Originally posted by HMS_Beagle
View Post
That's a fact
The thing is that for all its confidence, all the ICR has set up in an hypothesis to explain the ice age, along with the usual "evolutionists cannot explain this and they cannot explain that" assertions.
Why an hypothesis? Well, aerosols can explain global cooling. Volcanoes could plausibly explain oceanic warming.
The problem is, the ICR seems to think this is the scientific explanation.
Is there any evidence for a massive injection of aerosol into the atmosphere 4,000 years ago? No. Is there any evidence for a world wide chain of volcanoes releasing massive amounts of lava into the oceans 4,000 years ago? No.
In the case of the PNAS paper however, the "nuclear" winter scenario always remains contentious until evidence can be found for this cooling. Well now it has been. But even then, arguments will continue too and fro, perhaps as to how good this evidence really is, or perhaps in relationship to other questions this new data now throws up.
The video and the PNAS paper reveal a sharp distinction between what creationists find acceptable (a lot of hand waving because the Bible tells us so) and what scientists find acceptable (we always want more evidence, what we have is not enough).
Leave a comment: