|
Carico -> RE: The "Ice Age" (8/5/2008 3:42:32 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Louis Agassiz, the one responsible for inventing the myth of an ice age, did so because he found some rocks in the upper Midwest that were not indigenous to the upper Midwest. So he correctly surmised that they had to be carried there by water...but wait, that would prove the bible right and that God exists, so he couldn't say that. So the way to get around that is to "decide" that it was frozen water. [sm=purplelaugh.gif] Now how he can decide all by himself what happened in history, is anybody's guess, particularly since no one in history has passed along accounts of a global ice age & over 200 ancient cultures (including native Americans who never read the bible) have passed along accounts of a global flood nevertheless, since this is the age of science fiction, then the imagination is considered evidence in today's world.[;)]
But what he neglects to understand is that ice doesn't just "appear'. Ice comes from water. All glaciers exist where water is the abundant element. Therefore if the world was once covered in ice, then the world had to be first covered in water. [;)]
But why should Louis Agassiz have to be logical or explain anything he says since he considered himself a scientist? He will automatically be believed so he doesn't have to be logical or offer historical proof since scientists are worshiped as gods in the secular world. But it doesn't take advanced thinking to see through ridiculous claims such as a global ice age. All it takes is common sense, a minimal knowledge of history and good contact with reality to see that a global ice age is as much a myth as the notion that our ancestors once looked like the apes of the jungle. [sm=purplelaugh.gif]
You err on at least three counts.
1. Agassiz was a Deist, so he had no reason to try and prove the non-existence of God. He was also a staunch anti-Darwinist.
2. Agassiz' research on ice ages began in Europe, not America. It was only after he had shown decisively that much of the topical landscape of Europe was better explained by glaciation than by flooding that he ever visited America and found much the same sort of evidence here.
3. Agassiz did believe that the ice age was Noah's flood or occurred shortly after Noah's flood--a position also taken by some YECs.
Agassiz is an interesting character. And his mixture of beliefs seems a bit bizarre today. Not related to this topic, is his belief in polygenism i.e. that humans of different races were separate creations unrelated to each other.
btw, for bluestone: some of this info comes from a book called Darwin's Forgotten Defenders which is mostly about 19th century evangelical Christian reaction to Darwin especially positive appreciations of his work. Definitely a must-read.
And for a quick review on the flood: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm
Sorry, but the errors are yours. One can't believe God and not believe him at the same time. So if Agassiz was a Darwinist, he didn't believe that God created man out of the dust of the ground. That means that he rejected God's account of creation and the Flood since no one described an ice age after the Flood.
Secondly, ice comes from water. So if he explained the European terrain by ice, he has to first acknowledge that the land was once covered in water.[;)]
And thirdly, ancient cultures talked about a Flood where one family survived. If there was an ice age after Noah survived, that would mean that it would have been recounted somewhere in history,since Noah had more brains than an ape. But unfortunately, it is conspicuously absent which makes it made up history. [;)]
So either Agassiz didn't think things through too well, or your details about his beliefs are incorrect, or both. [;)]
|
|
|
|