Talk:Ice age

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Actually Sourcing the Article

Ames, we don't post opinion as fact here. If you would like to present factual evidence here on the talk page then we can work off it and improve this entry.

For starters, this entry should denate that the Ice Age is a relatively recent theory, and explain why it developed.--Aschlafly 11:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, National Geographic is a scientific journal. It's not opinion, and you can't call it opinion just because you don't like it. I'm reverting with explanation & categorization of the dispute.-AmesGyo! 11:19, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Ames, we've been round the track several times before on this. Journalists' opinions are not to be restated here as fact. National Geographic is journalism, if you didn't notice.--Aschlafly 12:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

National Geographic is popularized science - it's still science. I didn't see you having any citations for your statements. Please don't patronize me, either, by saying I didn't "discuss" it first - you deleted the comments that I made so it looked like I hadn't discussed it! If you actually want to settle this objectively, please add some real, scientific citations to your comments on the article. I'll wait until you've had a chance to do so until I revert or perform any other action.

I'd like to also note that you can't make the facts go away by calling the "opinions," reverting, locking & blocking. You can just make the facts go away from you. To think of an educator employing such draconian tactics to hide science from his students!-AmesGyo! 12:38, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to agree, if AiG is considered an acceptable source on this site, then the National Geographic has to be considered reliable as well: it's one of the most distinguished and respected scientific journals in the world.Middle Man
I wouldn't go quite that far. National Geographic's online masthead characterizes it as a magazine, not a journal; their style guide refers to the publication as "a magazine," or, "the magazine," etc. Insofar as it is a journal in the vernacular, it is just the journal of the National Geographic Society--not a scientific (=research) journal. Their articles are vetted by editors, not by masked review. Sometimes that has come back to bite them--look at the recent chicken dinosaur from China.
That said, I still think National Geographic is a more scholarly, reliable, authoritative source than many cited on this site.--All Fish Welcome 13:07, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
National Geographic is about on a par with Popular Mechanics, but it lacks the academic standards of Scientific American. We need an article on scientific methodology. We also need articles on Peer review, Academic standards, Junk science and so on. --Ed Poor 12:51, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
So do you think it's fair to revert it, MiddleMan?-AmesGyo! 12:55, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

You mean putting the NGC link back? Yes, of course. If the linked article is relevant to this topic it should be included, even if it does not agree with Mr. Schlafy's view.Middle Man

AllFish's critique is correct (I shouldn't have called it a journal - not peer reviewed), but I think his conclusion is, too - the publication is still more scientific than the current "no publication" citations on the page. I'll add another citation.-AmesGyo! 13:20, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, why'd you yell at me for removal without discussion, and then remove information without discussion?-AmesGyo! 16:28, 28 April 2007 (EDT)


"[L]arge islands such as Cape Cod and Long Island" caught my attention. Cape Cod is not an island, it is, as the name implies, a cape, or a peninsula. Although one could technically argue that it is a man-made island due to the canal cut across it, that would make one silly. Perhaps it should read "large deposition formations such as Cape Cod and Long Island" Human 14:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

article locked to protect the young

It should be reverted all the way back to my original version. It was succinct and young earth-friendly. It also wasn't clunky and clumsy.

The current version spend more time explaining what one isn't than what one is. Human 18:38, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I have unprotected the article (with the agreement of the protecting sysop). Serious contributions are welcome. Vandalism and ideological contributions presented as true are both not welcome. Philip J. Rayment 10:47, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

An "Ice Age" is an age, not a theory

Can we at least have a version of this page which doesn't claim that an ice age is a theory? They're ages (time periods) which may or may not have occured. That first sentence just hurts my head. --Jtl 02:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

factual conflict with GW page

"The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years, during which global temperatures dropped approximately 6 degrees Celsius and then returned to normal." [1]

On eof the two articles needs to be substantially altered so they apply to the same planet. Human 18:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh dear oh dear oh dear

Here we have Human writing an article which he describes as "young earth-friendly", despite his original version subtly mocking the YEC view. And we have AmesG trying to push the secular view using an appeal to popularity ("The overwhelming majority of the scientific community agrees..."). And we have Ed Poor (tentatively) and Aschlafly arguing that creationists don't believe in an ice age. Sorry, they do.

Sigh, another article that I'm putting on my to-do list for when I get time.

Philip J. Rayment 22:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Sigh. If it seemed subtly mocking (and of course it is ancient history now), all it had to have done was a rewrite. I just get tired of the endless "creation scientists think..." phrasing. Why can't it simply be asserted? Anyway, the article has become chaotic now, by all means, when you get that copious free time (I asked for some for Christmas last year), I hope you can make it much better! Human 23:16, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Umm, it got a rewrite, didn't it? I agree, however, about the "endless 'creation scientists think...' phrasing". Did Santa give you some free time like you asked? Philip J. Rayment 00:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Ironically, the first rewrite it got was to delete the part that said none ever happened. As opposed to rephrasing it to remove any subtle mocking. Ah, free time. I suspect I will pay for it later, since I don't remember paying in advance. And TANSTAAFL... I love the way the article starts now, though. No subtle mockery in "An Ice Age is a theory that..." just, well, a lack of mastery of English grammar. I'd fix it, you know, this being a wiki and all, but for some reason the article is locked. Human 01:12, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Biblical references

If we accept the Young Earth Creationist viewpoint, shouldn't an ice age that lasted 700 years after the great flood (more than 10% of recorded human existence) command more than a single quote from Job? Ian St John 16:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

There are a few other references, if I recall correctly, but I didn't see the point in trying to list them all. And the glaciation was mainly in areas distant from the societies about whom the Bible is written, so not much should be expected. Although the Bible will be historically accurate on areas on which it records details, it's not intended as a comprehensive history of the world, but a history of God's dealings with man, so it is, we could say, a selective history. Philip J. Rayment 08:01, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Ian St John, just a question. How long does it take for a glacier to form? Could enough snow form the glaciers in a 700 timeframe and provide landscape changes like the great lakes?--TimS 11:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Old earth and evolution

I rolled back the edit of the correct statement that supporters of evolution and an old earth were the first to propose a (massive) Ice Age. That is factually true and should not be deleted. I'll find a reference.--Aschlafly 18:27, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Andy, I'm a geologist and don't consider evolution to be linked to geology. I can see that someone trying to espouse a particular doctrine might try and link the two but scientifically they should remain separate. Ian St John 18:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
I see you posted a reference to Charles Lyell as support of the evolutionist support for an Ice Age. Yet Louis Agassiz was the main proponent and he was firmly anti-evolution. Lyell was a reluctant convert to evolution as he was a steady-statist and he was also a late convert to glaciation as it went against his steady state hypothesis. So to use Lyell as the sole justification for stating that ice-ages are related to evolution when there are creationists who believe in an ice age after the flood seems disingenuous. Ian St John 19:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Ian St John is correct. The Ice Age was first promoted by Louis Agassiz, anti-evolutionist. I've changed the articles accordingly, including putting in a couple of references. Philip J. Rayment 07:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Ice ages and the Greenhouse Theory of global warming

The irony is that evolution supporters always like to talk about the way the evidence leans, and yet they ignore the natural causes of cold and warm periods in geological history. Man did not cause the ice ages, nor did he cause the interglacial periods between them.

Atmospheric temperature and "greenhouse gases" are indeed related, but the causality is the reverse of what Greenhouse Theory advocates say. Changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air did not cause the warming and cooling. It was just the other way around: warming and cooling caused changes in CO2 levels. It takes about 800 years for the CO2 to increase after a period of global warming, an inconvenient fact that Al Gore decided to leave out of his road show. --Ed Poor Talk 13:42, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Ice ages and Creationism

I don't want to step on any toes, but I think that the bulk of scientific investigation on "ice ages" posits that (1) the earth is thousands of millions of years old and (2) there is evidence of glaciers coming down from the North Pole through North America and (3) long periods of cold weather are associated with the spread of this ice and (4) there were "interglacial" periods of temperate weather.

I also gather that there is some disagreement in the Creation Science community about the timing of ice ages. While most scientists say the cycles of cooling and warming occurred over a many tens of thousands of years, young earth creationists posit an earth created much more recently (less than 10,000 years ago).

I'd like to be able to write about this in a way that gives respect to the (various?) creationist views while also accurately reporting the mainstream science.

We don't want to censor "non-conservative" views, but I don't suppose we want to endorse atheistic views either. So please, somebody, help me find a balance here. --Ed Poor Talk 10:48, 22 February 2011 (EST)

It's fine to present the atheistic view, but I'd include when it began and why. Having grown up along the Mississippi River, I know that one motivation for the atheistic Ice Age theory is to explain the existence of the Great Lakes and the bluffs along the Mississippi River. One problem: often the bluffs face southward, the opposite direction expected if ice carved them.--Andy Schlafly 11:14, 22 February 2011 (EST)