******************************************
Weekly Standard has a great article coming in the March 25 issue....the cover:
FR Thread:
Posted on 03/07/2010 1:54:24 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
******************************************
Weekly Standard has a great article coming in the March 25 issue....the cover:
FR Thread:
Are you suggesting they were carried by swallows?
Hi Ernest!
Love these kinds of threads. I have some info that will only lend clarity or consternation to the debate, depending on what one believes, but here goes.
250 Million years ago there was an oxygen crash that corresponded to the Permian mass extinction - including marine life, plant life, and animal life - an event which “swept both the land and sea alike”. How could carbon dioxide rise, and especially oxygen levels crash from the early Permian level of 35% to “perhaps as low” as 12% in the early Triassic? How could that have happened?
It’s a good read, Out Of Thin Air by Peter D. Ward, professor of biology, earth and space studies, and adjunct professor of astronomy at the University of Washington in Seattle.
A large part of this book is dedicated to describing the respiratory system of dinosaurs. He believes dinosaurs had a respiratory system more akin to birds than mammals or reptiles, and that dinosaurs thrived in low oxygen environments. That is how they came to be the dominate life form on earth for hundreds of millions of years.
Professor Ward speculates that the formation of Pangaea caused the dramatic oxygen drop “...accompanied by a shorter-term rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide,..”.
This book is a very interesting, detailing an ancient world of extremely hot conditions with very low oxygen levels.
Very interesting...thanks.
Thanks Earnest.
In my briefing I give to Rotarians, I explain that during the period we are entering, temperature could move south 500 to 750 miles.
A week ago on the History Channel, a climatologist said we could have Montreal temperatures in Miami.
During the last ice age, we should have had perma-frost as far south as Atlanta..
It’s nice to get backed up by a well known scientist. I did my work in the TV room
Have a good day.
Thanks again.
Paul
I have some work posted at Nationalforestlawblog.com
October Newsletter that may shed some light on the “Cause and Affect” of many of your comments.
The next thing to look at in terms of “The Flood” is the Missoula Mt. Glacier Lake. They have a web site If that could happen here, the same could have happened to Noah. Noah may have set atop a glacier lake and the depiction in the Bible fits that scenario.
The other item would place Adam in the Med Sea, south of Turkey and west of Syria.. This means the Genesis is a very old oral history dating back into the ice age period.
I wrote a paper on this and mentioned it a while back on this site.. I sent it to my home church seminary. I will reload it.
The thing that people should know is if they go a literal interpretation, they have Archbishop James Usshers doctrine. That puts the total birth of the earth at 4004 B.C.
The other is to accept it as is and apply some other literal interpretation of the Bible.
Most Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
I have some work posted at Nationalforestlawblog.com October Newsletter that may shed some light on the “Cause and Affect” of many of your comments.
Well, to help out some of the readers here... let's go with some links... :-)
National Forest Legal News Blog
http://www.nationalforestlawblog.com/
October 2009 Newsletter (PDF)
http://www.nationalforestlawblog.com/October%2009%20Newsletter.pdf
"Low Sunspot Activity Cools Global Warming" - Paul Pierett
- Cover Letter (PDF)
- Main Study and Report by Paul Pierrett (PDF)
- Atlantic Basin Storm Correlation of Sunspot Activity (PDF)
I haven't looked at any of it, but thought the links should be provided so that anyone else could look at it, too... if they wanted to... :-)
The next thing to look at in terms of “The Flood” is the Missoula Mt. Glacier Lake. They have a web site If that could happen here, the same could have happened to Noah. Noah may have set atop a glacier lake and the depiction in the Bible fits that scenario.
Having lived in Oregon and having looked around in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana, I'm familiar with the landscape and the geologic accounts of such a glacial lake breaking open and flooding the area. That's very interesting to go around there and see some of these things...
The impact from Glacial Lake Missoula and the Missoula floods can be seen in parts of Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. Testifying to the cataclysm are the ancient shorelines, ripple marks, scoured lakes, dry channels, falls, and flood debris that are still visible after nearly 12,000 years. Without seeing this evidence it is hard to imagine the enormity of the geologic event.
Also at Wikipedia...
The other item would place Adam in the Med Sea, south of Turkey and west of Syria.. This means the Genesis is a very old oral history dating back into the ice age period.
Well..., this is how the Bible would be considered by me and by other well-known and prominent Evangelicals in Christianity.
The following Evangelical statement called "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" would address that issue, as far as Genesis is concerned and as far as the flood is concerned (and any other accounts given in the Bible, along with the histories given).
A quick read on it would be to go down the list of "Affirmations" and "Denials" to get an overview.
And so..., the accounts go back to the Garden of Eden, and of course, before the Flood. Adam lived to within a generation of Noah, so that anyone living at that time could have easily spoken to Adam, almost all the way through (up to) the time of Noah. And Noah lived, after the Flood, to the time after Abraham was born and had lived quite a while. So it would have been easy for Abraham (if he ever had wanted to, or maybe did) speak to Noah and get direct information from Noah.
So, these "accounts" are "almost" -- firsthand -- going back to Adam, having very little separation with subsequent generations, in regards to the people actually knowing this information, firsthand and for themselves.
The thing that people should know is if they go a literal interpretation, they have Archbishop James Usshers doctrine. That puts the total birth of the earth at 4004 B.C.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy would answer that one, pretty clearly, by what it "affirms" and "denies" in its series of statement that spell out the Biblical doctrine.
And so, stating it another way, because something is a "Biblical doctrine" does not separate it from the "reality of the world" we live in today or in the past or any account of the histories or what happened, as stated by the Bible.
It's pretty clear that those floods, in the Northwest, happened after the world-wide flood of Genesis, and because of the drastic changes in the environment that it brought about. We won't see those kinds of conditions again, as was brought about by the world-wide flood, as it's clearly stated in the Bible that this "kind and type" of judgment from God will never happen again. That's a promise given by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in the Bible, to us.
I’ll get back with you in a week. You laid a lot down to answer and this is my week for the Tax Man.
Of note, Hailey’s Bible Handbook states that during the period of Adam Down to Noah, people were ageless as long as they didn’t inter-act or merry into the men of the earth. Some lived 30k. If we lived in a compressed area due to the Ice Age, small populations and little disease, Mmmm. ! Maybe.
Paul
I’ll get back with you in a week. You laid a lot down to answer and this is my week for the Tax Man.
No problem..., just ping me back and we can pick it up later.
Of note, Hailey’s Bible Handbook states that during the period of Adam Down to Noah, people were ageless as long as they didn’t inter-act or merry into the men of the earth. Some lived 30k.
For when you are able to pick it back up again (and again, it's no problem), here are a few things.
First, up above, the most critical thing would have to do with the Bible and its reliability and authenticity. I've found that if one discusses things of the Bible without being "on the same page" in regards to the Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible (as exemplified in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy) -- then the "problems" that will come up in the discussions will be mainly related to Inerrancy and Infallibility -- and not in regards to the subject matter (of whatever is being discussed).
The subject matter just about takes care of itself, once everyone is on the same page with Inerrancy and Infallibility of Scriptures. If they are not, then the problems really stem from that, and not from the subject being discussed, itself.
So, if we can't get on the same page with that, then we'll have problems with the subject matter, too.
Secondly, when you refer to Halley's Bible Handbook and that you say that it says that people from Adam to Noah were ageless and some lived to 30,000 years... well -- if that's what it says -- they're "absolutely cracked in the head" then... LOL ...
The Bible nowhere says that mankind was ageless, and in fact, there was a sentence of death upon mankind from God, in the Garden of Eden. So, right off the bat, mankind was condemned to die, as a result of God's judgment. Secondly, there's not a single mention of 30,000 years of age for anyone.
Now, if that's what they say -- then I'll assure you -- you should not be using Halley's Bible Handbook, in case it leads you astray in any other area.
Furthermore, I'm picking up an "undercurrent of thought" there in your statement (I may be wrong) that there are different "classes" of men, since you refer to "men of the earth"... again, I may be wrong, but that's sorta sounding like it.
So, I'll wait to hear back when things slow down with you... :-) And I've given you a few things to center on, too...
AND... as a side note... whatever was quoted from Wikipedia (that article I included...) well, don't worry about that or be concerned about that, if there is some problem there. I'm not too concerned about the Wikipedia article and it means nothing to me. I just put it on there for some additional information for people to look at. It's no big deal to me.
But the Bible stuff, that would be something I would talk about. :-)
Yo,
Getting back with you on his topic. Did the best I could on the research and I am building a new paper and re-looking at what I thought. When I built the papers you linked here, thank you again, I once believed there was one flood.
It appears per page 44, Halley’s Bible Handbook that Noah was to have buried tablets before the flood. The king that ruled the area like to read the pre-flood tablets.
There are pages on this.
One scientist believes the Tigris and Euphrates Valley was flooded twice.
I believe that both occasions were related to glacier melt. One of shortfalls of our last ice age or ice ages, is, according to one scientist, which I believe to be correct is the Ice Ages are under estimated.
In further readings, there is a chain of events in the process towards an Ice Age and almost a reverse of that process at the end of the ice age.
That said, my theory is Noah saw the signs and thru prayer he knew to build an Ark. It happened much as the Missoula Glacier Lake took affect. That is why, if we were to look for the Ark, it could be anywhere in the Turkey Mountain Ranges.
Which brings up a point here. Our USA satellites can almost read the numbers on a Russian Tank. Why can’t they find an Ark?
Maybe they have the Photos, Maybe they know where.
Anyway, to prove this, one would have to rebuild the Missoula Scenario in Turkey.
I believe Noah was caught in a Missoula Scenario. The line of family had breaks per a professor of mine. Like all families, bad apples are left out. Also, it was a handed down oral history. This allows error.
If we recall the authenticity of the Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls gave us the Revised Standard Version Bible after centuries of use of the King James.
This leads me back to Adam. I have five river Valleys to work with now. I need a source for the River that Flowed through Eden and a volcanoe.
All of which may have been washed away and covered up.
I am drafting a paper on the topic. I have plenty of resources.
Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
Getting back with you on his topic. Did the best I could on the research and I am building a new paper and re-looking at what I thought.
Well, thanks for getting back. I had forgotten about it, but it was nice getting a ping back to it again... :-)
... I once believed there was one flood.
Well, if you no longer believe so, then it doesn't matter how much work you put into the subject, you're always going to be off-base, for anything you write on, if that subject has been impacted by that world-wided flood.
Now, mind you, I'm not saying that other floods have not happened. It's obvious that they have, because during my own lifetime I've seen them (heck! they're on the news all the time... LOL ...).
And given the different conditions further back in time (weather and climate and lots of ice and ice dams) -- it's very reasonable for those conditions to have produced what has been explained (as in the Pacific Northwest and the Columbia Gorge).
That's not a big deal to me. And all that's fine. So, I have no problems there.
It's only when it comes to the biggest flood of all, the world-wide flood that God told us about in Genesis -- that if someone denies that, and then goes on to explain somethig else (in which this flood had an impact on that subject [whatever that subject may be]) -- then they can never be completely right on that subject by dismissing a major piece to the puzzle, there.
I have no question or doubt that it did happen, because of the veracity of the Bible, as it's the same Bible which as told me about Jesus and creation and Adam and Eve and about His resurrection from the dead and about my own resurrection from the dead and so on. I figure if I can believe exactly what God tells me about Jesus rising from the dead and going off into Heaven in the sight of over 500 people and then believe God when He tells me that I'm also going to be resurrected from the dead, even though I'm in a million pieces in the dirt somewhere (later on) -- then why would I have any problem at all with what He tells me about the worldw-wide flood? I can't think of any reason why I would have a problem with that.
And face it, an "eyewitness to it" (namely God, Himself and Him telling us about is) is worth any number of "theories" that anyone can pose... doncha know ... :-)
It appears per page 44, Halley’s Bible Handbook that Noah was to have buried tablets before the flood. The king that ruled the area like to read the pre-flood tablets.
Well, I like reading up on other people's theories, too -- and it does sure make for interesting reading.
But, I wouldn't take anyone's theories and/or "consensus understanding" (whatever it may be) as the equivalent of God's Word itself -- and especially not if that "thinking" is directly contradictory to what God has said.
That's the problem that a lot of people run into with their own thinking. They seem to think that the "consensus thinking" or even some individual's theory on something (whomever that might be) is "on par" with the "revealed Word of God"... and once a person goes that route... they've lost all understanding of what the revealed Word of God is about.
Once a person has lost that understanding of the Word of God, they are basically "lost to the truth" that can be known from God's own personal witness to us. And there's a whole lot that we can know no other way than that witness to us (i.e., what is referred to as "God's revelation".
There is the "revelation of God" that He gives us through nature. We see that all the time, but that never contradicts the direct revelation of God, from His Word that He directly gives us. If someone thinks it does, then they've got a defective understanding "right off the bat" and that will affect everything else that comes from that thinking -- right on down the line.
One scientist believes the Tigris and Euphrates Valley was flooded twice. [ and etc. ... ]
All these things may be true, and again, they may not be. They may be working theories and someone has to sort it out, yet -- and that's fine. We have a lot of things to discover on our own, too. As I said, I don't have any problems with people trying to sort those things out.
I just know that if I depart from the revealed Word of God, in some understanding (of some part of that Word) -- and that part has some bearing in what I'm studying -- then if I ignore that Word of God on that matter -- I can only go wrong, by going away from the Word of God on that matter.
A person will never go "right" eventually in the future, if they ignore some part of the Word of God, which has a direct bearing on whatever the subject matter is -- that is being examined.
The Bible doesn't contain everything that we can know and discover from science and from our examination of things. And we do have limitations in that area (in the studies from science), of course... and we can't "know it all" even with thorough examination (of any subject matter that we delve into).
But, whatever parts that the Word of God does "touch upon" and "speaks about" -- if those are ignored in our studies -- we can only go wrong in those matters, and not in the right direction.
Which brings up a point here. Our USA satellites can almost read the numbers on a Russian Tank. Why can’t they find an Ark?
Well, that's not too hard to understand and fathom, actually. I mean, a lot of people think we have almost unlimited capabilities in this area and can find anything if we really apply ourselves -- but I really doubt it... :-)
Let me give you a "whole lot easier task" which is sorta similar to that.
We know where Mt. St. Helens is (it's still in the same spot) and we know where Spirit Lake is at (roughly in the same spot, too). And I've been to both, before and after the eruption of May 18, 1980.
And I was also at Harry Truman's big lodge that was at Spirit Lake. It was a beautiful area too.
Now, what I want to know -- is -- "Can anyone find Harry Truman's Lodge (a really big building, too... by the way) at Spirit Lake?
No one has found it yet and they say it's "there" (and we all know it was there before, because I've been in it, myself -- that's an "eyewitness testimony" by the way... doncha know).
And some people, perhaps today, may doubt that the Lodge at Spirit Lake ever existed -- but I can testify to you that it did exist and I saw it.
HOWEVER, I know that no one has found it and I'm doubting that anyone will find it again, too. They may, at some time in the future (can't say "never" about that) -- but then again, they may never find it again.
But, I know it was there... you see... :-)
I don't think satellites will help you with that matter either...
If we recall the authenticity of the Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls gave us the Revised Standard Version Bible after centuries of use of the King James.
You need to understand the difference between a translation of the Bible -- versus the Bible as given by God. There is a difference and translations are not what is being talked about here (at least I'm not... maybe you are).
Take a close look at the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and it will clear up a lot of those matters for you.
In brief, what we are talking about is the Bible as God gave it to us.
See the link to it at Post #29 ...
This leads me back to Adam. I have five river Valleys to work with now. I need a source for the River that Flowed through Eden and a volcanoe.
I'm of the opinion that Adam was formed of the ground, as we read about in Genesis, in the area of Jerusalem, in Israel. But, that's not something that is directly spoken about and is something that I would say is somewhat inferred from the Bible, and it remains a matter of opinion, more than anything else.
The globe (of the earth) is a really big area. And when I consider that and consider features of the earth and in pinpointing an area, in speaking to someone (about it) who lives on the earth -- I could talk about a certain area of the globe and describe it and yet -- be 2,000 miles off from the specific area that I may be referring to.
If I'm talking to someone about this country that I'm currently living in, and I speak about it in terms of a big mountain range that divides it north to south and a big plain on the east side of that mountain range and a mighty and big river that divides the country -- east and west ... someone may get an idea of where that country is, by looking at a globe and finding those features that I've described.
And if they do find that country by those features that I've just described (and I've told them that I live in that country, which has those features) -- they will know (and say)... "Okay, he's there in that place!"
And they might point to the plains that I've described or the great river that I've described, or the great mountain range that I've described -- but -- they could be from 1,000 miles to 2,500 miles "off" from where I actually and specifically live (and they would be, from where I lived before, in Oregon).
But, all that I described would be perfectly accurate and correct and I do live in that country -- and still -- that person could be 2,500 miles off from where I'm really at.
Well, anyway, it's good to hear back from you ... :-)
Here is what I am trying to do. Five years ago my brother and I were taking about how churches drive away intellects and scientists who are in the “born again” category. Since that day and after being a field historian for years in the US Army, I began to see Genesis from more of a historical value beyond that of what people are saying in church.
We are talking about the same major flood. However, churches today now interpret a world flood that of today’s world.
I interpret it in the valley that Noah and his family lived.
That said, Noah’s world flood. Here is a man who lives for centuries, educated in boat structure sees a need for an Ark. The world Flood you believe in is a Missoula Flood in my evidence.
The extent of the flood is the same as that of a glacier flood and it left the ark on a high point of a mountain. That is what I’m looking for in the future.
Noah’s world flood is that of his world. I take the literal in the time frame of literal 10,000 years ago. They didn’t know the world to be round.
Most Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
Here is what I am trying to do. Five years ago my brother and I were taking about how churches drive away intellects and scientists who are in the “born again” category. Since that day and after being a field historian for years in the US Army, I began to see Genesis from more of a historical value beyond that of what people are saying in church.
Well, I can see what you're doing in your view of things, but I would venture to say that it's the opposite of what you're trying to say to me right here. I'll explain that with the next part of what you said.
We are talking about the same major flood. However, churches today now interpret a world flood that of today’s world.
When you say "we are talking about the same major flood ..." -- well, that's where it's really apparent that you're wrong on the matter. It would clearly appear to me that we're not talking about the same major flood. But, I'll hold on that to clarify what I just said up above, first.
When I said that it's the opposite of what you're saying, I say that to mean while you're saying that today the "church" (at least some people in the church) -- "churches today now interpret a world flood that of today's world," -- instead it's actually -- "today's secular mentality interprets what the Bible says in today's 'worldview'."
In todays "worldview" with a secular mentality, this sort of thing is considered and viewed as a limited and/or local type of flood, albeit -- it could be a very large one on a scale not seen today. It's still considered limited and local. And it's not considered possible (again in todays secular "worldview" and "thinking") that it's not possible to have a "world-wide flood" -- so since it's seen (in that type of thinking) that it's not possible to have a world-wide flood -- we must reinterpret what is clearly said in the Bible to mean what "we know is the situation" instead of some "limited understanding" that ancient people had and "obviously" did not understand what was going on, fully.
It's not the "churches" who have the "problem" as I see it -- it's the people who have this secular worldview outlook -- who are the problem, as it's them who cannot accept what is clearly stated. Thus, they are the ones who are engaged in "reinterpreting things" according to today's way of understanding things, you see... :-)
And hence -- that's why we see this statement ... "I interpret it in the valley that Noah and his family lived."
That pretty much makes the "case" that I'm saying is the "real problem" here... you see...
That said, Noah’s world flood. Here is a man who lives for centuries, educated in boat structure sees a need for an Ark. The world Flood you believe in is a Missoula Flood in my evidence.
The only problem with that, is while I see many floods happening over the period of mankind's existence (after the flood, because of the changed climatic conditions) -- I don't see these local and/or regional floods as what the Bible is talking about. The details don't match up.
Noah’s world flood is that of his world. I take the literal in the time frame of literal 10,000 years ago. They didn’t know the world to be round.
This is the final paragraph of what you said up above, and I'll "take off" from here and go into it a bit more about that world-wide flood.
First, I'll start with this particular comment... "They didn’t know the world to be round."
This part, here -- shows a misunderstanding of the Bible, right off the bat. And it's usually "right here" (on this type of thing) that all the misunderstandings about the Bible and all the errors of the secular worldview, regarding the Bible, come into play.
When you say that "they didn't know ..." -- you've just started off on the wrong foot, with the Bible before even getting into the "content" of what was said.
You see... it was "God, Himself," who was the one who "said", and thus it was God, Himself, who was the one who would know -- or not know. Now, when we look at that, and we consider that just a bit before that, God just got through making the entire space-time existence of anything and everything -- you wouldn't expect me to believe that this same God, who made the earth itself -- doesn't know that it's round... do you? :-)
Of course -- I think it's clear that the God who is capable of getting a human being reconstructed back in one piece from having the dead body's pieces scattered into a million pieces and parts, scattered all over the ground and oceans and air, and who resurrects it back into a living being again, from all those inanimate and disassociated pieces -- that same God would know that the earth was round. It makes sense, to me. Perhaps it doesn't make sense to the "secular mind"... :-)
But, going on from there, let's say that this is a local/regional flood in a valley that Noah lives in, and God is wanting to spare 8 people from this flood. Well, considering that God told Noah about this 120 years before it happened -- if God was "smart" -- he would just have those eight people "walk out of the valley, and into the next valley to avoid that flood, doncha know ... LOL ...
I mean, I think one could "walk around the globe" about 10 times over again in 120 years... :-)
Then there's the part about the animals and putting them aboard the boat. Again, if you've got a bunch of animals that are unique to that valley, you just have them walk out of the valley, into the next valley and those animals are okay.
Of course, I'm only talking about animals that would be unique to that particular valley, because if they were common animals to several valleys, it wouldn't matter if those animals died there, because they would still exist in the next valley over and the next and the next.
And continuing..., it is also obvious that God intended to kill everyone except for those 8 people (not talking about reasons here, except that God intended to do that).
Now..., how was God going to keep those other people "in the valley" for the next 120 years, so He could make sure He killed them all, except for those particular 8 people that He chose to live and survive that flood? I mean, was God going to have a fence built around the valley for the next 120 years, so that no one could move or migrate or marry into a clan in the next valley and thus "survive" the flood in that valley?
Anyway, the more you go into the "local/regional flood" rationalization (out of "today's mentality" that is "read back into the text") -- the more stupid the whole thing becomes... to the point where the whole thing becomes utterly ridiculous to even contemplate at all.
BUT, when you get into the reason for the flood, and as to why such a drastic step was taken by God to have a world-wide flood in which every last single human being that existed in the entire globe would be killed (and definitely killed as the "purpose" and as the "intended aim of God") -- then that reason makes it clear why a world-wide flood was absolutely necessary and that a local and regional flood would be a "disaster" from the "standpoint of that reason".
The reason has been discussed in many places, over many years and by many people, so it's nothing new, but it may be new to some people who read it for the first time that they've come across it. It's not new to Christianity, since it's been mentioned since the early centuries of Christianity -- definitely so. And it's not new to the Jews, who were aware of the reason, too... from before the time of Christianity. So, don't think I'm bringing something "new" into this picture here -- it's just that a certain number of people won't be familiar with it
The reason why God had to wipe out the entire human race, during that time, with the world-wide flood, was because of the angelic intrusion of angels into the human genome, during the time leading up to Noah's day. That's mentioned in Genesis 6.
I talk about it, most recently in this thread ... at Post #93 and Post #98 ... and there are other threads and other posts on it, but this much shows anyone (who is interested) what it's about.
The destruction of the human genome, by angelic interference, was absolutely intolerable to God, and He saw it coming (by what we see in Genesis 6) and God made sure to destroy all except those chosen to carry on the human race -- basically three male/female pairings for the entire human race, although 8 individuals were carried through the world-wide flood to restart the entire human race, plus the preservation of certain animals to continue on afterwards, after all other land animals had been destroyed and obliterated.
So, once one sees the reason why the destruction of the entire human race was necessary by what God saw coming down the road, very shortly, explains why that wide and vast of a destruction was necessary.
This sort of thing might seem to be overwhelming to human beings, but to God, who created all of the space-time existence (even the creation of the "space" itself in which matter exists, along with the parameter of "time" itself existing) -- this was a mere "blip" on the screen to Him. And He accomplished it and saved 8 people through that destruction (along with those particular animals) and allowed the human race, over the entire globe, to be reconstructed from those three male/female pairs we are told about.
Geoscientists have long presumed that, like today, the tropics remained warm throughout Earth's last major glaciation 300 million years ago. New evidence, however, indicates that cold temperatures in fact episodically gripped these equatorial latitudes at that time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.