Yet more garbage and pseudo-scientific propaganda:http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/05 ... n-for.html
"It has long been a puzzler for palaeontologists that there is such a wide mix of life forms as a result of the Ice Age".
NO IT HAS NOT. THIS IS A PUZZLE FOR YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS WHO DEMAND BASED ON SCRIPTURE ALONE (SCRIPTURE TIMESCALES) THAT THERE MUST HAVE BEEN ONE SINGLE 'ICE AGE'.
Real scientists have by contrast merely been puzzled that there was apparently a wider mix of life forms than now during the last Ice Age glaciations and during some previous interglacials.
"Uniformitarian explanations fail."
WHICH ONES? HOW DO THEY 'FAIL'?
"The problem is compounded because of their presuppositions; the data will not fit."
WHICH PRESUPPOSITIONS ARE THOSE? WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? HOW IS IT COMPOUNDED? WHICH ARE THE DATA IN QUESTION AND HOW DO THEY 'NOT' FIT?
This is Sorensen's 'trump card'.http://creation.com/disharmonious-associations
He proclaims: "Biblical creationists have alternative views that include the Genesis Flood. The data fit a Flood-caused Ice Age model far better than the secular versions".
So I read Oard's article hoping to find out.
"Disharmonious or nonanalog associations refer to the strange mix of animals and plants from widely different climates or environments in the same sediment." He appears to be referring mostly to disharmonious associations from the Pleistocene. He informs us that 'uniformitarian' ice ages (he means glacials) were 'very cold'.
He then discusses past disharmonious associations found in Florida. He quotes from this paper:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 8209004364
He then adds: "So their solution is a mild equable climate with a small seasonal contrast". Yes - but they are it would appear referring in part to glacial intervals (something YECs do not believe in) though also in part to the last North American glaciation. But they are NOT discussing the single 'Ice Age' that exists in the mind of people like Oard and Sorensen. Note also the comment in the Abstract: "these tropical and western taxa indicate the presence of biogeographic corridors during Plio-Pleistocene glacial intervals that connected the Florida peninsula to both the arid western United States and tropical Middle America". The discussion clearly covers a vast period of time, including when glacial intervals (interglacials) occurred - though for there to have once been a land bridge to tropical Middle America sea levels must have been lower than today.
He highlights a couple of 30 year old papers that suggested that previous interglacials as well as various Pleistocene glaciations saw levels of disharmonious associations that are not seen today. I am in no position to dispute this. But Oard then says: "Since previous interglacials are supposed to have been climatically similar to the Holocene or the current climate, such disharmonious associations for the previous interglacial as well as earlier ones imply that there were no previous interglacials".
So - if you ignore all the positive evidence for a series of Pleistocene interglacials and glacials - perhaps the YECs could actually becorrect that there has only been one 'Ice Age'? But does Oard in fact have a Flood-caused Ice Age model to which the 'data' fit 'far better' - as Sorensen is lazily claiming?
"Disharmonious associations and an equable climate are one of many evidences for a radically different Ice Age than uniformitarians believe - one caused by the climatic consequences of the Genesis Flood. Cool summers, especially over mid-and high-latitude continental areas, would be caused by volcanic ash and aerosols in the atmosphere immediately after the Flood catastrophe and reinforced by abundant post-Flood volcanism. Much warmer ocean water at mid and high latitudes than today, as a result of heat from the Flood, would cause warmer air above the ocean. Such warm sea surface temperatures would not only evaporate much more water vapor into the atmosphere needed for a rapid Ice Age, but would also release a lot of latent heat to the atmosphere by the condensation of water vapour. Such warming would be most effective in causing warmer winters than today, especially in areas of onshore flow of moist, warm air, such as the west coasts of North America and Europe. Cooler summers and milder winters, an equable climate, is exactly what the disharmonious associations imply, contrary to the bitterly cold temperatures of a uniformitarian ice age."
THAT DOES NOT SOUND MUCH LIKE AN 'ICE AGE' TO ME. Incidentally winter 2013-14 (the fifth mildest in the UK in over 100 years and the wettest winter UK-wide on record) saw vast snow depths in one location. The Cairngorm mountains - which are over 3000 ft high in many parts. But everywhere else there was no snow to speak of AT ALL.
But what about those hippopotami that used to live in Britain and have been found in the same locations or layers as cold-adapted species? "Warm, moist onshore flow by predominantly westerly winds would result in warm, wet winters in northwest Europe early in the Ice Age. Such a habitat would be congenial for hippopotami spreading out from the ‘mountains of Ararat’." (That's before creationist 'Ice Age' managed to turn rather ... cold.)
Now if Bob was really interested in science he would invite his readers also to read this post and tell me HOW I AM WRONG.
But then again - he loves to prevent people hearing a different viewpoint to his own as expressed. Thus comments are banned under his blogs - and he only ever refers to this community forum in a derogatory manner.