ICR article image.
Posted on 09/15/2016 8:16:35 AM PDT by fishtank
New Calculations Melt Old Ice-Age Theory
by Jake Hebert, Ph.D. *
Resources › Earth Sciences Resources › Ice Age
In 1976, the journal Science published a paper titled "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages."1 This paper seemed to confirm a particular explanation for the dozens of ice ages which secular scientists claim to have occurred within the past 2.6 million years.2 Known as the Milankovitch (or astronomical) theory, this model is currently the dominant secular explanation for these supposed ice ages. For this reason, this paper is an icon in the field of paleoclimatology, the study of ancient climates. Furthermore, because the Milankovitch theory assumes millions of years, this paper has also become an iconic argument for an old Earth. But recent ICR research has yielded convincing evidence that the results of this paper have been largely invalid—even by secular scientists' own reckoning—for the last 25 years.3,4,5 Moreover, most climate and paleoclimate scientists seem to be completely unaware of this fact.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
ICR article image.
Movie advertisement image. :-)
Scrat rocks!
Known as the Milankovitch (or astronomical) theory, this model is currently the dominant secular explanation for these supposed ice ages.
...
I was just reading about this. Milankovitch theory explains interglacial cycles not ice ages.
“Milankovitch theory explains interglacial cycles not ice ages.”
For us laymen, what is the difference?
Ice ages are major and there have only been four in the history of the Earth. Interglacials are relatively warm periods that occur within ice ages. We’re in one now.
So, your position is that God is a deceiver, installing “pretend” data in nature that point to an old Earth, when the whole thing is only 6,000 years old?
Not a deceiver, a practical joker.
Explains the fossils, too.
See post 33 in this:
"http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3469421/posts
Slightly different subject but has the info you need.
That's the whole of creation, viz. it was created purely functional and would give the appearance of old. But you knew that.
But you suggest, what, that the miracle of life came from chance? Accident? Explosions? And the marvel of the human body evolved from a single celled organism in water? That's stupid beyond words.
Ummm....dinosaurs can’t tread water?
Good information - thanks!
“So, your position is that God is a deceiver, installing “pretend” data in nature that point to an old Earth, when the whole thing is only 6,000 years old?”
That is one of the most troubling implications of Young Earth Creationism - the idea that God put false things in nature in order to deceive us or maybe as a test of faith. If God put fossils in the earth of creatures that did not exist or existed only a few thousands of years ago but seem to have been millions of years old, the only purpose that could serve is if God wanted to give us false messages to deceive us (and why would God want to deceive us about a minor issue like the earth’s chronology, anyways?). I have found that the Catholic Church does a better job of dealing with natural history, evolution, etc. without distorting science and yet without being “liberal” about the Bible than the churches that follow YEC. I am not Catholic but I have found their thoughts on this subject balanced and very helpful.
“Milankovitch theory explains interglacial cycles not ice ages.”
That’s like saying it explains night but not day. If you know what causes one, you know what causes the other.
Data doesn’t “point” anywhere. It’s just data. Humans have put their interpretations on that data, not God.
Exactly, and it is hubris to blame God if those interpretations are incorrect.
The converse is actually true: if the earth is really billions of years old and all life evolved from a common single-celled ancestor, then God must have deceived us when He wrote that life started otherwise in the Bible.
Actually though, the YEC argument doesn’t posit any deception on the part of God at all. Just because humans who are seeking to explain the existence of life without reference to God have interpreted evidence to suggest the earth is very old doesn’t mean God ever intended them to interpret the evidence that way. That is a missing, but necessary piece if you want to try to argue that YEC implies deception on the part of God.
Absent in most of this “science” is study of the planet’s orbits. It’s impossible to calculate how the gravitational pulls and the orbital parameters of our solar system effected everything on Earth in the past (and present), so we’ll just skip that and make $h!t up!
I take it that you don't have problem with the planetary orbits, gravity, heliocentrism, or calculus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.