I said it wrong originally and corrected it in 122. The ice age was the aftermath of the flood. There is not enough ice to flood the entire earth. However, there is plenty of water to cover the earth if the topography was different prior to or changed during the time of the flood.
I used "They" because this thread was about ICR's article and their positions. I don't know if I agree with everything ICR has ever said, but I am a young earth creationist. I think man's knowledge is still so limited, that even the things we think we know from scientific observation may be completely wrong as our knowledge increases, no matter how logical it may seem now.
I think ICR has actually done a good job of looking for the evidence of a young earth, as well as challenging the observations and the interpretations that are leading to a conclusion of an old Earth.
"If you start with the conclusion that there is a Design was evolution......then ANYTHING complex or not understood at that time can be deemed "part of the Design the result of evolution
It's not that your comment is wrong, it's just a shoe that fits every world view.
....and the GWT is bunk, generated by politicians and massive wads of research $$$$ to lefty researchers. Anyone in ANY scientific field can look at the raw data and laugh.
I agree, but there are a lot of lefty researchers who aren't laughing. And I often laugh at the conclusions of evolutionists, but they don't laugh with me either.
The evos claim the ice age happened 20,000 years ago, and that the earth is billions of years old (all unwarranted guesswork and assumptions). As if for some reason the earth cooled 20,000 years ago, but never did before - you'd think there'd be more than one ice age! (Unless some great catastrophe happened at some point in history, hmmm....)
One note:
I’d not mention ice cores when talking about 6,000 years......the EPICA and a few other cores record over 700,000 winters....and their error rate is not in the 690,000+ winter range.
....and there are many 100,000-400,000 summer-winter cores.
“Their” explanation considers volume of ice and the possibility of creating said volume in 6000 years. “Their” explanation is that because there are a few sub-annual events detectable in the upper reaches that mimic a “layer” (when they really don’t look like a “layer” as it refers to a winter-summer layer, just somthing detectable), that are counted as a “year”.....but their thinking would have to have 120 sub-annual events per year for 6000 years.
....when the record shows less than one per year......and only at the most recent years are they visible because the “year” is stretched over a longer distance, they disappear after a short period of time because the ice compresses them to undetectable status...blurring them into the “summer” and “winter” bands.
The excuse of “they become a layer of their own” further down is rather bogus.