Mammoths in the Tundra? I Doubt It!

Q: What is wrong with this picture?

A: There is no way animals that size could survive in a frozen wasteland.

They would have required large amounts of food. And that is consistent with the stomach contents of the partially preserved mammoth carcasses found in Siberia. Their stomachs contained plants largely from a temperate ecosystem.

More and more evidence is being uncovered that those areas at the time had woody plants and flowers. That fits the hypothesis that these areas where ice free and at a lower latitude at the time. In fact, there was no ice age!

What is being confused for ice sheets to the 40th parallel was the ice cap at the time. And it didn't extend much beyond the Arctic Circle because the continents where in a different position at the time.

But rather than realize the obvious, scientists force their "evidence" to fit their preconceived bias and declare that Siberia and Alaska had these plants because it was warmer then than now. Really? They believe there were ice sheets as far south as Chicago and Germany but it was warmer further north in Siberia and Alaska? What a magical planet!

The mammoth's shaggy coat allowed them to live further north than today's elephants. But not in the icy, frozen tundra. Recent studies have shown that they didn't have as thick of a layer of fat as previously believed and they lacked oily hair like modern yaks.

Q: So how did their carcasses get frozen in tundra if they didn't live there?

A: The portion of the continent where they lived shifted north during the cataclysmic global flood.

These animals where killed in the flood, rapidly buried in mud and after the flood waters had receded their remains had been re-located to the arctic, because of a continental shift.

Not all of these animals were frozen and the ones that were, were NOT flash frozen a la Hollywood nonsense. It took weeks to months for the shift to transpire. In the meantime, they partially decomposed before finally being frozen. They remained in a frozen climate so their bodies where preserved for thousands of years.

Massive mammoth bone graveyard in Siberia is a typical find

It is sad that the love for evolution has so blinded scientists and that they have adhered to the Doctrine of Uniformity so blindly for over 150 years that they have wasted some great years of research and discovery that has gotten us nowhere. When geology was young, it was obvious to geologists that catastrophe's were the reason for so much of what they saw around us in our world.

As Allan and Delair point out in their book, Cataclysm!, the discovery of mammoth bones and carcasses were among the clear evidence of a cataclysm:

"Such discoveries greatly influenced the deliberations of many late eighteenth and early nineteenth century naturalists, for it was clear that, since these northern animals had been frozen instantly and had remained so until found, their demise must have been extremely sudden. Such suddenness betokened a catastrophically swift event, yet men like [James] Hutton and [William] Smith were discovering indisputable evidence that such catastrophes were rare. Just as clear was the fact that, for the ice and frozen ground enclosing these carcasses to have remained unmelted for the vast periods of time implied by 'Huttonian' theories, the destruction of the Siberian animals must, geologically speaking, have been very recent. 

Siberia and Alaska where ice free during the last "ice age" because they were not covered by the Arctic ice cap of the time. 

The Siberian finds increased naturalists' interest in the numerous mammoth and woolly rhinoceros bones which  had long been know from, and were indeed still being met with in, more southern European latitudes. These, it was quickly realized, generally occurred either in caves or rock fissures or in superficial surface deposits like sands, gravels and clays. 

Usually unconsolidated (loosely held together), these deposits were also largely unstratified (unlayered) and often of very irregular linear extent and thickness, exhibiting every sign of having accumulated under agitated conditions which had apparently affected huge areas of the globe more or less simulataneously.... Researches showed that the lowest of these deposits... usually lay directly upon solid bedrock, the upper surface of which, irrespective of the kind of rock involved, had frequently been smashed, fissured, striated (marked with linear ridges, furrows or scores), polished or pulverized into countless fragments... 

To most naturalists at the time it was perfectly obvious that some tremendous event had occurred which, among other effects, had fractured hard rocks over immense distances, and had deposited the resultant debris equally extensively as gravels, sands, clays and muds. The bony remains of the hordes of animals which had been destroyed by the event now lay within these deposits, which in north Siberia, had become permanently frozen. All these interrelated remains thus represented the debris of a form but now-broken world."

Mastodon fossil in museum in Estanzuela, Zacapa, Guatemala

It's sad that the great thinkers of that age where on to the truth, but then mankind has been diverted for over 150 years into non-productive thought and the fruitless studies of uniformitarianism and spontaneous evolution.

Sources:
D. S. Allan and J. B. Delair, Cataclysm!: Compelling Evidence of a Cosmic Catastrophe in 9500 B.C. (Santa Fe: Bear & Co., 1995)
OF FLASH FROZEN MAMMOTHS AND COSMIC CATASTROPHES
Were Siberian Mammoths Quick Frozen?
Woolly Mammoths Remains: Catastrophic Origins?

Additional reading:
Joe Rogan interviews Randall Carlson about mammoths and the ice age.

The Last "Ice Age" Was Really the Ice Cap at a Time When the Continents Were in Different Positions

It is common knowledge among paleoclimatologists that parts of Siberia and Alaska where ice-free at the same time ice sheets advanced as far south as Chicago in North American and well into Central Europe. 

Accepted pattern of ice. Can you spot the ridiculous?

Odd, right? How can that be?

Wouldn't the ice advance roughly to the same latitude worldwide?

The answer is actually quite simple. Yes, it would! And it did. But it didn't advance much past the Arctic Circle of it's time. It was an ordinary, run-of-the-mill polar ice cap, not an age of ice advancing to the 40th parallel.

That's because the continents were in a different position at that time and the geological clues of the former ice cap, and its subsequent catastrophic break up, are simply being mistaken for advancing ice sheets. One researcher suggests that the Hudson Bay is the impression left by the weight of the previous polar ice cap, just like today's island of Greenland is concave in the middle from the weight of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Regardless, it appears the previous polar cap centered on the Canadian Shield, or Laurentian Plateau.

The position of the ice cap mistaken for an "ice age."
The evidence in the area outside the circle may have
been from the break up and flooding instead of ice.

So rather than the accepted "ice age," what really happened is that the earth experienced a cataclysm between 3000 BC and 10,000 BC that shifted the areas of Siberia and Alaska from a subtropical zone to the arctic zone, while North America and Europe, which were previously in the arctic areas was pushed further south. The remains of the plants and animals in old temperate Siberia and Alaska were quickly preserved in ice after the catastrophe ended.

Let's use common sense. If the polar ice cap was as I say, it means that the mammoth remains found in today's Siberia and Alaska were really animals living in a temperate grasslands climate at the time - a latitude where they could eat tons of vegetation - just like their elephant cousins of today. They could never have survived on rooting through snow for grass, moss and lichen. Neither today's elephants or the mammoths of old could survive in tundra. The stomach contents of the semi-preserved carcasses confirm this. As does the recent discovery that their hair (not fur) and lack of sebaceous glands would have been poor protection from the cold.

Baby mammoth carcass preserved frozen

Aside from the frozen remains of mammoths, rhinoceros, hippos and other warm climate animals, the Siberian north has preserved the remains of large trees. These trees are much larger than the scant small trees that grow in the icy north of today. Some of these still have their roots, bark, leaves and fruit intact - frozen and blackened. The masses of trees piled up on some arctic islands provide hints to a violent end. Yet another piece of evidence that the Siberian region was subtropical, not arctic tundra, before the cataclysm.

Subtropical trees strewn and preserved on Siberian islands

And here's another weak element of the erroneous "ice age" theory. Ice sheets can only move boulders and gravel and cause striations if they are advancing or moving - like a glacier. And glaciers only move because they are descending out of a mountain range. There are no giant northern mountain ranges to propel the ice into central Europe or the midwestern United States. What is being mistaken for glaciation is the striated rocks caused by tremendous flooding and the erratic boulders that were trapped in polar ice and drifted with the flood waters then deposited their rocky cargo after the iceberg melted.

Mass mammoth graveyard in Siberia

The final fatal flaw of the "ice age" theory is that no one has proposed a reasonable cause of the lowered temperatures. The only argument used is that the ice sheets lowered the temperate.

So let me get this right. The ice sheets are caused by lower temperatures. And the lower temperatures are caused by the ice sheets. Right? Wow! That logic makes me dizzy!

Another problem with the "ice age theory" is that sea levels where much lower at the end of what is mistakenly believed to be an ice age. The missing water can not be accounted for by the ice at the time. There was simply not enough ice to account for the missing water. This flaw has been nagging at scientists for so long that instead of looking for an alternative to the reason for low sea levels, they simply tweaked their computer models until the sea levels are no longer too low. Voila! Make the problem go away and problem solved. See: Scientists May Have Just Solved The Long-Standing Mystery of Earth's 'Missing Ice'.

Giant ripples left from the Great Missoula Flood.
Similar patterns are found in Siberia.

But the real answer is that for a long time after the last catastrophic shift, a lot of ocean water was trapped in a variety of inland seas throughout the planet. This was due to the severe uplift and changed topography. Eventually these inland seas eroded through their natural dams and rushed to the sea not only raising the sea levels but also carving new canyons and creating undulating plains.

This is what I call the post-cataclism dust-settling period. It took many generations in some cases. The problem is that some people had already settled in some lowland areas that were later reclaimed by the rising oceans. For example, the Tigris and Euphrates river joined into a single river that flowed through the valley that is now at the bottom of the Persian Gulf as it flowed to the Indian Ocean. It seemed like a very desirable place to live at the time. But as the inland seas released their water and the oceans rose, these people were driven from their homes. 

Freshwater seals trapped in Lake Baikal from 
the last continental shift - Noah's flood.

Another clue to this fact are the seals in Lake Baikal and the Caspian Sea. They were trapped in a large inland sea in Central Asia. As the sea drained and their habitat shrunk, they adapted to the ever increasing fresh waters of the remnant of that sea.

Most of today's scientists won't entertain this theory, because accepting a catastrophic shift of the continental plates would mean the earth is much younger than believed by the mainstream thinkers. The earth HAS to be very old in order for the theory of evolution to be taken seriously. They jump eagerly on any theory that lengthens the Earth's age and ignore ones that shorten that age. 

So, the accepted belief is that continental drift has been uniformly slow since the beginning of time. That's a BOLD assumption since man didn't live in pre-historic times. Unfortunately, that belief is so deeply rooted that drift calculations are now used to date other aspects of ancient geography. That creates errors upon errors upon errors.

Too often we see older, unproven theories used to prove new theories by quietly pretending that the older theory is now fact. The "ice age" is just one of many unproven theories that have been around for so long that people treat it like fact.

It's time for a HUGE re-think.

I feel at home with Pierre Carron, who's skepticism is summed up by Will Durant in "The Age of Reason Begins" with the following passage:

Fools argue that truth is proved by universal consent, and that vox populi est vox Dei; Charron believes rather that the voice of the people is the voice of ignorance, of opinions manufactured for them, and that one should be especially skeptical of what is widely believed.*

Image is property of Randall Carlson

From Nova: Last Extinction
Paleoclimatologists keep showing these images with no shame.
It's obviously an ice cap, yet they don't blink at the absurdity of
their ice age claim including a magically warm Siberia and Alaska.

Sources:
D. S. Allan and J. B. Delair, Cataclysm!: Compelling Evidence of a Cosmic Catastrophe in 9500 B.C. (Santa Fe: Bear & Co., 1995)
Randall Carlson - Earth Changed 12,000 Years Ago

Additional reading:
What Do Floating Log Mats Have to Do with Noah's Flood? - Dr. Steve Austin
Joe Rogan interview Randall Carlson about mammoths
"Ice Age Conundrum: Factors Contributing..." w/ Cogent Randall Carlson in the Classroom
Ninety Foot Tall Plum Tree
Earth Rings and Frozen Mammoths!
Of Flash Frozen Mammoths and Cosmic Catastrophes

Science and Religion: Both Dating Methods Are Wrong

Scientists stubbornly stick to the idea that the processes we see today have been occurring the same way for billions of years. This is called uniformitarianism or the Doctrine of Uniformity. It works with things like physics, but has no business being applied to studies of the past such as geology, archaeology and paleontology. We have no way of knowing for sure what our world was like 10,000 or a billion years ago. So, these theories will remain theories. You can not use the scientific method to test a hypotheses of something that can't be duplicated - like the past.

Consider this analogy. Remember Doodle Tops? It's the top with a pen in the tip. As it spins, it leaves a trail of ink on the paper. Let's say you spin one and it goes for a minute before it topples over. Now, what if you are allowed to only watch the last half-second before it falls over. Measure the time and how many spins you witnessed then count the tiny swirls in the line to estimate how long it spun. If you assumed it spun a uniform rate the entire time, you would calculate that the top was spinning for 8 minutes. Wrong! The top was spinning faster at the beginning.

The same would be true about our planet. It must have been more dynamic in ages past. Things have changed so much that you can't apply today's observations to the past.

For example, today we can track seasonal snowfall on ice sheets like Greenland and the Antarctic and see that each stratum counts for a single season. It would be tempting and simple-minded to surmise that it has been identical going back to the beginning of time. What if the lines weren't seasonal way back when? Maybe each line that appears to be a season was really laid down in a matter of months, weeks or even days. Common sense would tell you that after a cataclysm that releases almost all of the melted ice water into the oceans and atmosphere would precipitate out at a much faster rate at first then dwindle to mere traces after most of that water is locked up again in ice.

Another example is regarding the tectonic plates rate of movement. The slow movement today does not preclude that it was always that way. The continents could have moved at a much faster rate the further we go back in time and could have had periods of accelerated drift or they could have not moved at all and all the movement came immediately before, during and after a continental shift - otherwise known as cataclysms. Look at this long list of past extinction events. Periodic cataclysms is the most obvious culprit. But that throw's the currently accepted eons of earth's history off by a considerable amount. So belief in cataclysms is taboo.

This will take a long time for mankind to accept. The theories of Aristotle dominated the natural science community for centuries because the very source of education was the erroneous theories of Aristotle. People didn't question it. Especially the "educated" ones.

The same thing is happening today. The "educated" people don't question the foundations they built on because it is unthinkable. The only ones who do are the people outside the educated elite who can used common sense to poke holes in the theories. They bring fresh eyes and ideas to the table. However, they are immediately dismissed as pseudo-scientists and are refused a place at the table. 

Are we going to have to wait centuries before people realize the error of unguided, chance macro-evolution and all it's sub-errors of uniformitarianism, anti-cataclysm, mis-understood signs of glaciation, over-blown dating methods and other incorrect theories taught as fact?

Creationists Are Wildly Wrong, Too!

I'm not going to let the Young Earth Creationists off the hook. They stubbornly stick to their guns as well. It is clear that the creation of the earth was not necessarily 6 twenty-four hour days. Even the scriptures clearly state that a day in God's time is 1000 years of our time.

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Jubilees 4: 29-30
Adam died. . . And he lacked seventy years of one thousand years; for one thousand years are as one day in the testimony of the heavens and therefore was it written concerning the tree of knowledge: 'On the day that ye eat thereof ye shall die.' For this reason he did not complete the years of this day; for he died during it.

Besides, Genesis has two different "creation" stories.  Chapter 1 is the account of when God planned the creation (a spiritual creation). Chapter 2 has the account of the actual physical creation and very little detail is shared. And nowhere does it say how long that process was. So creationists should be open to a much longer creation period.

The above scriptures aren't the only ones that make it clear that the planning of the creation took 6000 years. See here. And to see the clarification about the spiritual (planning) versus the physical creation, look here.

Another problem is that our current Bible was translated from a text from the middle ages - the Masoretic Text. It is clear that the Biblical genealogies have been erroneously shortened. The Greek Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Flavius Josephus all add an extra 100 years to the dates of when six descendants of Noah begat their offspring. That is three against one. More weight should be given to the agreeing texts. It is also important that they are older sources, closer to the original time of writing of the Old Testament.

Numbers in the Bible can be suspect. For example, there are figures of many Old Testament battles that have ridiculously high numbers of soldiers and deaths for the actual populations of the time. And this error stems from the fact that the word for soldier was also very similar to the number 100. So the actual numbers were inflated by a factor of 100.

Another weak link is the phrases "begat" and "son of." Consider that Jesus Christ was called the Son of David, but there are many generations between the two. So be careful when estimating dates based on lists of father and son in the scriptures. Scribes could have mistranslated those phrases, treating them as the same. You might think you are counting one generation when there could be many intervening generations.

The final word: evolutionists overestimate, while creationists underestimate dates. It is surely somewhere in between.

PS. One practice that makes me scratch my head is dating the organic material UNDERNEATH a stone block, pillar or other non-organic building material to get a date for age of the site. What? All that tells you is how old the organic material is.  The organic material under the building block could have been extremely old before the block was put in place. Unfortunately, it's in ways like this that you can force data to spit out dates that fit your pre-conceived notions.

Here are some links to some articles arguing against the accuracy of the most common scientific dating practices:

ICE CORES: if there was a global flood 4,000 to 12,000 years ago, the previous ice caps would have melted and the current ice would only be that old. So just because they can correlate one line per season in a core now doesn't mean it has always been that way.  The extra water in the cycle could create ice faster then, than now. There could have been multiple lines per season as the extra snow accumulated more rapidly immediately after the flood until the majority of the water eventually got locked in ice, slowing down the water cycle to the current condition.

RADIOMETRIC
CARBON 14 
TREE RINGS

Sources:
Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood? (Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew)

Additional reading:
Biblical and Scientific Shortcomings of Flood Geology, Part 3

Is There Circular Logic in Fossil Dating?
Is Most Published Research Wrong?
What was unexpectedly found in Dinosaur Bones, Coal and Diamonds? - Dr. Andrew Snelling