Ah yes, Michael Oard and the "post-Flood rapid ice age model".  I was hoping to see him write a peer reviewed scientific journal on his theory but alas, when I google it...all I really see are links to creationist websites.  I think I'll stick with the folks who actually study the ice cores around the globe and share their findings with the scientific community.



I had to smile when I saw this one.  A.  10,000 years is an aweful long time for a 'young earth' no?  B.  I didn't see any references to his claim anyway.  Which 'recent scientific revelations' confirm this?


An old claim which is hardly scientific.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html

Also, the opening statement is "Ice ages come every 11,500 years. A mega ice age comes every 105,000 years. Both are due between now and 2012."  So the very article you use as support for a young earth actually claims the opposite, did you read the article?



Your rebuttal to the age of the ice caps is the P-38 crash?  You're right this is off topic, I was originally responding to Jaime who mentioned the age of the earth.

I would gladly admit that ice cores are not the best way to prove the earth is old.

The topic is the relationship between Darwin's writings, and Hitler's actions/philosophy, specifically regarding RACISM, not origins.

If you've read Origin of Species, you know that Darwin was quite racist.

This data is substantiated time and again regarding the public:
1) in the summer months, ice cream consumption more than quadruple compared to in the winter months.
2) in the summer months, swimming deaths more than quadruple compared to in the winter months.
Therefore, eating icecream leads to drowning.

That fact.  That's science.  It's irrefutable evidence.

Darwin and Hitler.  Interesting.

True, but ice cores are a pretty good indication that the earth is a lot older than the YEC will admit to.  Shoot, there are trees in existance in the White Mountains of California that have been around longer than even the earth itself according to most of the YEC.

Read more carefully.  No living Bristlecone Pine trees are old than 5,000 years.  There are existing dead Bristlecones that are determined to be much older than that.  By corralating the three rings of living and dead trees it has been determined that some existing dead Bristlecones can be dated to be nearly 9000 years.

http://sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html

I think every young earther I've met was also a literalist.  Being a literalist you would obviously believe the flood story, that being said, there shouldn't be anything organic that has been alive for more than say 4500 years.  Another words, trees don't do well under water for almost a year.

Bishop Usher used geneologies in the Bible to get a figure of around 7000K years....but again, if you believe the flood story, then you are limited to much less than that with regard to organic life. 

Like all explanations, all one has to say is that God broke biological laws to resurrect dead plant cells following the flood and kept animal  inbreeding coefficients at bay until a later date.  That is all that is needed to be said.  Case closed.