To: nickcarraway
2 posted on
03/05/2013 11:14:54 PM PST by
Jeff Chandler
(WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?)
To: nickcarraway
For the most part, the Arctic is a desert...
3 posted on
03/05/2013 11:21:24 PM PST by
stormer
To: nickcarraway; stormer
Let a creationist suggest this, and there would be no end of ridicule. But let a leftist-approved scientist say the same thing, and the reaction is "hmmm...really...you don't say...interesting".
Having worked there for a couple years, yes, the Arctic most certainly is a desert.
To: nickcarraway
My humps
My humps
My camel bumps
To: nickcarraway
“The giant mammals would likely have measured up to 3.5m (11ft) in height and had one hump in which they stored fat to help them survive in the Arctic, at a time when the region was less cold than today and covered with forest, researchers said.”
“...less cold”?? Who writes this stuff? Why not just say warmer? Poor George Orwell would protest.
7 posted on
03/06/2013 3:26:30 AM PST by
count-your-change
(you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough)
To: nickcarraway
if it wasn’t cold, then why the need for extra fat? adn if there WAS a need for extra fat, why put it all in one place, rather than all around? hmm???
10 posted on
03/06/2013 11:18:48 AM PST by
camle
(keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson