Guest guest Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 Sea level is falling.......Glacier is growing.....he say we are about to drop in to a new ice age. But he have not made the links. http://www.iceagenow.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 Hey Kenn, Don't worry about it. Worse things are going to happen before either of these will happen, but if it's any consolation, the last ice-age that they say happened....well, it didn't. It's a lie and extremely easy to see that it didn't happen. - kenn johnsen health_and_Healing Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:49 PM Not by Fire but by Ice Sea level is falling.......Glacier is growing.....he say we are about to drop in to a new ice age. But he have not made the links.http://www.iceagenow.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 Yes, well things are changing all over the place… when something’s get really hot, it causes others to get cold due to different flows of the oceans and so on…. Also we are due to head into our next ice age within the next few hundred years. Alice J On Behalf Of kenn johnsen Wednesday, 21 November 2007 6:20 am To: health_and_Healing Not by Fire but by Ice Sea level is falling.......Glacier is growing.....he say we are about to drop in to a new ice age. But he have not made the links. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 What data do you have to back up that the last ice age din't happen? From: jim008Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:09:41 -0500Re: Not by Fire but by IceHey Kenn, Don't worry about it. Worse things are going to happen before either of these will happen, but if it's any consolation, the last ice-age that they say happened....well, it didn't. It's a lie and extremely easy to see that it didn't happen. - kenn johnsen health_and_Healing Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:49 PM Not by Fire but by IceSea level is falling.......Glacier is growing.....he say we are about to drop in to a new ice age. But he have not made the links.http://www.iceagenow.com/ Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live. Power up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007  Lots but this is not the place for geological discussions. However, since the topic has been elevated, and with apologies to the group and moderator for this one and only swaying from the topics intended for the group (not trying to offend), here is some but not all: - julie sage health_and_healing Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:21 PM RE: Not by Fire but by Ice What data do you have to back up that the last ice age din't happen? From: jim008 (AT) sympatico (DOT) caDate: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:09:41 -0500Re: Not by Fire but by Ice Hey Kenn, Don't worry about it. Worse things are going to happen before either of these will happen, but if it's any consolation, the last ice-age that they say happened....well, it didn't. It's a lie and extremely easy to see that it didn't happen. - kenn johnsen health_and_Healing Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:49 PM Not by Fire but by Ice Sea level is falling.......Glacier is growing.....he say we are about to drop in to a new ice age. But he have not made the links.http://www.iceagenow.com/ Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live. Power up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007  Lots but this is not the place for geological discussions. However, since the topic has been elevated, and with apologies to the group and moderator for this one and only swaying from the topics intended for the group (not trying to offend), here is some but not all: It is astonishing that unscientific explanation ever came to be formulated, yet in a short time both itand the concept of immense thick ice-sheets descending from a hypothetical northern mountain system,to cover all of northern and eastern North America and western and northern Eurasia, was enthusiasti-cally embraced and came to be regarded as virtually established fact. Today, the world’s coldest known land region is north-eastern Siberia. There, if anywhere, we mightexpect huge ice-sheets to have developed if the Ice Age theory possessed validity. Yet comparativelyvery few areas of Siberia exhibit signs of significant glaciation, either past or present. Clearly great colddoes not itself of itself necessarily promote the development of ice-sheets. Again, in stark contrast to orthodox Ice Age theory, even many northern areas outside Siberia said tohave lain under the thickest parts of the alleged ice-sheets afford scant evidence of glaciation or ice-sculpturing of any sort, and in numerous cases are actually devoid of it. …northern latitudes have yielded several unexpected discoveries totally at variance with the tenet ofvast sprawling North Polar ice-sheets. Their collective message is a singular one. Why is glacial evidence absent from parts of mainland Britain and the bed of the North Sea if an ice-sheet allegedly mantled the entire region? Was it because glacial action actually never occurred there? …snowfall during Ice Age times was not appreciably heavier than that of today. We can scarcely continue to associate the development of massive ice-sheets with mountain systemsgenerally too low to have acted as effective causal agents of such glaciation. Typical “drift†deposits occur far outside allegedly glaciated regions, or, conversely, are absent frommany others believed to have been heavily glaciated. Abnormally buried organic remains in otherwisetypical “drift†deposits often occur in latitudes inimical to large-scale ice action. These are inescapablefacts strongly mitigating against the popular explanation of the origin of these great deposits. Thus, if many of today’s highest mountains were much lower when the alleged Ice Age was reputedly atits zenith, how did so much ice, if it actually existed, manage to accumulate? Indeed we can take a stepfurther and ask whether the ice-sheets so beloved of glacialists ever existed at all! The underlying problem, of course, has been the continued acceptance of the constraints inherent inLyell’s “uniformitarianismâ€, with its insistence upon terrestrial agencies being the sole generators ofobservable topographical and atmospheric changes… …uniformitarianism, while certainly not a fallacious doctrine, is yet no more than a particular aspect ofa wider whole… And when it is discovered that it is possible to produce rock striae…by such dissimilar agents as drift –sand, fast-moving nuees ardentes (swiftly flowing, high temperature, gaseous clouds erupted from vol-canoes)…snow, mud-slides, and high pressure grit-charged steam, we are obliged to seriously questionthe alleged glacial origin of the striae generally, particularly when, as in numerous instances, they too,occur far outside the furthest traceable limits of supposed bygone ice-sheets. The gigantic worldwide tectonic disturbances of the “late Pleistocene†times occurred almost simulta-neously on a near imaginable scale—precisely what could be expected from a powerful external influ-ence but not from the “Ice Age†conditions conventionally believed to have existed then. Impossible Ice Action“Ice is much softer and more easily crushed than the great majority of rock, and would itself be crushedand reduced to slush by its own pressure long before the rock upon which it stands could itself be bro-ken…we are asked to believe that the same ice which thus shattered such intractable materials in situafter passing on a few yards traveled over beds of laminated and stratified sand and loam with such agentle touch as not to disturb the laminations…the word impossible is not a favorite of mine, but I ambound to say that, if it is… applied to any physical operation, I know none where it seems so applicableas to the process appealed to by the ultra-glacialists for the manufacture of drift by an ice-sheet smash-ing its own bed.†Thus ice on level terrain, being…unable to move in any direction of its own volition, would tend toactually protect rather than abrade any land surface it mantled. Yet, during so called Ice Age times, great ice-sheets like that of Antarctica are stated to have causedspectacular land surface damage on virtually a hemispheric scale! Numerous lines of inquiry converge upon the startling fact that the Ice Age of orthodoxy is no morethan the shaky theory it has always been and its alleged former reality, as conceived by its advocates,just a wonderful myth.If, as demonstrated, the great ice-sheets so beloved of the glacialists never existed, because the uplandsso necessary for their development and maintenance were either too low or non-existent during thealleged Ice Age times, and because ice, even very thick ice, cannot behave in the manner required byglacial theory, it follows that the other geological phenomena commonly ascribed to ice action werecaused by some other agency or combination of circumstances. Not One, Many Ice AgesInevitably, the length of the Pleistocene epoch hosting these events increased every time writers multi-plied the number of separate glacial and interglacial episodes. The “Pleistocene Epochâ€â€¦the end of the Pleistocene epoch, approximately 11,000 years ago, was characterized by gigantic andviolent crustal convulsions which, viewed globally, were nothing short of cataclysmic. Since…ice action is by nature very slow, the time allocated for these glaciations and the resultant “driftâ€accumulations has been correspondingly long. Accordingly, it has been common to reserve a span oftwo or more million years for the duration of the Pleistocene “period.†Such concepts are seriously atvariance with the field evidence, for if the glaciations of orthodoxy (the “Ice Ageâ€) never really existed,and if the singular “drift†deposits accredited to them were accumulated at comparatively great speed,then the duration of the Pleistocene epoch must actually have been unexpectedly brief. Instead of being a distinct geological epoch of appreciable duration, the Pleistocene…appears thereforeto have been little more than a rather brief “stage.†The time allegedly occupied by the glacial and inter-glacial episodes of conventional Pleistocene chronology was actually non-existent. Conversely, thePliocene period persisted to very much more recent times than has been hitherto been commonly sup-posed. The term “Pleistocene†is therefore retained as a “stage†rather than as an “epoch†This is just scratching the surface of all the evidence against the last ice age. The preceding is quoted from Michael Tsarion, a brilliant man who's research and puzzle solving is quite remarkable. Check him out. There are many other scientists who concede. Something did happen. Absolutely. And it was absolutely cold...look at the mammoths found still in tact, with the food they were chewing still in their mouths. This didn't happen over millions of years...it happened instantly. What happened? Don't know. What didn't happen...the ice age...at least as documented in accepted scientific texts. ,_._,___ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 I need to chew on this one, it sure prove that a few clever people can organize a lie, so great that it fools every dumbass. onsdag 21. nov 2007 kl. 03:40 skrev Jim: >  > Lots but this is not the place for geological discussions. However, > since the topic has been elevated, and with apologies to the group and > moderator for this one and only swaying from the topics intended for > the group (not trying to offend), here is some but not all: > > It is astonishing that unscientific explanation ever came to be > formulated, yet in a short time both it > and the concept of immense thick ice-sheets descending from a > hypothetical northern mountain system, > to cover all of northern and eastern North America and western and > northern Eurasia, was enthusiasti- > cally embraced and came to be regarded as virtually established fact. > Today, the world’s coldest known land region is north-eastern > Siberia. There, if anywhere, we might > expect huge ice-sheets to have developed if the Ice Age theory > possessed validity. Yet comparatively > very few areas of Siberia exhibit signs of significant glaciation, > either past or present. Clearly great cold > does not itself of itself necessarily promote the development of > ice-sheets. > Again, in stark contrast to orthodox Ice Age theory, even many > northern areas outside Siberia said to > have lain under the thickest parts of the alleged ice-sheets afford > scant evidence of glaciation or ice- > sculpturing of any sort, and in numerous cases are actually devoid of > it. > …northern latitudes have yielded several unexpected discoveries > totally at variance with the tenet of > vast sprawling North Polar ice-sheets. Their collective message is a > singular one. > Why is glacial evidence absent from parts of mainland Britain and the > bed of the North Sea if an ice- > sheet allegedly mantled the entire region? Was it because glacial > action actually never occurred there? > …snowfall during Ice Age times was not appreciably heavier than that > of today. > We can scarcely continue to associate the development of massive > ice-sheets with mountain systems > generally too low to have acted as effective causal agents of such > glaciation. > Typical “drift” deposits occur far outside allegedly glaciated > regions, or, conversely, are absent from > many others believed to have been heavily glaciated. Abnormally buried > organic remains in otherwise > typical “drift” deposits often occur in latitudes inimical to > large-scale ice action. These are inescapable > facts strongly mitigating against the popular explanation of the > origin of these great deposits. > Thus, if many of today’s highest mountains were much lower when the > alleged Ice Age was reputedly at > its zenith, how did so much ice, if it actually existed, manage to > accumulate? Indeed we can take a step > further and ask whether the ice-sheets so beloved of glacialists ever > existed at all! > The underlying problem, of course, has been the continued acceptance > of the constraints inherent in > Lyell’s “uniformitarianism”, with its insistence upon > terrestrial agencies being the sole generators of > observable topographical and atmospheric changes… > …uniformitarianism, while certainly not a fallacious doctrine, is > yet no more than a particular aspect of > a wider whole… > And when it is discovered that it is possible to produce rock > striae…by such dissimilar agents as drift – > sand, fast-moving nuees ardentes (swiftly flowing, high temperature, > gaseous clouds erupted from vol- > canoes)…snow, mud-slides, and high pressure grit-charged steam, we > are obliged to seriously question > the alleged glacial origin of the striae generally, particularly when, > as in numerous instances, they too, > occur far outside the furthest traceable limits of supposed bygone > ice-sheets. > The gigantic worldwide tectonic disturbances of the “late > Pleistocene” times occurred almost simulta- > neously on a near imaginable scale—precisely what could be expected > from a powerful external influ- > ence but not from the “Ice Age” conditions conventionally believed > to have existed then. > Impossible Ice Action > “Ice is much softer and more easily crushed than the great majority > of rock, and would itself be crushed > and reduced to slush by its own pressure long before the rock upon > which it stands could itself be bro- > ken…we are asked to believe that the same ice which thus shattered > such intractable materials in situ > > after passing on a few yards traveled over beds of laminated and > stratified sand and loam with such a > gentle touch as not to disturb the laminations…the word impossible > is not a favorite of mine, but I am > bound to say that, if it is… applied to any physical operation, I > know none where it seems so applicable > as to the process appealed to by the ultra-glacialists for the > manufacture of drift by an ice-sheet smash- > ing its own bed.” > Thus ice on level terrain, being…unable to move in any direction of > its own volition, would tend to > actually protect rather than abrade any land surface it mantled. > Yet, during so called Ice Age times, great ice-sheets like that of > Antarctica are stated to have caused > spectacular land surface damage on virtually a hemispheric scale! > Numerous lines of inquiry converge upon the startling fact that the > Ice Age of orthodoxy is no more > than the shaky theory it has always been and its alleged former > reality, as conceived by its advocates, > just a wonderful myth. > If, as demonstrated, the great ice-sheets so beloved of the > glacialists never existed, because the uplands > so necessary for their development and maintenance were either too low > or non-existent during the > alleged Ice Age times, and because ice, even very thick ice, cannot > behave in the manner required by > glacial theory, it follows that the other geological phenomena > commonly ascribed to ice action were > caused by some other agency or combination of circumstances. > Not One, Many Ice Ages > Inevitably, the length of the Pleistocene epoch hosting these events > increased every time writers multi- > plied the number of separate glacial and interglacial episodes. > The “Pleistocene Epoch” > …the end of the Pleistocene epoch, approximately 11,000 years ago, > was characterized by gigantic and > violent crustal convulsions which, viewed globally, were nothing short > of cataclysmic. > Since…ice action is by nature very slow, the time allocated for > these glaciations and the resultant “drift” > accumulations has been correspondingly long. Accordingly, it has been > common to reserve a span of > two or more million years for the duration of the Pleistocene > “period.” Such concepts are seriously at > variance with the field evidence, for if the glaciations of orthodoxy > (the “Ice Age”) never really existed, > and if the singular “drift” deposits accredited to them were > accumulated at comparatively great speed, > then the duration of the Pleistocene epoch must actually have been > unexpectedly brief. > Instead of being a distinct geological epoch of appreciable duration, > the Pleistocene…appears therefore > to have been little more than a rather brief “stage.” The time > allegedly occupied by the glacial and inter- > glacial episodes of conventional Pleistocene chronology was actually > non-existent. Conversely, the > Pliocene period persisted to very much more recent times than has been > hitherto been commonly sup- > posed. > The term “Pleistocene” is therefore retained as a “stage” > rather than as an “epoch” > > This is just scratching the surface of all the evidence against > the last ice age. The preceding is quoted from Michael Tsarion, a > brilliant man who's research and puzzle solving is quite remarkable. > Check him out. There are many other scientists who concede. > Something did happen. Absolutely. And it was absolutely cold...look > at the mammoths found still in tact, with the food they were chewing > still in their mouths. This didn't happen over millions of years...it > happened instantly. What happened? Don't know. What didn't > happen...the ice age...at least as documented in accepted scientific > texts. > > ,_._,___ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 I have googled the man, and immediate believe it is rubbish. He is one of those story tellers, there mix up a story, just for making a buck. Never mind how awkward a story they stir up, some one will always follow, and buy there rubbish. > I need to chew on this one, it sure prove that a few clever people can > organize a lie, so great that it fools every dumbass. > > > onsdag 21. nov 2007 kl. 03:40 skrev Jim: > >>  >> Lots but this is not the place for geological discussions. However, >> since the topic has been elevated, and with apologies to the group >> and moderator for this one and only swaying from the topics intended >> for the group (not trying to offend), here is some but not all: >> >> It is astonishing that unscientific explanation ever came to be >> formulated, yet in a short time both it >> and the concept of immense thick ice-sheets descending from a >> hypothetical northern mountain system, >> to cover all of northern and eastern North America and western and >> northern Eurasia, was enthusiasti- >> cally embraced and came to be regarded as virtually established fact. >> Today, the world’s coldest known land region is north-eastern >> Siberia. There, if anywhere, we might >> expect huge ice-sheets to have developed if the Ice Age theory >> possessed validity. Yet comparatively >> very few areas of Siberia exhibit signs of significant glaciation, >> either past or present. Clearly great cold >> does not itself of itself necessarily promote the development of >> ice-sheets. >> Again, in stark contrast to orthodox Ice Age theory, even many >> northern areas outside Siberia said to >> have lain under the thickest parts of the alleged ice-sheets afford >> scant evidence of glaciation or ice- >> sculpturing of any sort, and in numerous cases are actually devoid of >> it. >> …northern latitudes have yielded several unexpected discoveries >> totally at variance with the tenet of >> vast sprawling North Polar ice-sheets. Their collective message is a >> singular one. >> Why is glacial evidence absent from parts of mainland Britain and the >> bed of the North Sea if an ice- >> sheet allegedly mantled the entire region? Was it because glacial >> action actually never occurred there? >> …snowfall during Ice Age times was not appreciably heavier than >> that of today. >> We can scarcely continue to associate the development of massive >> ice-sheets with mountain systems >> generally too low to have acted as effective causal agents of such >> glaciation. >> Typical “drift” deposits occur far outside allegedly glaciated >> regions, or, conversely, are absent from >> many others believed to have been heavily glaciated. Abnormally >> buried organic remains in otherwise >> typical “drift” deposits often occur in latitudes inimical to >> large-scale ice action. These are inescapable >> facts strongly mitigating against the popular explanation of the >> origin of these great deposits. >> Thus, if many of today’s highest mountains were much lower when the >> alleged Ice Age was reputedly at >> its zenith, how did so much ice, if it actually existed, manage to >> accumulate? Indeed we can take a step >> further and ask whether the ice-sheets so beloved of glacialists ever >> existed at all! >> The underlying problem, of course, has been the continued acceptance >> of the constraints inherent in >> Lyell’s “uniformitarianism”, with its insistence upon >> terrestrial agencies being the sole generators of >> observable topographical and atmospheric changes… >> …uniformitarianism, while certainly not a fallacious doctrine, is >> yet no more than a particular aspect of >> a wider whole… >> And when it is discovered that it is possible to produce rock >> striae…by such dissimilar agents as drift – >> sand, fast-moving nuees ardentes (swiftly flowing, high temperature, >> gaseous clouds erupted from vol- >> canoes)…snow, mud-slides, and high pressure grit-charged steam, we >> are obliged to seriously question >> the alleged glacial origin of the striae generally, particularly >> when, as in numerous instances, they too, >> occur far outside the furthest traceable limits of supposed bygone >> ice-sheets. >> The gigantic worldwide tectonic disturbances of the “late >> Pleistocene” times occurred almost simulta- >> neously on a near imaginable scale—precisely what could be expected >> from a powerful external influ- >> ence but not from the “Ice Age” conditions conventionally >> believed to have existed then. >> Impossible Ice Action >> “Ice is much softer and more easily crushed than the great majority >> of rock, and would itself be crushed >> and reduced to slush by its own pressure long before the rock upon >> which it stands could itself be bro- >> ken…we are asked to believe that the same ice which thus shattered >> such intractable materials in situ >> >> after passing on a few yards traveled over beds of laminated and >> stratified sand and loam with such a >> gentle touch as not to disturb the laminations…the word impossible >> is not a favorite of mine, but I am >> bound to say that, if it is… applied to any physical operation, I >> know none where it seems so applicable >> as to the process appealed to by the ultra-glacialists for the >> manufacture of drift by an ice-sheet smash- >> ing its own bed.” >> Thus ice on level terrain, being…unable to move in any direction of >> its own volition, would tend to >> actually protect rather than abrade any land surface it mantled. >> Yet, during so called Ice Age times, great ice-sheets like that of >> Antarctica are stated to have caused >> spectacular land surface damage on virtually a hemispheric scale! >> Numerous lines of inquiry converge upon the startling fact that the >> Ice Age of orthodoxy is no more >> than the shaky theory it has always been and its alleged former >> reality, as conceived by its advocates, >> just a wonderful myth. >> If, as demonstrated, the great ice-sheets so beloved of the >> glacialists never existed, because the uplands >> so necessary for their development and maintenance were either too >> low or non-existent during the >> alleged Ice Age times, and because ice, even very thick ice, cannot >> behave in the manner required by >> glacial theory, it follows that the other geological phenomena >> commonly ascribed to ice action were >> caused by some other agency or combination of circumstances. >> Not One, Many Ice Ages >> Inevitably, the length of the Pleistocene epoch hosting these events >> increased every time writers multi- >> plied the number of separate glacial and interglacial episodes. >> The “Pleistocene Epoch” >> …the end of the Pleistocene epoch, approximately 11,000 years ago, >> was characterized by gigantic and >> violent crustal convulsions which, viewed globally, were nothing >> short of cataclysmic. >> Since…ice action is by nature very slow, the time allocated for >> these glaciations and the resultant “drift” >> accumulations has been correspondingly long. Accordingly, it has been >> common to reserve a span of >> two or more million years for the duration of the Pleistocene >> “period.” Such concepts are seriously at >> variance with the field evidence, for if the glaciations of orthodoxy >> (the “Ice Age”) never really existed, >> and if the singular “drift” deposits accredited to them were >> accumulated at comparatively great speed, >> then the duration of the Pleistocene epoch must actually have been >> unexpectedly brief. >> Instead of being a distinct geological epoch of appreciable duration, >> the Pleistocene…appears therefore >> to have been little more than a rather brief “stage.” The time >> allegedly occupied by the glacial and inter- >> glacial episodes of conventional Pleistocene chronology was actually >> non-existent. Conversely, the >> Pliocene period persisted to very much more recent times than has >> been hitherto been commonly sup- >> posed. >> The term “Pleistocene” is therefore retained as a “stage” >> rather than as an “epoch” >> >> This is just scratching the surface of all the evidence against >> the last ice age. The preceding is quoted from Michael Tsarion, a >> brilliant man who's research and puzzle solving is quite remarkable. >> Check him out. There are many other scientists who concede. >> Something did happen. Absolutely. And it was absolutely cold...look >> at the mammoths found still in tact, with the food they were chewing >> still in their mouths. This didn't happen over millions of >> years...it happened instantly. What happened? Don't know. What >> didn't happen...the ice age...at least as documented in accepted >> scientific texts. >> >> ,_._,___ >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 Sure, there most have been some catastrophe, 12,000 years ago. But no ice....well then, what happen when the temperature drop 20 degree F. Is the ice core bogus. torsdag 22. nov 2007 kl. 00:03 skrev Bill Kingsbury: > > --- At 01:50 PM 11/21/2007, kenn johnsen wrote: > > > > I have googled the man, and immediate believe it is rubbish. He is > one of those story tellers, there mix up a story, just for making a > buck. Never mind how awkward a story they stir up, some one will > always follow, and buy there rubbish. > > > > ( That was from scam.com: > > http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=23071 ) > > > > Polar Shift Theories > > " It began as a search for Atlantis. But Charles Hapgood's discovery > of our shifting > planet is perhaps more profound. If his data is correct, we've got to > face some > unsettling facts about our Earth's past and -- and more importantly -- > our future. " > > page 1 http://www.mondovista.com/changingpoles.html > > page 2 http://www.mondovista.com/changingpoles22.html > > > home page: http://www.viewzone.com/ --- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2007 Report Share Posted November 22, 2007 >I have googled the man, and immediate believe it is rubbish. He is one of those story tellers, there mix up a story, just for making a buck. Never mind how >awkward a story they stir up, some one will always follow, and buy there rubbish.>I need to chew on this one, it sure prove that a few clever people can organize a lie, so great that it fools every dumbass My apologies again to everyone, and this will absolutely be my last post on this matter, however, I believe, due to the nature of this reply, I have the right to defend myself. With that, I will momentarily take a step down and try to communicate on a lesser level, then I'm gonna let you have it. SO, starting from the end of this reply and working backwards: Dumbass - Wow. You must be omnipotent. I feel so inferior..really. There rubbish - No, that's "their rubbish". Some one - that's one word, as in "someone". There mix up a story - I cannot even begin to interpret this one Story tellers - well, Google sure helped you there....hey, why don't you ask the FDA how to cure diabetes! Point here: Before you insunuate, or outright dinigrate a person, perhaps you should consider doing at least 5 minutes of valid research...and really, if you oppose what is said, do so in such a manner that at least makes you appear above the adolescent behaviour of name calling. NOW WE'RE EVEN! So, back to reality and constructive things. And you know, this actually is good to know, even in this group because if such an event is coming, it surely would affect our health. Now, I know the writer of the previous reply is probably fuming mad, but I beseech you to read the following, it will surely show my original, one-line-and-drop-it post on the matter, to be quite valid on scientific, logical, biblical and geographical regards. So, withour further yammering: Whenever I debate this topic with anyone I always ask the question “What evidence exists today that proves there was ever an ice age?” The answer is inevitably the same. The uniformitarianists and creationists alike will point to large bedrock formations in normally warm climates which have scratches and grooves on them which could have only been made by large masses of ice scraping against them. This is not a satisfactory answer. This only proves that there was ice in normally warm climates and does nothing to prove an “age.” The uniformitarian’s believe that there were somewhere between 4 and 30 ice ages. There are many theories of how an ice age could have occurred but they all have fatal flaws, are imagined and improvable or are simply ridiculous so we will examine a few of the more popular ones before I present the Biblical extrapolation. Grooves in rock made by ice. The uniformitarian view: Changing continental positions Plate tectonics is an important process influencing when ice ages occur, and the position of the continents is probably one of the most important factors controlling long periods of multiple glaciations. The presence of large land masses at high latitude appears to be a prerequisite for the development of extensive ice sheets, because the large accumulations of ice associated with ice sheets cannot form over the ocean. During the current ice age, which began slightly less than 3 million years ago, several large land masses have been at high latitude. These include Antarctica, much of North America and much of Eurasia. This continental configuration led to extensive glaciations of both North America and Eurasia. During the ice age that occurred in the Pennsylvanian and Permian, the southern portion of the super continent Pangaea was at the South Pole. The result was extensive glaciations of what is now Africa, South America, India, Antarctica, Australia, and the Arabian peninsula. The position of the continents during the Late Proterozoic glaciation (around 700 million years ago) is not well-known. Evidence of glaciers exists from North America, Australia, and Africa. It is an assumption that the whole world was glaciated at all because of any world wide condition. As I said before there is only evidence of ice present in warm climates not evidence of an age. The ages and the position of the continents are only imagined because evidence for the existence of ice in warm climates does exist. So, they have to move the land around to fit their ice age assumptions and they have to give it a lot of time and a cause to make the age happen. In addition the continents would have had to move around four times and back in order to produce four ice ages. This is conjecture not based on any true knowledge. Uplift of continental blocks Plate tectonics probably contributes to the development of long periods with many glaciations in a second, more subtle way. Plate movements sometimes cause uplift of large continental blocks. Major uplift can cause profound changes in the global oceanic and atmospheric circulation patterns. Changing circulation patterns cause climate change. Some scientists hypothesize that climatic changes cause by uplift are critical to the development of ice ages. Over the past 15 million years, the continents have risen about 600 meters (2000 feet) on average. The uplift of the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau probably contributed to the initiation of the current cool period. Similar tectonic uplift appears to have been involved in the three other long, ice age intervals. If this uplift idea is true then why are we not still in an ice age? If the continents have risen 2000 feet in the last 15 million years to cause an ice age what happened to end the ice age? If you explain an ice age you must also explain how it would have ended. Reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere A general reduction in amount of CO2 in the atmosphere may contribute to the development of ice ages. Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas. Decreases in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere may lead to global cooling. Many processes can cause a long-term decrease in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. These processes include many complex interactions among organisms, ocean currents, erosion, and volcanism. Important relationships exist between ice ages and the composition of the atmosphere; however, many scientists are unsure whether the changes in atmosphere cause cool periods or whether cool periods cause atmospheric changes. Also, many scientists are not sure the magnitude of past CO2 changes was large enough to initiate ice ages. What caused the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere? Cool periods? Scientists are doubtful about their own idea here. How could cool periods cause atmospheric changes if cool periods are caused by atmospheric changes or how could atmospheric changes cause cool periods if atmospheric changes were caused by cool periods? This is not science it is just more speculation. Changes in the Earth's orbit The Earth's orbit varies through time. Important parameters that vary include the eccentricity of the orbit around the sun, the tilt of the Earth's axis, and the direction the North Pole points. Variation in these three factors changes the amount and distribution of incoming solar radiation. Variations in the distribution of solar radiation affect and initiate glaciations. However, the variation of the orbital parameters seems to be on too short a time scale to explain the timing of the long, cool intervals with many glaciations. Variations in orbital factors are probably more important in controlling the advance and retreat of large glaciers during the four long cool periods ..This graph shows the variation in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit over the last 750,000 years. The blue line traces the eccentricity. The orange line shows today's value for comparison. The data are from Berger and Loutre 1991. The graph is made up to demonstrate the earths elliptical orbit for the past 750,000 years but only about the first 1/100” (if any) of the blue line would be measurable because man had no instruments to measure the earths orbit over the past 750,000 years. Notice how minor the orbital change is in the past 100 years or so and then how dramatically it changes from 100,000 years ago to 750,000 years ago. This is not science and this chart is not based on anything factual. It was based on a computer model and a computer model is only as accurate as the information put into it. Many assumptions were made so it amounts to nothing more than a wild guess. The Creationists view: The creationist’s generally accepted view is that there was only one ice age and it occurred for about several hundred years after Noah’s flood. However, there are problems with the creationists view because in the end volcanoes have to be manufactured for a hundred years so that the sky is blocked out and the plants die leaving a desolate and cold world. The theory also does not account as to how only a handful of animals could survive under such frozen conditions and spread to other parts of the world with no plants to eat If just a few animals died the whole “kind” would have become extinct. If this is not enough the Bible says there was no ice age after the flood. God made a promise to Noah immediately after the flood. “As long as the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter and day and night shall not cease.” (Genesis 8:22) This sounds to me like the condition of the earth today. Seedtime and harvest, summer and winter heat and cold, day and night are what we have now. The fact that God said “As long as the earth remaineth” in other words from now on these conditions will not stop (shall not cease), proves my point. If what God said is true and the conditions in the day of Noah have not ceased then the conditions that we have today are the exact same conditions as Noah had just after the flood and thus no ice age after the flood Notice that God did not say cool summers because he added “heat and cold, seed time and harvest indicating plant life, day and night indicating a normal day night cycle and then he says it won’t ever cease as long as the earth remains. How plain can he make it? This verse simply leaves no room for a hundred years or so of an earth covered with ice and volcanic ash. If I were an evolutionist debating a creationist about the ice age I would borrow someone’s Bible and read Genesis 8:22 and then close the Bible and declare victory. If the ice age had occurred before the worldwide flood the evidence for it would have been buried by the flood and we wouldn’t know anything about it. There is tremendous evidence for a worldwide flood. So, if an ice age didn’t happen before the flood or after the flood when did it happen? Sorry to disappoint you but if the worldwide flood actually occurred an ice “age” never happened period. No one disagrees today that about one third of the earth’s surface had ice on it the disagreement is about how and when it got there. It has often been said that when anyone attempts to explain the ice age he should be prepared to explain how ice and heat could exist in the same place and at the same time. This of course seems impossible to scientists be he a uniformitarianist or a creationist so they come up with theories changing the earths climate. All this time they have been looking for some sort of worldwide conditions which would cause the earth to freeze for a long period of time and then unfreeze for a long period of time without killing off the plant and animal life as we know it today. The fact is that we know of no such conditions which would cause this to happen. All of the theories out there in one way or another change the conditions of the earth as we know it to accommodate the theory. Scientists move around land masses, deplete C02 in the atmosphere, make up volcanic eruptions for hundreds of years change the earths orbit etc, etc ,etc but none of these things are known to have actually occurred and even if they had occurred some other event would be required to undo the process and end the ice age. Furthermore, there are numerous plants and animals which could not have survived the extremely cold temperatures of an ice age for hundreds, thousands or millions of years but nevertheless are living today. The Bible is not a science book but it does mention things in it that science didn’t discover for centuries later. For example; in Isaiah 40:22 (712 BC) it says “it is he that sitteth upon the circle (sphere in the original language) of the earth. Scientists believed that the earth was flat until Columbus, a Christian, proved it was round in 1492. In Job 26:7 Job made the statement “He stretched out the North over the empty place; and hangeth the earth upon nothing” This was in 1520BC. The concept of the earth floating in space was not known by science until relatively recently. Many other such examples exist but I mention these to demonstrate that the Bible is authoritative, true and can be relied upon when it makes statements about the earth. The Biblical View: On the second day of creation God: “…made the firmament (atmosphere) and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament and it was so.” (Genesis 1:7). In other words God put vapor above the earth and water on the earth. Now the earth has water vapor in its atmosphere. This canopy was most likely evenly distributed around the earth and rather transparent and would have caused a universally warm earth because sunlight would have heated the vapor and been diffused all over the earth. There is much evidence of a universally warm earth. Tropical plants such as palm trees have been found fossilized in Alaska, reptiles and dinosaurs have been found in the poles and coal deposits have been discovered in Antarctica. Not only can reptiles not live in the cold areas but in a frozen wasteland there would have been nothing for them to eat. The original earth was quite different than it is today Not only was there a vapor canopy but it has not rained and therefore there were no clouds as we have today. (Gen 1:5). The earth was watered by a mist arising from the ground. “But there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.”(Gen 2:6) This was probably a system of geysers. We see them today at Yellowstone National Park and other places but there is no reason why many more could not have existed in a preflood world. There are at present about 1000 active geysers in the world today. With relatively few people in the world in the first hundred years or so not many would have been needed in any one place. When Adam and Eve sinned and were cast out of the Garden of Eden God cursed the ground. Up until this point they had lived the easy life in the garden simply pulling off fruit from a variety trees for food. The trees had been watered by the mist from the earth in a warm year round climate caused by the diffusion of heat from the vapor canopy. “…cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow thou shalt eat of it all the days of thy life…in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground. (Genesis 3:18-19) In other words God told Adam that he would have to grow his own food from now on. It is interesting that man is the only life form on earth that has to grow his own food. So, out with the mist watering system, fruit trees and the vapor canopy and in with rain, drought, hot summers, clouds, cold winters, clothes, thorns and thistles and sweat. If the vapor canopy had continued after the curse then so would the fruit trees etc. and the earth wouldn’t have really changed much. It should be noted here that the rain at the time of Noah’s flood had to have come from condensed clouds not an evenly distributed vapor canopy thus indicating that the canopy did not exist just prior to the flood but that it went out of existence sometime prior. At this time the earth’s climate would have been very similar to the earth of today. Glaciers, ice sheets, icebergs and so on would have formed in the poles and cold regions from the time of the curse until the flood. By using Genesis 5 as a guide we can derive that about 1650 years elapsed from the time of Adam to Noah. For those of you who believe that it takes hundreds of thousands of years for glaciers to form read this about the lost squadron www.answersingenesis.org/docs/233.asp Man had become corrupt and God had a plan to wipe out man, animals and the original earth which he had created. “And the Lord God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continuously… And the Lord God said I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man and beast and the creeping things and the fowl of the air…” (Gen 6:5-7) “And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is before me for the world is filled with violence through them and behold; I will destroy them with the earth.” (Gen 6:13) So now God instructs Noah to build an ark which was actually a large wooden barge with no steering mechanism but the dimensions of it were almost exactly like modern day ocean vessels. Because of it’s width to length ratio it was indeed a very seaworthy vessel even by today’s standards. Water from above and below: It is possible that the earth’s population could have been near a billion at the time of the flood. Only eight were saved; Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives. When the ark was completed and all of the animals and people were aboard it was the second month of the year and the seventeenth day of the month and it started to rain and continued to rain for 40 days and 40 nights (960 continuous hours). On the same day the fountains of the great deep were broken up. This would have been underwater earthquakes and volcanic eruptions spewing up steam. Water from underneath the ocean floor was forced out causing the oceans to over fill and in conjunction with the complete collapse of the moisture in the atmosphere caused the entire earth to be covered in water. At the end of the 40 days the rain and the fountains of the great deep were stopped. (Gen 8:2). When this occurred the atmospheric conditions were unique in all of history. The earth was totally emerged in water and there were no clouds or vapor of any kind anywhere in the world. All of the water was upon the surface of the earth. The Sun: Heat from the sun was concentrated at the equator even more so than today because there was nothing in the atmosphere to diffuse it. At the same time and for the same reason the poles would have been extremely cold even colder than today.. The Bible says that all of the mountains were covered by water15 cubits (about 22 1/2 ft) above the tops. “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail and the mountains were covered” (Genesis 7:19-20) The mountains of the preflood era were most likely lower than the mountains of today. We find that much of the mountains are made up of sedimentary rock which was laid down by water and contain marine fossils. Some believe that the mountains were uplifted after the flood a matter of thousands of feet but I do not. I do not see how so many fragile marine fossils that are found on the tops of mountains could have been pushed up that much and still be intact especially after the flood when the fountains of the great deep were now empty and there was a void where the water once was. It seems more likely to me that the land surface may have sunk somewhat after the flood making the mountains appear as if they were pushed up. The oceans of that time would have been much shallower than today. The continental shelf which is the natural boundary of the ocean is now far extended into the oceans and far below water indicating that today’s oceans are overfilled We see evidence today that much of the ocean bottoms have sunk possibly several miles. This of course is where the flood waters receded to and then the water overfilled the oceans. With the void under the ocean floor and the combined weight of the water from the rain, the oceans and under the oceans now on top the ocean floor was gradually forced down. Ice: As the flood waters rose the ice at the poles including ice shelves, sheets, glaciers and ice bergs would have floated up with the water. Remember that the flood waters covered the mountains by a depth of 15 cubits. This means that all of the ice on the entire earth would have been floating around and breaking up. In addition a lot of ice could have formed simply because of the cold conditions. The altitude of the flood waters combined with the lack of diffused sunlight and no land masses to retain heat would have made the poles very cold indeed. Even today we see huge icebergs. C-18 for example is an iceberg in Antarctica which measures 47 miles x 4.6 miles and is several times the size of Manhattan, New York. Dr. Stephen E. Bruneau Ph.D., P.Eng has this to say about icebergs: “The largest Northern Hemisphere iceberg on record was encountered near Baffin Island in 1882. It was 13 km long, 6 km wide and had a freeboard (height above water) of about 20 m. The mass of that iceberg was in excess of 9 billion tonnes - enough water for everyone, in the world to drink a liter a day for over 4 years. Despite this staggering statistic, icebergs from Antarctica may be many times larger than this. In 1987 an iceberg with an area of 6350 square kilometers broke from the Ross ice shelf. That berg had a mass of around 1.4 trillion tonnes and could have supplied everyone in the world with 240 tonnes of pure drinking water.” Today Antarctica has an average ice thickness of 2,133 meters (7,000 ft). These large ice masses tend to get blocked in and sometimes never make it out the open sea today but with all of the ice floating and breaking up due to the rising flood waters all ice on earth would be free to move including entire ice shelves, sheets, bergs and glaciers. With the ice now floating around and the waters starting to recede after the 150 days we find an interesting often overlooked verse in the Bible. “…and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged” (Gen 8:1b) What else would a worldwide wind do under these circumstances? It would cause the ice to move. Not only that but the ice masses would be unencumbered by any land masses and be free to go where ever the wind blew them anywhere in the world. While they were moving the waters were going down. The ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat in Turkey in the seventh month on the seventeenth day of the month exactly 5 months after the flood had started. (Gen. 8:4) The waters continued to recede until the first day of the tenth month at which time Noah could see the tops of other mountains. (Gen. 8:5) Then Noah sent out the dove to see if the waters had receded but the bird came back to him. Then he waited another seven days and sent out the dove once again. This time the dove returned with an olive leaf. This indicated to Noah that the waters were drying up rather rapidly now and plant life was already growing down the mountain. Noah waited another seven days and sent out the dove again and it did not return so Noah knew the ground had dried up. On the twenty seventh day of the second month the earth was dried up. (Gen 8:14) Now while Noah was doing all of this the ice was descending around the world along with the flood waters. When the ice finally reached the ground, which was very soft having been underwater for a year, it would have been a rather violent event. The sheer weight of the ice would have caused the grooving and scratching of rocks that we see today. In addition, the ice would have carved out depressions in the earth. When the ice eventually melted the water would have run off except in the depressions which it had formed. Today we call these lakes. The runoff could have caused streams to form. Although the original flood runoff most likely caused many of the large rivers the melting ice could be why see small streams connected to lakes today. If you think about it how else would so many lakes have been formed all over the world? At this time the earth’s climate would have been the same as today’s climate. Since the great wind pushed the ice all over the world the ice would have existed in the normally hot areas of the world for a time until it eventually all melted. It would have melted in the warm areas and stayed frozen in the cold areas. As the ice melted it may have slid from higher elevations to lower elevations causing even more of the odd geological features that we see in today’s world. Glaciers are moving even today but only in the cold regions of the earth. In today’s world we see millions of large and small boulders sitting on the ground, mountainsides and hills. In the early 1990’s my son and I were on our way to the Grand Canyon from Houston when we came upon this place called “Texas Canyon” which, oddly enough, is in Arizona. We were astonished to see so many huge boulders at such a high altitude piled up on top of each other all the way up to the tops of the mountains. I remember asking myself “how in the world did all of those huge boulders get way up there?” Scientists say that boulders were frozen inside ice sheets and when the ice sheets melted they were deposited on the ground but they reject a worldwide flood. The question is, how did the ice sheets deposit the boulders at high altitudes on the tops of high mountains and in hot areas of the earth if there were no floodwaters? One interesting thing is that the boulders are granite and the rocks under it are sedimentary. Sedimentary rock is laid down by water and granite is not. So, this means that the boulders came from somewhere after the sedimentary rock was laid down. Granite is a “basement rock” and should be under sedimentary rock. Ice sheets are formed on land by the piling up of snow in areas where it will stay frozen year round. It packs down and eventually becomes an ice sheet. Whatever is on the ground rocks, plants and any other debris will become part of the ice sheet. If the ice “age” happened after the flood or before the flood and the ice had actually formed in place then neither the creationist view nor the uniformitarianist view could explain the boulders on top of mountains and sedimentary rock. So, first the water bearing sediments came then later the ice sheets descended containing the rocks and eventually melted leaving the rocks on the mountains or wherever they happened to land. Whatever put those boulders on top of those mountains did it all at once. They sure didn’t form there. Why couldn’t the floodwaters have simply allowed the ice sheets to move around and descend upon mountains, flatlands and warm areas then sculpt the earth, melt and then deposit the rocks? It should be said that the flood waters are quite capable of moving boulders but it seems to me that at high altitudes the ice sheet idea is more logical. Texas Canyon in Arizona Volcanic Ash: Any volcanic ash that was produced at the beginning of the flood would have been washed away by 40 days and nights of the rainfall and the worldwide wind. Even if there had been some ash left in the atmosphere it would have settled like volcanic ash does today. There is no reason to believe that the earth would have had continuous volcanic eruptions for several hundred years after the flood. This makes no sense. Most of the pressure would have been relieved during the 40 days of rain. The Bible tells us that the fountains of the great deep were broken open. The great deep is the ocean. The ash wouldn’t have made it to the atmosphere because it was under water. The Bible says nothing about volcanoes on land. If the earth had been covered with so much volcanic ash for such a long time the whole earth would have frozen or at least most of it and with no sunlight all of the plants would have died. There certainly would not have been any “heat and cold, seedtime and harvest, summer and winter, day and night” Life could not have existed that long in such conditions. Return of Plant life: The fact that the dove returned to Noah with an olive leaf in his beak indicates that plant life was already growing even before the waters were dried up. The rainbow which God set in the cloud is important. Not only does it signify that God will never again destroy the human race with a flood but it also demonstrates that at the end of the flood there was sunlight, a feature necessary for a rainbow and that the sky was not full of volcanic ash. The plants would have quickly returned and the animals would have multiplied. Sometime later Noah even grew a vineyard. Then he made wine, got drunk and took his clothes off in his tent at age 601! (Gen. 9: 20-21) You don’t take your clothes off in an ice age and go to bed. There simply had to be sunlight and warm conditions to grow grapes and other plants for food in the years following the flood not only for the people but for the animals as well. Noah lived another 350 years after the flood. Clouds and Rainbows “I do set my bow in the cloud and it shall be for a token of a covenant (agreement) between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass when I bring a cloud over the earth that the bow shall be seen in the cloud and I will remember my covenant which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh” (Gen:9 13-14) With the oceans bottoms sunk down it is now impossible for the entire earth to ever be flooded again. A Clear Warning: A uniformitarianist is a person who believes that the earth is the same today as it was in the past and that everything has happened by chance processes over eons of time. For the most part they don’t believe anything that the Bible says and they scoff at those of us who do. Many reject a creator and try diligently to persuade others to believe the same. The Bible predicted these people, however, and has a word for them: “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers walking after their own lusts and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep (ancestors died) all things continues as they were from the beginning of creation. For this they are willingly ignorant of (ignoring the evidence), that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved by fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” (2 Peter 3:3-7) “Because that which may be known of God is manifest (made real) in them; for God hath showed it to them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made even his eternal power and Godhead so that they are without excuse. (On the Day of Judgment) Because, when they knew God, Neither were they thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.” (Romans 1:19-22) The New Earth: When God destroyed the old world he caused a new world to be formed. I believe that God with his foreknowledge designed the earth to be flooded once and be redesigned by the same catastrophe which he used to pass judgment on the wickedness of man. I do not believe that he allowed an arbitrary ice age to happen before or after the flood. Why would he allow and ice age after the flood when only a handful of animals and 8 people were having a new beginning? “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter and day and night shall not cease.” (Gen. 8:22) And with that, I wish to end this topic and carry on with the improtant issues and the topic of this group...Health & Healing. And again, Kenn, I apologize, but calling me a dumbass....you had it coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2007 Report Share Posted November 22, 2007 This forum is to relay information; the reader should discern his own opinion and do his own homework on any information. The forum is not to attack each other. Health & Healing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2007 Report Share Posted November 22, 2007 THANK YOU JIM, THAT WAS OUTSTANDING..........KRAIG Kraig Carroll Environmental Damage Repair --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release 2/14/05 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2007 Report Share Posted November 22, 2007 Absolutely, every one should do their homework about this global warming hoax. My homework is that I have looked on the ice core, which is a picture about the temperature - and CO2 and the other gases. Then I have looked in to the so-called green house gases, which one does the most work as an green house gas ( water 95 % - CO2 0,035 % ) Then I have looked in to the plant history, and found that wine growed 350 miles further nord than it does now, in the viking time, and what I remember also more or less in the Roman time, hmmmm I might check that out. Then I have learned in my life, that the clever people fool the dumb people. That is my home work, and my conclusion is that this global warming is a scam, made by the clever people.....those there rule the world, for the reason as to control - steer the not so clever in to accepting the clever rulers decision. Which is something like accepting poverty, less liberty....and their other solution to the problem....such as global UN government, and what ever their plan is for this world. What do I miss in my homework.....what is your homework. torsdag 22. nov 2007 kl. 16:06 skrev Carol Hartwell: > This forum is to relay information; the reader should discern his own > opinion and do his own homework on any information. The forum is > not to attack each other. > > Health & Healing > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2007 Report Share Posted November 23, 2007 so dumbass must be the highest education level you ever obtained??where do you get such a profoundly large vocabulary??i'll make sure i stay away from the " white trash university " .really now..didnt your mother ever teach you that if you had nothing nice to say,then you should say nothing at all? i do have to say i have been on this list for awhile and i havent read such juvinile posts in all my time on here. we are here to HELP each other in this crazy world!!!we are not here as adebate forum!!if you wanna do that find another list as i am growing weary of your talk with no intent to help! PEACE,Jen lake city,pa -- In , kenn johnsen <kennj wrote: > > Sea level is falling.......Glacier is growing.....he say we are about > to drop in to a new ice age. But he have not made the links. > > http://www.iceagenow.com/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2007 Report Share Posted November 29, 2007  Did you give us a link Jim? - Jim Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:07 PM Re: Not by Fire but by Ice  Lots but this is not the place for geological discussions. However, since the topic has been elevated, and with apologies to the group and moderator for this one and only swaying from the topics intended for the group (not trying to offend), here is some but not all: - julie sage health_and_healing Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:21 PM RE: Not by Fire but by Ice What data do you have to back up that the last ice age din't happen? From: jim008 (AT) sympatico (DOT) caDate: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:09:41 -0500Re: Not by Fire but by Ice Hey Kenn, Don't worry about it. Worse things are going to happen before either of these will happen, but if it's any consolation, the last ice-age that they say happened....well, it didn't. It's a lie and extremely easy to see that it didn't happen. - kenn johnsen health_and_Healing Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:49 PM Not by Fire but by Ice Sea level is falling.......Glacier is growing.....he say we are about to drop in to a new ice age. But he have not made the links.http://www.iceagenow.com/ Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live. Power up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.