed the man from the wombs of wild beasts." That, my friend is an interpretation because I have changed the words in the bible and replaced them with my own.
But I don't do that. So you need to first understand the difference between God's words and people's interpretation of God's words because as the world shows, they are two entirely different things.
Otherwise, you might as well throw the bible away and re-write it to make it say anything you want it to say which is what you are doing. If you want to chastize me for believing the simple words in the bible, then so be it. But I'm not qualified to change it because I'm not God.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The "Ice Age" - 8/5/2008 4:10:30 PM
|
|
|
triode
Posts: 46
Joined: 8/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Secondly, ice comes from water. So if he explained the European terrain by ice, he has to first acknowledge that the land was once covered in water.
So, does this mean that for an ice age to have happened, that the earth was first flooded, and then the water was frozen solid? You know, like an ice cube tray?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The "Ice Age" - 8/5/2008 4:19:53 PM
|
|
|
bluestone
Posts: 2934
Joined: 2/25/2008
From: United States of America
Status: offline
|
So you are saying that Jesus wrote Genesis?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The "Ice Age" - 8/5/2008 4:27:32 PM
|
|
|
triode
Posts: 46
Joined: 8/4/2008
Status: offline
|
Carico,
Nevermind. I'll ask a geologist I know. And get an answer without any need to use the Bible as a science book.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The "Ice Age" - 8/5/2008 5:06:59 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bluestone
So you are saying that Jesus wrote Genesis?
That's what John 1:1-2 and John 1:14 says. But even if you don't believe those verses, then claiming that Jesus disagreed with God would mean that he neither is God nor represents God, but instead, Satan because Satan is the only one who disagrees with God. So your question shows that you really don't know who Jesus is at all. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The "Ice Age" - 8/5/2008 5:26:06 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Louis Agassiz, the one responsible for inventing the myth of an ice age, did so because he found some rocks in the upper Midwest that were not indigenous to the upper Midwest.
He also found a lot of evidence for glaciers moving across landscapes and creating specific features that liquid water could not form.
quote:
So he correctly surmised that they had to be carried there by water...but wait, that would prove the bible right and that God exists, so he couldn't say that. So the way to get around that is to "decide" that it was frozen water.
Liquid water does not move small rocks slowly against other rocks and produce striations like those seen here:
http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/contexts/icy_ecosystems/sci_media/images/glacier_striations
Also, Agassiz used modern glaciers as his models showing that the features that known glaciers are producing can be found elsewhere.
quote:
Now how he can decide all by himself what happened in history, is anybody's guess,
It's not a guess if you follow the evidence.
quote:
particularly since no one in history has passed along accounts of a global ice age & over 200 ancient cultures (including native Americans who never read the bible) have passed along accounts of a global flood nevertheless, since this is the age of science fiction, then the imagination is considered evidence in today's world.
Why do none of the flood accounts match? That seems to be a serious blow for your argument.
quote:
But what he neglects to understand is that ice doesn't just "appear'. Ice comes from water. All glaciers exist where water is the abundant element. Therefore if the world was once covered in ice, then the world had to be first covered in water.
I guess you never heard of snow?
quote:
But why should Louis Agassiz have to be logical or explain anything he says since he considered himself a scientist? He will automatically be believed so he doesn't have to be logical or offer historical proof since scientists are worshiped as gods in the secular world.
Agassiz is right because the evidence backs him up.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
