Skip to comments.Proof that at least one of two (evolution, ice age) key theories is false
Posted on 05/21/2004 10:42:47 AM PDT by Truth666
click here to read article
Let's first fully realise how small the area below 400 m altitude is :
... and that the temperature difference between these two worlds is not only due to altitude but also to the extreme sunshine difference, like the cover
photo for this thread also perfectly illustrated
palms in habitat, in altitude
planted palms - even as adult and under the shadow of (introduced) Norfolk Island Pine it has burnt fronds
no palms growing spontaneously in this islet
Howea forsteriana in lowlands were planted, after being grown in nurseries in the shade.
It's the only palm that is planted simply because it is also the only palm whose seeds are exported.
Anyway, for the palms example, I made the mistake of mentioning only temperatures in the introductory article. I should have stressed the cloud cover factor, which during an ice age would have been also much different.
That depends how different they are. Don't you think that "unmistakable" breeds of dog developed during the last 100 years?
Ooooh, *that's* gonna leave a mark...
But I doubt it'll have any lasting effect. I'm always amazed at how oblivious creationists can be to how badly their arguments have been body-slammed. Or even the few times when they realize it, they never generalize from "I was a complete idiot on that point and overlooked incredibly elementary things" to "hmm, maybe I'm not as competent on this topic as I had believed". No, instead it's, "but by gosh all the *rest* of my preconceptions are still 100% more reliable than those of a career research biologist!"
Don't quit your day job.
It is interessting that the last serious scientist to reject Darwin, Agassiz, was the discoverer of the Ice Ages.
Yes, dear, I know that coconuts can float.
It was inevitable. And now it has come. The struggle that will determine the destiny of the universe.
The battle of the 666s.
You are right. The last ice age started about 100,000 years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago.
Thanks for the correction. Put mind back in gear.
Ice ages last about 50-70k years. They started about 70,000,000 years ago, so the current warm period is just one of many short- 10k years - warm periods between ice ages. We are about at the end of one of those 10k periods.
Hence all flora and fauna we have at different locations has come into being in the last 10k years either though wind, birds, the sea or migration.
bump--my brain doesn't work enough to read this so early in the a.m.
It is not global warming but ocean warming. Check this out:
As a Christian Im aware of being instructed to always be ready to give a reason for the hope that is within me. I interpret this and other verses to mean that we are to be diligent students. Certainly of scripture, but also of science, history, philosophy, math, etc.
I once gave a Chuck Colson pamphlet on evolution to an "evo" friend at work. When he returned it he asked me why in one margin the word weak was written. He was surprised to hear that I wrote it; it was what I thought that one argument. (I thought the others were ok)
Too many people, of all opinion, allow pride to cloud judgment. I know I do, and I try to guard against it. It is a particularly nasty trap for a Christian. We are all stuck with our skuzzy self important human nature, but when confronted with insults and abuse if a Christian responds in kind his argument is undermined regardless of facts presented (no support of this article intended). That type of response also takes one in the wrong direction and feeds on itself; not good.
Thats why I press for civil discourse; most of the time I do it in a civil manner.
BTW, I describe my philosophical position as Hobbsian in viewing man's depravity and some resultant aspects of governmental systems, mixed in with about 4 of Calvin's 10 points. I like to call it a Calvin and Hobbs approach.
"Yep the creationists are poor liars.
One example micro-enviroment sans any analysis does not disprove anything.
Creationists know how hard it is to disprove something. They are just intellectually dishonest."
Right!!!! E's have no evidence other than art work and most C's are wrong about "TIME".
"intellectually dishonest" found on both sides.
The author got self-contradictory as soon as he started talking about "theories" being "dogma".
Hey, lay off! Those archaeopteryx fossils were a bitch to carve.
... but after 23423 posts with lies, yes, lies, it becomes tough to maintain the high ground all the time.
1) Don't confuse lies with ignorance; I suspect that it is often the case.
2) If you can't support that number then (toung-in-cheek here...really!) shame on ya... if you can you REALLY need to get out more and/or get another hobby!
MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF EVOLUTION
"Hey, lay off! Those archaeopteryx fossils were a bitch to carve."
Hey, I really like those archaeopteryx fossils.... its the ones in transition showing "fool" proof of evolution I want to see.
To give evolution credibility requires lack of order, and no given species. Something or someone has sure orchestrated a whole lot of specific species from pond scum to the evolving humanoid. Now I will grant you that there are many who display the MIND of evolution.
oops, that's tongue, rather than toung...