|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/20/2005 8:19:44 PM | remember politics. lol
I didn't forget. lol.
You didn't read my post, apparently.
unbiased, competent scientists will eventually
That implicitly addresses the political issue. The political issue is what causes the "eventually" to not be "instantaneously".
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/20/2005 8:56:16 PM | MLR
Ouch! I can feel the tension in the air.
Well I guess I have to be patient while that eventuallity finds its way to reality.
pactience is the operative word here.
Patience: To know the outcome of an event. So maybe we agree, but just not yet. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/20/2005 10:20:12 PM | This whole argument that the inner politics of the scientific community is the prime mover of what is accepted as theory is bogus. Real science doesn't work that way.
It takes time for ideas to be accepted. But to the degree that a real scientist might be hesitant to accept an new idea, a creationist is will be a thousand time less likely to accept an idea that contradicts his or her dogma. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2005 7:31:15 AM | So, once again 'wonkavision' is wrong and erroneous in his statements, which are really nothing more than his long winded and nonsensical ramblings, speculations and conjectures...
You see, there IS evidence of a world wide flood, has been for many years..."Creation Research Society" has been studying this and the whole realm of Creationism VS. Evolution for years, they now have in their membership, over 450 + SCIENTISTS, (yes, you read that right) geologists, anthropologists and a myriad of other experts, who continue to find factual, SCIENTIFIC proof to support the Biblical Creation Truth, and the Flood account as well..
Now, not being one to personally attack another in the forum of course, but to rely on wonkavisions "Forum Hoggings", to really only spout off his unsupported and unfounded ideas would border on idiocy..For, after all, this is the same wonkavision person, who said a few postings back, that it is impossible to see the atom...
"HELLLOOO"...With the aid of the modern high powered electron microscopes, scientists DO see the atom and even the parts therof...
wonkavision..."Really" unless you can come to the forum with cold hard facts, instead of your ridiculous notions, which are more fantasy than anything, start getting an education...
It will really have more people treating you with respect, rather than dismissing you are one who really obviously does NOT know what he is talking about...
Your posts for the most part, waver on what you believe even, every other post, depends on who has posted something before you...Almost like.."Well, gee, I feel this way today, so this is what I believe...so what if it differs from what I believed yesterday."
wonka...your continued inconsistencies, countless erroneous statements and conjectures are indicative of an uneducated mind, and unstable emotional state...Just an observation of course...Based on the EVIDENCE at hand.
"NEWS FLASH"..The atom CAN be seen...has been able to be seen for YEARS now..same with..oh, DNA, and other miniscule things on the planet...
There are literally hundreds of books out on the subject supporting the Creation account and the flood account..all written by intelligent, unbiased, very well educated scientists...Instead of clinging to there ever waning in popularity evolution THEORY, wake up and smell the coffee.
I mean, Gee, so what if the THEORY of Evolution contradicts the second LAW of Thermo Dynamics, eh?
  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2005 9:10:39 AM | Raz, Yes I do know of Kirlian Photography (although I did not know about the haunted rocks!), and it does fall in with my point, where does the consciousness exist? When a leaf is sliced in half the photo still shows a whole leaf. Or the person who has lost a limb yet it still itches. So is our consciousness in a specific part of our body or is our body tuned into a consciousness like a radio tuned to a station (DNA)? Is it all the same consciousness and we only experience a small part of it at any one time? Whole planet consciousness?
Perhaps it is akin to our bodies, there are millions of cells living within us, each doing their own thing. Each adding to our being, so that the totality of our being surpasses the sum of our parts. Or like a collection of energy/sound waves amplifying and modulating each other to create more (heterodyne).
evidence of a global flood ???????????????
Yea where? I am sure everywhere has been flooded at some point, but all at the same time? You really need to site some proof for that one.
Silivros, sure any human interaction always has a mix of politics to it.But as MLR suggests, while that may slow down our progression, sooner or later the proof/truth wins out. Even plastering Copernicus into a wall did not stop the truth from coming out. | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 806 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2005 10:35:00 AM | Dear Canadian Romantic,
I understand you feel strongly about what you believe and I’m interested to hear what you have to say. I'm also interested to hear what Wonkavision has to say. I appreciate the diversity of ideas on these forums, they add a great deal to the debate. Provided people debate the argument and not the people.
Personal attacks and misquoting people’s statements do nothing to further your arguments.
Personally, although I may agree or disagree with certain statement, I also realize that simply because they are mistaken or unaware of one thing, does not discount their other points (i.e. if someone says banana’s are purple, their loss of credibility doesn’t make them wrong when the say oranges are orange). Likewise, me pointing out the conflicting interest of those working for the Creation Research Society does not disprove the belief of a global flood. Figuring out if someone has a conflicting interest is useful, but only insight into how their arguments may be biased. It doesn’t disprove them; even if I may not like the beliefs. Even the most foolish can speak the truth (I’ve done it occasionally myself, so I know it’s true )
I don’t consider a global flood likely because:
• The amount of water on the earth is not sufficient to cover the highest points of the earth (i.e. the Himalayas).
• Denser, coarse particles settle before fine particles. There is no sedimentary layer that corresponds to a massive flood and the massive erosion that such a rapid, wide ranging event.
• Sedimentary rocks are where laid down in multiple layers, in which the particles are sorted in each layer. Not consistent with a single depositional layer.
• The thickness and character of sediment layers and rocks in many places around the world are observed to corresponding to various earth and solar cycles: the 11 years solar cycle; the 20,000-27,000 years geomagnetic field cycle; the 100,000 year cycle of the earth's orbital eccentricity If sedimentary rocks were laid down in a single event, why would the layers reflect these cycles?
• Mudcracks and fossilized footprints are found within the layers of sedimentary rocks, this occurs during sediment being laid down between wetting-drying events, not a single depositional event.
• Likewise the order of the fossils runs counter to how hydro-logical sorting would deposit a flood-based die off. The smallest organisms, bacteria and algae, are throughout the geological column, not concentrated at the top which would be what would be expected. Similarly, the deepest layers are devoid of fossils of large animals, which should occur preferentially there.
• The fossil record contains many fish and other aquatic animals that would have no trouble surviving such a deluge.
• The radioactive aging of the sedimentary rocks and fossils does not correspond to a single depositional event.
• The erosion of valleys in Canada and the northern section of Eurasia is the typical “U-shape” of glacial erosion and not the “V-shape” of river erosion of draining flood waters.
• Although the account make mention of animals, it makes no mention of plants. The seeds and propagules of which would have to be collected and then distributed in the rather unique pattern we see. Because the flood just buried the surface of the earth and not all seeds float. Now some plants only seed once in very irregular intervals (such as century plants and bamboo flower and seed simultaneously at long intervals, 20 years intervals are not uncommon) and others only break dormancy after fires or by being eaten by specific animals.
• Arguably my favourite reason is based on disease and parasites organisms. Now some diseases and parasites can enter dormancy, but many must be spread directly host to host (and many are host-specific) and wouldn’t survive a prolonged flood. So every disease and parasite must have also be carried by Noah and his family, the animals and the plants. Now consider that many STD’s cause sterility and I see a bit of a problem repopulating the earth.
• Literal, biblical-base estimates place the flood at about 2000-3000 BCE. Annual ice-core layers extend back about 50,000 years. Bother, even tree rings are known that date back several thousand years. (Although there does seem to be a localized flood about 6000-7000 BC around the Black Sea if I remember correctly. There may be some basis for the flood story.)
• There were other fairly advanced cultures such as Egyptian, and those in the Tigris/Euphrates valley that where able to write at the time. Not only do they show no sign of extinction. They also make no record of the flood.
*shrug* “Scientific Proof” for the flood? Once again science will never absolutely ‘prove’ anything. It may bring to light observations that support a theory… but the test of a theory depends on whether all the observation are consistant with it. Observations that counter a theory falsify the theory, even if many observations agree with it. They theory must either be modified or abandoned. To go out and collect supporting evidence for a belief, but ignore countering observations is something… but it is not science. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2005 11:37:29 AM | ""HELLLOOO"...With the aid of the modern high powered electron microscopes, scientists DO see the atom and even the parts therof..."
I said one can't directly experience atoms with the five senses. The device you are refering to is a scanning tunneling microscope- following is a brief description from "howstuffworks"
"The STM works like this:
A current is supplied to the tip (probe) while the scanner rapidly moves the tip across the surface of a conducting sample.
When the tip encounters an atom, the flow of electrons between the atom and the tip changes.
The computer registers the change in current with the x,y-position of the atom.
The scanner continues to position the tip over each x,y-point on the sample surface, registering a current for each point.
The computer collects the data and plots a map of current over the surface that corresponds to a map of the atomic positions.
The process is much like an old phonograph where the needle is the tip and the grooves in the vinyl record are the atoms. The STM tip moves over the atomic contour of the surface, using tunneling current as a sensitive detector of atomic position."
What you are seeing is not a magnified image like a normal microscope as you seem to think, but more the evidence that an atom is there. My point, which you seemed to miss is that empircal evidence does not necessarily mean what is immediately ammenable to the five senses.
My posts are very consistent. Show me where I contradict myself. Just because you don't understand what I'm saying, doesn't mean I'm inconsistent.
I won't even respond to the supposed evidence of the flood- Dryad already supplied REAL scientific evidence.
"I mean, Gee, so what if the THEORY of Evolution contradicts the second LAW of Thermo Dynamics, eh?"
This is absolutely untrue. The second law of thermodynamics applies in a CLOSED system. The earth is not a closed system. The sun is constantly providing energy.
Lastly, it is very telling that you can't make your point without an emotional personal attack. I said before, if you want to go there, I told you where I live- anytime you want to make it personal, I'll be waiting. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2005 11:54:23 AM | Oh thanks Canadian Romantic, now I see how the flood thing works, it explains everything.
3. Fossils: Proof of the Global Flood
What you need for the experiment:
seashells, chicken bones, twigs, leaves, etc. (to make fossils from)
an aluminum pie or baking pan
non-hardening modeling clay
a mixing bowl
mixing stick
toothpicks or an old toothbrush
3 cups (750 ml) plaster of Paris
2 cups (500 ml) water
What you do: Cover the bottom of the aluminum pan with a one-half inch deep layer of modeling clay. Mix the plaster of Paris and water in the mixing bowl. Firmly press the future fossils into the clay and remove them. Pour the mixture over the clay. After allowing time for the mixture to dry, remove the pan and carefully scrape away the clay. Employ the toothbrush or the toothpicks to remove clay from cracks and small areas.
What are the results of the experiment?
You have demonstrated the formation of fossils. The mixture represents the minerals which replace original matter and form fossils.
Fossils must be buried quickly to be preserved. Otherwise they rot or get eaten by scavengers. Over time the original plant or animal matter is replaced by minerals in ground water. For a great science project research and discuss fossil graveyards; fossils found in the "wrong" evolutionary strata layer; the lack of the mythical geologic column (by which old earth dates are attained); and that these facts all support the global flood.
Talk about being without excuse for not believing in the flood!!
Very Scienitific stuff I must say. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2005 1:59:39 PM |
So, once again 'wonkavision' is wrong and erroneous in his statements, which are really nothing more than his long winded and nonsensical ramblings, speculations and conjectures...
In psychology this phenomenon is known as projection. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2005 2:03:15 PM | "In psychology this phenomenon is known as projection."
Precisely, and in common parlance it's known as - the pot calling the kettle black. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2005 6:07:07 PM | My Goodness - Those romantic Canadians - You can dress em up - -
Yo! RC -- I feel your pain.-- It is true Wonka can be a tad confrontational, but hey its part of his charm.
He does bring up many good points on several subjects, he seems to be quite well read and articulate. (I can't believe I'm saying this) and besides he spells better than me. Of course that's not saying much.
So if you want to pound him into submission I suggest you try doing it with logic and facts.
Hey dryad. lotsa info up there. What if the oceans were 3000 ft (aprox) lower than they are today?
What of the Pliestocene extinction.
Could the glaciers have formed after the fact?
What of the all the protroleum deposits off shore of most every country? They need plant and animal matter as well as oxygen to form.
There are some discussions as to an axis shift as well. | |
|
dud
|
Joined: 9/9/2005
Msg: 812 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2005 6:10:47 PM | | i have seen living proof of evolution right in front of my own two eyes.... the cougar beaver! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2005 6:24:05 PM | | Silivros- I think I can be very blunt and strict and at times even sarcastic, but I don't think I'm confrontational. I don't mean to be anyway. I appreciate your posts because, although we may have differing philisophical stances, you are not one-dimensional. Clearly you enjoy weighing different ideas- learning, assimilating, comparing and contrasting them. which is exactly what I enjoy. What he doesn't understand is that this is an interchange of ideas, and that can become heated at times, but there are still formal rules of logic and debate that, when followed, make that interchange more effective and insightful. But when someone comes from a one-dimensional position, it's not about the interchange. It's about proselytizing. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2005 6:53:25 PM |
Personal attacks and misquoting people’s statements do nothing to further your arguments.
Oh, Dryad. Is it any reason we love you? Of course, I originally thought Canadian was just giving an example. You know:
nonsensical ramblings, speculations and conjectures...
Actually, I've read a good deal of Creationist literature regarding the Flood, as well as some independent stuff covering a possible "water canopy" that contributed to a global flood. It doesn't seem that far-fetched in some instances, but I don't know if, while I might accept the forty days and nights of rain, and flooding across the world, I'd automatically take it to mean that the entire planet's surface was submerged. Then again, I suppose anything's possible.
• Arguably my favourite reason is based on disease and parasites organisms.
I kind of like that point, too. Very interesting.
3. Fossils: Proof of the Global Flood
Dude, Trewq, where did you find that? That's beautiful!
..."Cougar beaver"? ...? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2005 6:53:57 PM | Woncavision if you are there, take a look at "Are you afraid of the number 666?" thread.
Ed.. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2005 7:03:22 PM | This is part of a paper in the development stage and as it applies to the subject matter -- bash away. (beats waiting for peer review)
Most scientific earth evolutionary theories are in agreement in principle that the earth went through several catastrophic changes as a result of some form of natural or supernatural (asteroid) disaster. At the time of the last cataclysmic event, the earth’s stratum was pierced by such a disaster. This caused the planet’s thick enveloping cloud layer to dissipate, condensing in a domino effect in the form of rain and snow throughout the planet. The ensuing release of the cloud layer upon the planet’s surface lasted for several hundred years. This is not to say that it rained continuously throughout the planet for hundreds of years, but rather the atmospheric balance was altered from the incursion of cold air from earth’s outer atmosphere. The incursion of cold air caused fluctuations in the average mean temperature of the planet, thus triggering the condensing of the cloud cover and thinning of the existing cloud layers. This allowed the influx of even more cold air, specifically from the polar regions of the planet, which produced a chain of events that eventually created our polar caps and is the explanation for the rapid freezing of animals near the Polar Regions. Additionally, it was causal in massive flooding throughout the planet and responsible for the mass extinctions of the Pliestocene era, as well as the swelling of the existing oceans which consequently created enormous pressure upon the tectonic plates, which led to violent geological upheavals in the form of worldwide earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, thereby altering the geography of the planet. Furthermore, the subsequent atmospheric weight displacement to the earths surface created a dramatic shift in the earth’s rotational axis, as well as fluctuations in its rotational speed.
This hypothesis is not to support creationist dogma, but evidence collected (obviously not displayed) up to this point is very interesting and somewhat convincing. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2005 7:33:58 PM | Silivros,
This is part of a paper in the development stage and as it applies to the subject matter -- bash away. (beats waiting for peer review)
LOL!!! Right on! Well said. Anyway, if you'd like a quick critique:
some form of natural or supernatural (asteroid) disaster.
Asteroids are not necessarily considered "supernatural" unless you're using the term to mean "extraterrestrial" in origin.
This caused the planet’s thick enveloping cloud layer to dissipate, condensing in a domino effect in the form of rain and snow throughout the planet.
I would like to point out that this is consistent with my reading on the "water canopy" hypothesis that I've found elsewhere. At least, that is, if you're postulating a "cloud cover" that, up until that point had not developed into precipitation patterns.
One thing you might want to watch out for is the run-on sentences (...which caused... , which resulted in... , giving rise to...). Just a "Robert's Rules of Writing" observation. Yeah, I know, "Hey kettle, this is pot. Dude, you need some bleach or something..."
Overall, without supporting evidence, it is an interesting hypothesis, and, like I posted earlier, I'd found something somewhat similar expounded by others not affiliated with the Evo-Creat debate. I'd still love to see what supporting empirical evidence can be found. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2005 7:45:41 PM | Feral
Those D**n run on sentences. I was doing a quick edit to condense. Yes the canopy concept is from several sources. I do hope to share some of the evidence as it is very interesting.
As far as the continuity of that post. I thought I did rather well considering I had a house full of adolesent girls, screaming and yelling. (Pizza party volleyball team.) I should pay closer attention as I've noticed a couple of boys mulling about. Nasty sack of hormones that lot.
If I don't return in a couple days - send help. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2005 7:55:02 PM | Wonka.
--"I think I can be very blunt and strict and at times even sarcastic, but I don't think I'm confrontational."--
Oh of course not! I don't know what ever could have caused me to think that. ;-) | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2005 8:36:15 PM | Actually I find Silivros' tone perfectly acceptable. He's being sarcastic. That was my point. To me confrontational is when you attack the person and not the argument. Sarcastic quips I welcome; I'm a big fan of humor. What I don't respond well to is someone trying every cheap trick they can for the purpose of angering me. Unfortunately they succeed; something I've got to work on.
Silivros- What time frame are you suggesting in that essay portion? I wasn't clear on what your premise was. As for the specifics, I'll have to leave most of that to someone more knowlagable with geology and earth science. Also, I was going to make the same point Feral did with your reference to asteroids as supernatural. I think extra-terrestrial is a better term, unless I mistook your meaning. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2005 8:42:20 PM |
I'm a big fan of humor.
Me too. Reread my last post. :) | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2005 9:51:42 PM | I already apologize for the length of this post (I’ve been gone for a bit, so am responding to many ideas…)
Quiet John said, Is a rock conscious?
I think that is a very interesting question. In some ways, ‘consciousness’ (a very complex topic) could be seen as G-d. Many cultures around the world perceive ALL of nature as being imbued with spirit(s) and consciousness. I find these words intriguing (from the book, Dance of Power: A Shamanic Journey)—especially in light of the quantum and supernatural discussions:
“The limitations of the physical universe push us to grow and evolve…[objects] are composed of atoms. Those atoms can be further broken down until, ultimately, all that is left is pure energy. At that level there is just energy. There is no separation. That energy has consciousness. That consciousness is pure love. It is totally expansive, universal, and eternal. It is infinite. You can never go beyond its limits because of its nature. We are all part of it and of each other.” (31)
“Physical energy only perceives physical energy, ethereal energy perceives ethereal energy, and spiritual energy interacts with spiritual energy. We manifest our reality from the spiritual level, but that energy is filtered through all the emotional baggage that is stored in our physical bodies and ethereal bodies…as we change our beliefs, we change our experiences…In a person who has broken this reality, such as a Nagual or great teachers like Buddha, Lau Tzu, or Jesus, those two components have been separated.” (32-34)
Maybe I’m being redundant and repeating things and going on with what’s been said in other ways and said already? Maybe not, though. I don’t want to repeat… or, do I? Do I want to repeat? We’ll see if I want to repeat. ;) I’ve seen novel ideas on this thread. Those should be repeated, or published!
“In the material world are spirits.”
--Police, Spirits in the Material World
“Can’t stop the spirits when they need you.”
--Chili Peppers, Can’t stop
There is NO CONFLICT between chaos and Newtonian mechanics. Chaos isn't magic - it's mathematics!
I agree, Quietjohn. But to most people (if you were to ‘explain’), the quantum world IS ‘magic’ though. And some define ‘magic’ as action+intent. So, in that way, the quatum world is very magical. There is no contest between Newton and Einstein, from my point of view. Those are both true. Materialists? Idealists? (Newton/Einstein, Nature/Nurture, Science/Spirituality… etc.) Why the fight? The answer is BOTH. Debate the degree of influence, but not either/or. I’m again going to challenge this dualistic thinking! (even though that is how many in the industrialized world right now have ingrained in the mind, as ‘norm.’)\
A quick comment on the topic of ‘speeding up evolution,’ etc. (be that through cloning, genetic engineering, and similar high-tech activities that mess with natural process—in ways that could never happen without human interference.) I AM CERTAIN THAT IS A SERIOUSLY BAD IDEA--A VERY TERRIBLE IDEA. This thread isn’t about that, so that’s what I’ll say here.
Sounds like the ‘supernatural’ and some Newtonian and quantum physics (and lots more, too), to me. But that also seems to suggest that there is lots going on that is not even close to being understood. I am not making any ‘truth’ statements, here. But some interesting things (to me, at least) to think about. Always more to learn…
Dryad said, I seem to lack the eloquence to say what I’m thinking I’m afraid.
No, you do far more than fine. The one lacking the eloquence would be me. I don't have to wonder why I love you... you make GREAT points. Plus, we need more insightful geographers here... ;)
Quietjohn said, Where some people are just happy to believe in them, others want to understand them.
I think the want to understand the world (and beyond) is a very good thing.
I could go on about determinism and so on… but, I’ve gone on for quite a bit here already… J
Wonka said…This sounds like the gaia theory- an interesting perspective, but... ah forget it. You know what I'm going to say.
Hmm? I like the way Wonka questions things. I am not sure I’ve ever ‘heard’ any confrontational approach from him, but rather an explanation of thoughts and knowledge. Just because something doesn’t fit with someone’s worldview doesn’t mean that something is in any way a hostile view. That’s what I ‘see’ anyway. More should critically think about everything. (To those threatened by what wonka says…) In many ways, wonka supports G-d—or at least my experience of that. This might seem ironic to those with fundamentalist religious beliefs. Questioning doesn’t mean dumping faith, or all you learned in other ways, but DO question what you think and learn from others. Less stress (for all) is good to work towards, I think, anyway.
Phew, I’ve been away for awhile… sorry about the long post!
 | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 825 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2005 10:35:09 PM | Awh shucks Feral and Dharma *blush* …
I’ve grown rather fond of this thread and the people that have been posting here 
Can anyone explain why people think it didn’t rain previously according to the "water canopy"? Having taken meteorology I’m really having problems with that one. Also my hydrology courses are screaming… no rain… no rivers. Sorry nightly dew just isn’t cutting it…
Dear Silv (trying to keep me busy, eh? :)
What if the oceans were 3000 ft (aprox) lower than they are today?
• Why do you believe they were? Shorelines are zones of erosion and deposition and leave predictable physical signs.
What of the Pliestocene extinction.
• Seems to correspond to the arrival of humans to the continent (supported by middens of mega-fauna bones, like giant sloths, etc). The lost of large animals (that tend to have low recruitment and long gestation periods) is likely due to over hunting. Similar patterns of extinction occurred about 40,000 when people arrived in Australia, New Zealand 1200 years ago, and Madagascar 2000 years ago. In comparison the extinction rate in Europe and Africa, where humans co-evolved with the rest of the fauna the extinctions were more prolonged and much less severe.
• The climate change at the time may have been a contributing factor, but it doesn’t make as much sense since many of the species lived through the advance and retreat of several ice ages.
• There’s a pretty strong argument that the Pleistocene extinction didn’t end and is really part of the current Holocene extinction event. It’s estimated the current rates of extinction rival the big six extinction events. Wilson (Harvard University) estimates that at current rates about ½ of species will be extinct in 100 years (his book ‘The Future of Life’ makes for a rather depressing read).
Could the glaciers have formed after the fact?
• The ice cores have annual rings…
• And glaciers aren’t exactly the speediest things out there… I mean us women take along time to get ready to go out but we’re really astoundingly quick comparatively.
What of the all the petroleum deposits off shore of most every country? They need plant and animal matter as well as oxygen to form.
• And the ones onshore?? Silv, you’re leaping again… I have a mere mortal brain and can’t keep up.
• Carboniferous period. I believe lack of oxygen, high pressure, temperature and time is key.
• Thought this was a cool bit of history: apparently oil’s been used for more than 5,000-6,000 years by the ancient Sumerians, Assyrians and Babylonians that collected crude oil and asphalt from seeps at Tuttul (modern-day Hit) on the Euphrates River.
There are some discussions as to an axis shift as well.
• Source? Or details?
Wonka! Naughty, naughty… feeding the flames. And too far away to spank… *sigh*
Ya know I love your posts but if ’ I told you where I live- anytime you want to make it personal, I'll be waiting.’ isn’t confrontational, I’ll eat my hat.
I’m going to stop now ‘cause I’m a bit silly tonight… blame the wine and the friend pouring it… maybe the drinker too for good measure. I’ll sort out any major inaccuracies tomorrow.
Sweet dreams. | |
|
|
| Page 33 of 156
|
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 |
|
Home
login 
