The Mystery of the "Frozen Mammoths"

[bob b]

I have not had time to read all of this thread but: The Mammoths frozen in Siberia are thought to be from warm climates? Is that what I take from bob b's posts?
Do we find any dinosaurs similarly frozen? Should we expect to? Warm climate animals, trapped when the fountains of the deep came raining back down???

Why not frozen dinos??

If one was found would that convince you that the theory was correct?

Most of the mammoth remains found are bones and tusks only.

If I am not mistaken I believe that dinosaur fossils have been found in Antarctica

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/03/0309_040309_polardinos.html

 

[Jukia]

Your first post seemed to indicate that mammoths were frozen in place, not just tusks and bones. How else would the undigested food be found in their stomachs?

 

[bob b]

Your first post seemed to indicate that mammoths were frozen in place, not just tusks and bones. How else would the undigested food be found in their stomachs?

Compared to the vast number of mammoth tusks found in the far north (some islands are mostly composed of sand and bones), the number of frozen carcases is very small. Nevertheless there is a great and enduring mystery over how they could have gotten "quick-frozen" since they are large enough that this would require air temperatures so far below zero as to boggle the mind.

Thus, the concept that they were not frozen by air temperature alone (convection), but by direct contact with some supercooled material (conduction).

The other mystery as to how one can get permafrost layers so thick (I discovered only this morning that it is over 5000 feet deep in some spots).

In searching using GOOGLE I have found it remarkable that nobody seems to question how that can possibly be considering that heat rising from the core should theoretically cause the temperature a few hundred feet down to reach a steady state, meaning that a layer of permafrost 5000 feet thick should logically and scientifically be quite impossible.

Yet it is there.

Perhaps it is the assumption that frigid air is the primarily mechanism to create permafrost that is the culprit. Maybe this is reasonable for much of the thinner layers of permafrost, but for a layer 5000 feet thick: NO WAY.

Something else must have beenn involved.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I really enjoyed Dr. Browns chapter on Mammoths!

 

[fool]

I really enjoyed Dr. Browns chapter on Mammoths!

The AIG article I linked dosen't seem to like Walt's theory much.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The AIG article I linked dosen't seem to like Walt's theory much.

AIG and Walt Brown have different theories as to how the flood occurred.

I find Dr. Brown's work far more compelling than AIG's.

 

[fool]

AIG and Walt Brown have different theories as to how the flood occurred.

I find Dr. Brown's work far more compelling than AIG's.

Does Brown use a vapor canopy?

 

[bob b]

The AIG article I linked dosen't seem to like Walt's theory much.

Interestingly, neither the AiG article nor the posters on this thread have said a word about the 5000 foot deep permafrost at some locations in the arctic..

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Does Brown use a vapor canopy?

No.

Dr. Brown rightly asserts that the canopy theory doesn't hold water.

 

[fool]

Interestingly, neither the AiG article nor the posters on this thread have said a word about the 5000 foot deep permafrost at some locations in the arctic..

They aparently don't think it's a important as you do.

 

[bob b]

They aparently don't think it's a important as you do.

This may be a case of their technical backgrounds, because I once worked in the field of heat transfer and hence have been skeptical for many years that very thick permafrost layers could be formed slowly by simply being in a frigid environment.

And that was before I discovered that some permafrost layers go down 5000 feet !!!

 

[fool]

No.

Dr. Brown rightly asserts that the canopy theory doesn't hold water.

Does he use any of these?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Does he use any of these?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

You want me to go cross check the list for you? :think:

I will do my own heavy lifting, thank you.

 

[BillyBob]

OK, so far we've learned:

Mammoths are a different species than modern elephants.
Woolly Mammoths lived in a cold climate.
Woolly Mammoths had drastically smaller ears than modern elephants which helped with heat retention.
Arctic mammals find food and water year round.
Unlike Bob B's claim, a coat of thick hair is not cumbersome as proven by the fact that Musk Ox operate quite handily in the arctic with the same type of 'coat'.
Woolly Mammoths were smaller than modern elephants and thus require less food.
The Arctic is cold.
There is a permafrost.
Eskimos sometimes wear clothing.
Hanibal should have used Woolly Mammoths....unfortunately they were extinct.

 

[bob b]

OK, so far we've learned:

Mammoths are a different species than modern elephants.

There is no scientific definition of the term "species, but I agree that they were different.

Woolly Mammoths lived in a cold climate.

Since they are extinct it would be more accurate to say that they died in a cold climate. Whether the climate was the same when they lived or not is a point under discussion, although not the main one as far as I am concerned.

Woolly Mammoths had drastically smaller ears than modern elephants which helped with heat retention.

It may be better to use the term "hairy" mammoths to avoid biasing the discussion.

Arctic mammals find food and water year round.

They do now.

Unlike Bob B's claim, a coat of thick hair is not cumbersome as proven by the fact that Musk Ox operate quite handily in the arctic with the same type of 'coat'.

Walt Brown's claim was that the Musk Ox hair is different than that of the mammoth. He backed this up with expert opinion as published in scientific books and journal articles.

Woolly Mammoths were smaller than modern elephants and thus require less food.

Correct, but not particularly relevent.

The Arctic is cold.

It is now. Whether it was when the mammoths were living is the question.

There is a permafrost.

The existence of permafrost is not in dispute, but how it got to a depth of 5000 feet in some spots is the relevent question, because the event which causes that is undoubtedly the same one that froze some of the mammoths in an upright position and froze the contents of their mouths and stomachs so that scientists were able to identify the species of plants.

Eskimos sometimes wear clothing.
Hanibal should have used Woolly Mammoths....unfortunately they were extinct.

Yes, and what caused them to become extinct, and what caused permafrost layers to reach 5000 feet in spots is together the crux of the "mystery", because there was undoubtedly a connection between the two.

 

[fool]

You want me to go cross check the list for you? :think:

No, but it would be helpful if you could give me a feel for how divergent from AIGs view you are. Do you think that they are extremely wrong about some things? Are they mainstream as far as YEC goes? If not who do you think is?

I will do my own heavy lifting, thank you.

OK, lift some answers to them questions up there.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

No, but it would be helpful if you could give me a feel for how divergent from AIGs view you are. Do you think that they are extremely wrong about some things? Are they mainstream as far as YEC goes? If not who do you think is?

I really don't know.

AIG seems to have some pretty cool stuff as does Walt Brown.

Walt Brown's book seemed to me to be a very compelling theory of how things ended up the way they are now.

 

[Jefferson]

Does anything we know about the frozen mamoths rule out a pole shift resulting in undigested tropical plants in mamoths found in polar areas?

 

[bob b]

Does anything we know about the frozen mamoths rule out a pole shift resulting in undigested tropical plants in mamoths found in polar areas?

I hate to sound like a cracked record on this point about the permafrost, but a pole shift would not cause the ground to freeze 5000 feet down.

Now if someone can explain to me how that can happen, then they've got something I can talk to them about.

For some odd reason nobody seems to want to talk about this (to me) critical phenomenon.

 

[bowhunter]

Why would they Bob? It would be sacrilege to their theory god.