Skip to comments.Grass flourishes in warmer Antarctic
Posted on 01/22/2005 2:15:48 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Grass flourishes in warmer Antarctic
What's new Ernest?
Cool. Golfing in Antarctica next.
Then why your comment about how "fascinating" it is to see that "the same people who push natural selection" also seem to think there can be a status quo in nature? It sounds an awful lot to me an Evo/Creation debate statement. I'm hard pressed to identify anything else that can be read into such a statment.
Wonderful news, let's have trees and much more warmth!
That's more like it. You say 'sea spider' to me, I start thinking melted lemon garlic butter. Mmm..
My big fat Webster's dictionary uses the word "parable" in its definition of the word "allegory," which I had to look up! So I guess yes, I really meant "allegory" ... according to my dictionary, that's what a "parable" is.
Perhaps a study of Hebrew confirms what you say. Therefore, the earth is 5,000 years old? All I can say, is then, that the Hebrew code is being misread by men, because I no more believe, or think God would be impressed if I did, that the world is 5,000 years old than I believe that the sun revolves around the earth. God gave us brains, He made us in His image, and brainy guys like Darwin (who was a Christian, not an atheist) use and have used that gift from God to observe the world around them. Sometimes what they observe doesn't square-up with man's literal interpretation of the bible's representation of the physical world.
Apparently you think it's more Christ-like or God-like to ignore what God-given intelligence and reason reveals is truth regarding the physical world, and accept instead the word of theolgians and academics who believe they know the secrets of how God performs His miracles? The value of the bible is its moral guidance. It is a handbook that tells us how we can thrive. It is no more a physical textbook than a cookbook is a review of restaurants.
If evolution negated the moral teachings of Christ and the Bible, I'd be troubled in my heart. But indeed, evolution rather confirms them in an abstract sense: adapt and survive; fail to adapt and perish. Human societies that adapt to God's laws -- although they may seem at odds with the "natural" world and its own rules of kill-or-be-killed -- thrive, and will always survive. Those that don't, are doomed to experience strife and ultimately, destruction. Look at our own American culture. The farther we stray from God's moral laws, the more unstable we become.
Certainly Godless governments such as Communism are inevitably doomed to cave in on themselves -- it doesn't take a rocket scientist, or Hebrew scholars, to figure that one out.
What really puzzles me is ... why is the prospect that God formed us slowly through time via other of His creations, so horrifying to so many Christians? It is not taking another god before God; it is not worshipping a graven image. It is a challenge to men who presume to interpret God's word for everyone else. Evolution doesn't challenge God, it challenges men.
The earth is approx. 6000 years old. That is what the Bible geneologies indicate, and that is what the physical evidence says.
If you use the preferred rock dating methods on newly cooled volcanic rocks in Hawaii, or Washington, it will tell you that those rocks are 300 million years old, so where is the credibility of the method? If you ask the psuedo-scientists why, they will simply assert that the test doesn't work on new rock; are you buying? Where is the common sense?
BTW, Darwin was a practicing occultist, until he became terminally ill, at which time he admitted that his theory had huge holes in it.
My God was and is powerful enough to do things exactly as he said in his word.
That is because you don't know me or how much time I spend fighting the enviros that are killing our property rights. This was a statement about them, no more, no less.
So when it blooms all warm and lovely, we can try the concept of freedom THERE.
Just to answer the question regardless of the current article, the implications are that if large areas of land are covered by dark green plants thriving on photosynthesis, that they in turn will introduce more heat into the environment and further the overall warming affect.
That in itself is a true statement. Whether this is occurring in a large enough area to have a global impact is subject to debate. In addition, there is ample evidence to prove that such cyclical climate changes are normal and "part of nature" instead of a deviation of the natural cycle.
Either way, this half-ass GH Effect theory is no excuse to readily introduce or accept Socialism or Communism.
Those who forward Kyoto as a solution to Global warming discredit themselves simply by associating themselves to Kyoto. They cannot expect Kyoto to have any discernible results, especially when they do not address the use of fossil fuels and emissions by emerging nations such as China and India. They need to be harshly treated for the fools that they have proven themselves to be.
RE: The latest research was carried out on the Antarctic peninsula, which juts northwards towards Cape Horn.
Easy to miss this little item here. I'd be very interested in knowing the exact precipitation figures and *geological* factors in the study area. It's not as if this area (at a lower latitude than the Antarctic Circle) was part of the polar ice cap and grass started growing there. The climate in the area in question has more to do with Patagonia than it does with Polar Antarctica.
Plus the area in question is not even truly polar. I believe the latitude is lower than 66 deg S latitude.
Still no word on how, exactly, the age of the earth, evolution, or natural selection negates the moral teachings of Christ, or how it entails taking another god before Him, or worshiping graven images. You, on the other hand, allow pride and worldliness to provoke you to malign a man who was by contemporary and historical accounts, a Christian and respected by his peers, even those who disagreed with him. He never claimed to have a hard-set theory -- his book, Origin of Species (have you read it? I have ...) was a chronicle of observations in his extensive travels and studies, and conclusions drawn from them, but he never, ever claimed to understand fully the workings of natural selection, so your information that he "admitted" to huge holes in his theory only on his death bed, is patently ridiculous.
Someone is leading you on, and it isn't the Bible, it isn't God -- it's MEN who sense a challenge to their power. By the way ... does the earth revolve around the sun, or is that pseudo science as well? Never mind. One can't take you seriously. God be with you.
IMO, environmentalism is one of the biggest threats to America today. It promotes a New Age Dark Age. About the only thing worse than an environmentalist is a vegan environmentalist.
I come from a commercial fishing background. From puberty on up, I watched as environmentalism put many men out of business and destroyed the livelihoods of many families. You read sometimes about how the stocks of fish are going down -- the reports never correlate an increase in protected seals, otters, etc., that eat TREMENDOUS amounts of fish. My brothers still fish for sport, and report seeing seals and sea lions foraging for fish much, much further offshore than they ever saw 20 years ago.
If you haven't already, read Tom Clancy's "Rainbow Six." It will do your heart good, especially the ending! Absolutely the most delicious, fitting end for environmentalists you can imagine!!!
Anybody want to buy some Antarctic swampland?
The teachings of Christ were not 'moral.' Therein, perhaps, lies your confusion. Christ taught that morality didn't get it. The pharisees were very moral; he called them whited sepulchres.
Adam was a real man, the first man; he was created. Had we 'evolved,' we would all be the same seed, would we not? But Christ taught that there are two separate "seeds," Adam/Seth's seed, and the serpant's seed. You and I cannot discern the difference; to us both seeds look the same, but the Lord the difference was visible: he called the pharisees serpant seed. He told them that their father was the serpant. Evolution is a lie that is perpetuated in order to hide the fact that there are two distinct seeds, and to further the myth of the "fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man." You won't find that in God's word, because it is a lie.
The 'educated' elite class of 19th century western Europe was infiltrated with many occultists, some of whom were highly placed 'elders' in the church of England, such as Benson, Westcott, Hort, and Balfour. They belonged to a group that called themselves the "Ghostly Guild." Westcott's son, Arthur, published much information about the comings and goings of his father, and his circle of friends; Darwin was one of them. You need to be more curious
Interesting. I absolutely don't get how you can say that the teachings of Christ are not moral, but interesting just the same. Also: Does the sun revolve around the earth?
I'd like to see a companion study on undersea volcanic activity for the same period; sea-surface temperatures have far more effect on surrounding air temperatures than air temperatures have on sea-surface temperatures which is why it never freezes over along California's coast and fog is a coastal phenomenon for much of the year.
In everyday terms, how does this manifest itself today, and how does it apply today in our world? Real world examples?
Evolution is a lie that is perpetuated in order to hide the fact that there are two distinct seeds, and to further the myth of the "fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man." You won't find that in God's word, because it is a lie.
In layman's terms, tell me what this means. I don't understand how evolved species negate the teachings of Christ or the word of God as regards how humans should treat each other, or how it negates the Ten Commandments or the seven deadly sins. Your sentence, "The teachings of Christ were not 'moral'," makes zero sense to me. Please explain.
You ask me to believe that fossils are manufactured and planted by occultists? Are you asking me to believe also that the earth revolves around the sun?
Westcott's son, Arthur, published much information about the comings and goings of his father, and his circle of friends; Darwin was one of them. You need to be more curious.
Can you recommend a book I'd find in the library RE Arthur Westcott's revelations? Was Arthur the only contemporary to write about it?
Just to throw this out here ... could it be that the interested folks that would perpetuate a lie (truth will set you free) are men who seek to protect their own powerful roles in how regular Joes like you and me interpret our Bibles in context with growing knowledge of the physical world around us? Things that some of us observe with our own eyes, and other of us learn from trusted sources? Is it a Godly thing to deny the conclusions we would draw from abilities and gifts God gave us? Is it Godly to contort things such as to cast thousands of people in evil light in order to preserve a status quo of power? Would you advocate that I view with suspicion and regard as malignant fellow humans who study our physical world and come to inevitable conclusions that don't square with literal translations of the bible of things that relate not to spirituality but to physical realities?
God forbade fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, not fruit from the tree of knowledge of biology, or math, or geology, or music, or chemistry, or any other knowledge. The way I see it is that the Bible and Christ teach us spiritual ways to mitigate evil, those ways being behavioral. My knowledge of the Bible is admittedly scant -- I've never read all of the Old Testament (but have read the New a few times), and am the first to say that it is very confusing and hard to understand, and I am loathe to automatically trust interpretation to others, especially when others have so much interest in the outcome via power they hold over thee and thine and me and mine. What isn't hard to understand is the code of moral behaviour advised in the Bible.
I don't find the bible's words confusing regarding that (though I may find hard to understand the reasons -- sometimes God's laws seem arbitrary, but in the long run they're like a parent who tells a kid not to have candy for breakfast; a child doesn't understand why, but as the child becomes an adult and understands the reality of the wolrd, comes to see that eating candy for breakfast is physically unhealthy for the body. It's the same, I think, with God's commandments and deadly sins.)
Science doesn't seek to discern good and evil, it finds things like fossils and such and attempts to draw conclusions about the world around us. I'm leery when I see mortal men attempting to determine knowledge of good and evil from observations of rock, stone, old bones, and the reasoning of sensible minds.
"Tufts have previously grown on patches of Antarctica in summer, but the scientists have now observed bigger areas surviving winter and spreading in the summer months."
Huh. Some tough f-ing grass, considering it doesn't even require sunlight. ;') Obviously, unless someone is spreading seed each summer, the grass has been there, and has been surviving, for a good long time. This grass needs to be studied, or if a recent introduction, how it got there. Thanks for the ping.
Except when it comes to humans. And then, all people who are less than perfect must be euthanisized out of compassion.
The article itself says that there have always been "tufts" in Antarctica. 'Nuff said. This is media hype.
Read Crichton's "State of Fear" for an exposee of their tactics.
Can lawn gnomes be far behind?
I didn't say that the teachings of Christ are immoral, I said that Christ didn't teach morality. Morality is not the route to eternal life, that's man's idea (the lie again). Eternal life is only available to his elect, through the shedding of his blood at the cross.
What possible difference would the sun revolving around the earth make? Albert Einstein prepared a proof that geocentrism offered no consequences in general relativity.
"You ask me to believe that fossils are manufactured and planted by occultists? Are you asking me to believe also that the earth revolves around the sun?"
You are asking to debate a strawman. The fossils are the direct result of the death of most of the aquatic life on earth when "the fountains of the great deep" gushed up through the cracks in the earth's crust scalding them with super heated water. The events of the flood and the following 200 or 300 years account for the present condition of the earth.
"I don't understand how evolved species negate the teachings of Christ or the word of God as regards how humans should treat each other, or how it negates the Ten Commandments or the seven deadly sins. Your sentence, "The teachings of Christ were not 'moral'," makes zero sense to me."
The lie of evolution is a total denial of God's word. It is a negation of God's plan of salvation through his son, the 'kinsman redeemer' (read the book of Ruth). Seven deadly sins? All sin is deadly; the wages of sin is death, and eternal life is a gift from God to his elect, through the shed blood of his son. Christ made it clear that you cannot 'earn' your way to eternal life through moral behavior. Sin once and you are doomed; the price for one sin is eternity in hell, and that price will be required of all but those for whom the price was paid by their 'kinsman redeemer." There is no "code of moral behavior" proferred in God's word. God's word says that "there is none righteous, no not one." It says that our righteousness is as the bandages on the leper's lesions. That means that our righteousness is merely a covering on the fetid rot that lies in our hearts.
"Science doesn't seek to discern good and evil, it finds things like fossils and such and attempts to draw conclusions about the world around us."
There are some real, honest, objective researchers out there, and most of them have no difficulty asserting that there is no evidence that honestly supports 'evolution.' Even Steven Gould wrote that if evolution were true, life would be increasingly diverse, rather than decreasingly diverse (the 'cone of increasing diversity' called for in his book, Wonderful Life, but admitted not to exist at all). Men seek to explain how life could come to exist without God, not to explain how God did it; Gould admitted that many times.
For your mind to digest: If man evolved, when did he begin to be "in the image of God?" Can chimps claim eternal life? Were there 'primitive men' who are not to share in Christs death at the cross because they were not yet human? These issues are dealt with in the word, but you have to read it to get the answers. All the answers to all possible relevant questions are in the word, and if you want those answers you have to read and pray for them. Those who hate our Lord are not going to offer truth; they live by the lie of Genesis chapter 3 ("ye shall be as gods.")
You still have really said nothing to convince me of anything but the idea that you are contorting your mind, closing yourself off to alternative possibilities, and denying many things, in order to accommodate your narrow interpretation of the Bible. Again, the Bible is very, very confusing and contradictory and hard to understand, and for every person who reads it, there is a different interpretation of it. The printing press gave mankind the freedom and the option to read the Word each for himself, as opposed to days prior when those in power in the church interpreted it -- and enforced said interpretation -- on everyone. You are acting as if it's all very clear, cut and dried, when it is not. The only thing that, to me, is cut and dried in the bible is its advice on how to behave to each other and behave within a moral framework. That I feel confident that I understand fairly well, and I also know that anyone who, like yourself, claims to understand all of the Bible, is leading himself on.
Could it be possible that you are simply a Gnostic?
God's word is not difficult to understand if you are willing to accept it God's way. It only becomes difficult when you wish to stretch it to conform to what you wish it to say. My understanding is in conformance with the basic orthodox Christian belief system commonly known as protestant fundamentalism. We accept his word as inerrant, fully inspired, and sufficient for all aspects of life.
"The printing press gave mankind the freedom and the option to read the Word each for himself, as opposed to days prior when those in power in the church interpreted it -- and enforced said interpretation -- on everyone."
While that statement is essentially true for those of us fortunate enough to live in the western world, it doesn't mean that just any interpretation is equally correct. The Bible has a specific message, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, sent to his elect, and intended only for their understanding. The Lord made it plain during his stay here on earth that his elect was only a small 'remnant' of the population of the earth, and it was to them that he was speaking. That was the reason for the parables; he was definately hiding his message from the serpant's seed, although he said also that they would reject it anyway.
I've never met anyone who claims to understand all of the Bible, and parts of it may be deliberately obscured until specific points in time, as Daniels prophecies were 'sealed' from Israel at the time they were written yet are readily understandable today, but you are wrong to assume that the word is so difficult to understand. Pray and read with faith that understanding will be given to you, and you will have greater satisfaction. The Bible is one work, and no part of it contradicts another. If you perceive a contradiction, pray and read again, it's not real.