The Ice Age and Astronomical Theory

By -
Secular scientists believe we've had several ice ages on Earth, but they do not have a satisfactory explanation, so they dream up other ideas (see "Ice Age Climate Theory Wobbles"). The discarded Milankovitch mechanism was proposed in the 1800s, but rejected. Milankovitch tweaked it, only to have it discarded again. It was dusted off in the 1970s and saddled up again.
In their efforts to hold to an old Earth concept and salvage failed attempts to account for the Ice Age, uniformitarian scientists are trying again to use a rejected hypothesis.
Upsala glacier photographed from the International Space Station, Image credit: NASA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Recent attempts involve using the Milankovitch method to date rocks as well as account for the Ice Age (yes, I wrote Ice Age in the singular, creationists believe there was only one). There are numerous problems with the method, but facts and difficulties are pretty much ignored by secular scientists — can't let facts get in the way of a good story, right? One of the biggest difficulties is that the precessional cycle between Earth's hemispheres is out of phase, the opposite of what is expected. In reality, the Genesis Flood is by far the best explanation for the Ice Age on our recently-created planet.
The astronomical theory of the Ice Age is based on cyclical changes in the earth’s orbital geometry. It is also known as the Milankovitch mechanism after the Serbian scientist who refined the theory. The theory is composed of an eccentricity cycle of about 400 ka (thousand years) and 100 ka, a tilt cycle of 41 ka, and a precessional cycle of about 21 ka. These cycles generally redistribute the solar radiation by latitude (tilt cycle) and by season (the precessional cycle) but barely change the total amount of radiation hitting the earth.

 When summers have less solar radiation at 65°N latitude, a glacial or stadial climate occurs and for summers with more solar radiation, an interglacial or interstadial climate results. Stadials are short cold intervals of a few tens of thousands of years (assuming the secular timescale) within warmer interglacials, while interstadials are short warmer intervals within glacial periods.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Phase problems with the astronomical theory". 

 

Popular posts from this blog

Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A large difficulty in researching and writing this article is that of definitions. It is important to have precise definitions when people can understand words and concepts in different ways 1 , and this article involves words with various meanings and connotations. There has been a noticeable increase in vitriol from the so-called "new" atheists (often followers of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, Shermer, Nye, Krauss and others) and from evolutionists toward Christians and creationists. (I am making distinctions here because not all evolutionists are atheists, and not all Christians are creationists.) Some of us speculate that adherents of the religion of atheism 2 ,which has evolution as one of its cornerstones, feel threatened because evolution's flaws are exposed by Intelligent Design and creation science. This battle is not simply intellectual, but also spiritual. From a biblical Christian perspective, atheists realize that God e
Read more

Discerning Fake Science

By -
Image
Unfortunately, I have to keep gnawing on this bone: scientists are people, too. They make mistakes and have biases. As such, they are not the impartial arbiters of truth and science that many people believe. Many want to do science, others manipulate data for their own agendas. Since nobody is a blank slate and everyone has some kind of bias, it follows that nobody is completely impartial. Try to present creation science materials to atheists and other evolutionists, they often cry, "But that's biased! Those liars for Jesus are trying to convince us of their views!" Brilliant, Sherlock! Doesn't everyone want to present an argument to convince others of their point of view? Also, the ad hominem  is entirely irrational — not only from it being a logical fallacy, but also because biblical creationists serve a holy God who requires righteousness and hates lying. To say that we are lying to get others to believe in God is utterly vacuous. As mentioned several times before,
Read more

Misotheists Dehumanizing Christians and Creationists

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Making fun of an institution through satire and parody can be found throughout millennia to illustrate perceived absurdities of belief systems. These are used for various targets, but the most common seem to be political or religious.  C. Richard Dawkins ridiculing Ray Comfort, image credits: Flickr / David Shankbone ( public domain ), modified with FotoSketcher So why attack individuals instead of ideas ? It seems like practically everyone does it. Just ask the uncool kids in school. This is far beyond satire or persuasion . A quote commonly (but probably erroneously) attributed to Socrates is, "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser". This child sees a useful principle in that statement. Although it is common to encounter proponents of atheistic naturalism ridiculing biblical creationists in rallies, books, videos, and so on, it is greatly intensified on social(ist) media. With the option of anonymity, attacks increase with
Read more