Replies

"So, the last ice age that transformed all of northern North America never occurred 10+ thousand years ago."

That ICR site has an interesting alternative explanation of the Ice Core findings.

is it just that everything Man has discovered that shows the Earth to be billions of years old is a buncha scientific hooey nonsense?

Not all scientific claims can be easily refuted with our current knowledge, but alterative explanations exist for much including the Grand Canyon and Plate Techtonics.

ICR articles by branch of earth science

See the articles on Plate Techtonics and Grand Canyon in the list below
ICR on Geology

OK......I grew up ON a place created BY the last Ice Age. The evidence is all around Cape Cod....huge granite boulders spot the landscape that is mostly sand and dirt with no granite formations from which the boulders could have come from....boulders that were moved from the granite formations well to the north and deposited ON Cape Cod when the ice receded and melted.

Ice cores aren't going to show how the Cape formed......or how the Hudson River Valley formed.....or any of the other landscapes and water systems that were formed the last Ice Age........there's a reason why Minnesota has 10000 lakes.

The ice age DID occur.

So, the Grand Canyon was formed when Noah made his Ark, eh? The articles say otherwise:

In Grand Canyon, the "date" of metamorphism of the basalt lavas to form these Brahma amphibolites has been determined as 1690-1710 Ma (million years ago)

.....the argument is that, because radioisotope dating isn't as "exact" as they demand...then the young-earth theory is correct and the Canyon was created by the Great Flood. Such conclusions.....

Just read another of the articles and find their tactics fascinating and quite dishonest.

Evidence? The Burlingame Canyon in Washington that was formed in 6 days. Yes, it truly was. That means that the Grand Canyon COULD have been formed in such a short period of time, right?

Wrong. The Burlingame Canyon was carved out of "loess" a fine powdery, FRIABLE (reduced to fine sand easily) and really fragile sedimentary substance that cannot even be considereed "rock"......which is not what the make up of the Grand Canyon, so one cannot compare and equate the 2.

Their premise fails with even a cursory glance.