Here's a frozen lake. What are these people doing, and why?
Baiting lutefisk and clubbing baby møøses, because they are nasti persons.
Posted on 10/30/2003 5:04:39 PM PST by Dales
LIVERMORE, Calif. -- A trio of scientists including a researcher from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has found that humans may owe the relatively mild climate in which their ancestors evolved to tiny marine organisms with shells and skeletons made out of calcium carbonate.
In a paper titled "Carbonate Deposition, Climate Stability and Neoproterozoic Ice Ages" in the Oct. 31 edition of Science, UC Riverside researchers Andy Ridgwell and Martin Kennedy along with LLNL climate scientist Ken Caldeira, discovered that the increased stability in modern climate may be due in part to the evolution of marine plankton living in the open ocean with shells and skeletal material made out of calcium carbonate. They conclude that these marine organisms helped prevent the ice ages of the past few hundred thousand years from turning into a severe global deep freeze.
"The most recent ice ages were mild enough to allow and possibly even promote the evolution of modern humans," Caldeira said. "Without these tiny marine organisms, the ice sheets may have grown to cover the earth, like in the snowball glaciations of the ancient past, and our ancestors might not have survived."
The researchers used a computer model describing the ocean, atmosphere and land surface to look at how atmospheric carbon dioxide would change as a result of glacier growth. They found that, in the distant past, as glaciers started to grow, the oceans would suck the greenhouse gas -- carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere -- making the Earth colder, promoting an even deeper ice age. When marine plankton with carbonate shells and skeletons are added to the model, ocean chemistry is buffered and glacial growth does not cause the ocean to absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
But in Precambrian times (which lasted up until 544 million years ago), marine organisms in the open ocean did not produce carbonate skeletons -- and ancient rocks from the end of the Precambrian geological age indicate that huge glaciers deposited layers of crushed rock debris thousands of meters thick near the equator. If the land was frozen near the equator, then most of the surface of the planet was likely covered in ice, making Earth look like a giant snowball, the researchers said.
Around 200 million years ago, calcium carbonate organisms became critical to helping prevent the earth from freezing over. When the organisms die, their carbonate shells and skeletons settle to the ocean floor, where some dissolve and some are buried in sediments. These deposits help regulate the chemistry of the ocean and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, in a related study published in Nature on Sept. 25, 2003, Caldeira and LLNL physicist Michael Wickett found that unrestrained release of fossil-fuel carbon dioxide to the atmosphere could threaten extinction for these climate-stabilizing marine organisms.
Yes, definitely. The following shows not only his atheism but his deceitfullness about it:
"P.S. Would you advise me to tell Murray [his publisher] that my book is not more un-orthodox than the subject makes inevitable. That I do not discuss the origin of man. That I do not bring in any discussion about Genesis, &c, &c., and only give facts, and such conclusions from them as seem to me fair.
Or had I better say nothing to Murray, and assume that he cannot object to this much unorthodoxy, which in fact is not more than any Geological Treatise which runs sharp counter to Genesis."
From: Daniel J. Boorstein, The Discoverers, page 475.
Does that mean you are not interested in diversity of opinion?
Then why should anyone get run off?
Excuse me, this is a forum which supposedly accepts different views. This is a forum which is about discussing issues not about abusing people as your own statements verify:
Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.
Are you saying that only atheists should participate in these threads? I am trying to engage in a scientific discussion arguing the facts not the people. I am being abused for my opinions - which are conservative Christian opinions. Why is such being allowed? Why am I being abused and when I complain about it I am the one that gets threatened not the abusers?
As to why I stay in them there is one very simple reason - I am a conservative and atheism and materialism and evolution are joined together in a fight to destroy freedom in this country. I am trying to do my small part in trying to prevent that.
BUMP!
No, it does not. I showed exactly where it started - at post# 301 and quickly - even after I tried to defuse the situation - Vade Retro joined in and then longshadow who had not had anything to say on this thread and miraculously showed up to throw more gasoline into the fire. I have seen plenty of threads destroyed here by such tactics and I contacted your moderator who claimed that he wanted to see who was starting these flame wars when I showed him exactly who was starting them he said bad boy to the inciter and dressed me down for pointing the facts to him. He thus further inflamed the situation and aided in the degeneration of this thread. If he had taken off the posts starting it as well as my own trying to avert it, the problem would have been ended and an example would have been given that such was not to be allowed.
Dales is clearly biased and part of the problem not part of the solution.
You are calling me a liberal??????????????
So tell me, how many liberals are against evolution? Tell me that the NEA, and the atheists which are fighting together with the evolutionists to keep opposing ideas out of the schools are not liberals. Show me one single liberal post from my over two years of posting on FR.
"Would you advise me to tell Murray [his publisher] that my book is not more un-orthodox than the subject makes inevitable. That I do not discuss the origin of man. That I do not bring in any discussion about Genesis, &c, &c., and only give facts, and such conclusions from them as seem to me fair.
...this much unorthodoxy, which in fact is not more than any Geological Treatise which runs sharp counter to Genesis."
Sounds to me that he's saying his theory contradicts a literal reading of Genesis; I don't see anything to support the claim he was atheist. Westminster Abbey's web site said agnostic; I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.
Also note that geology had already cast grave doubt on Genesis; try as they might, they couldn't find any evidence for the Flood. This had happened something like 30 years before the Origin.
Now, now! Nothing at all in 301 is an attack on you personally or even your posts. It shows a genuine curiosity as to what you do believe concerning the origin of species, given that you never mention specifically what you do believe, only what you don't. She speculates that you are what amounts to an Old-Earth Creationist or OEC. (She doesn't use the word.) I can see where she gets the idea. This is a thing which many people freely admit to being. Hugh Ross's ReasonsToBelieve.org represents a lot of them.
My 323 presents an alternate speculation. That would make you a Young-Earth Creationist or YEC, a thing which many people admit to being, a tiny few of same being affiliated with DesignedUniverse.com where you are a player. True, the post speculates that you are for tactical reasons keeping quiet about your personal theories, but that's pretty obvious anyway. You have at one time or other attacked radiometric dating, the geologic column, the Big Bang theory, paleontology, ... I forget. Cobalt probably didn't know all that when she guessed you're an OEC.
It is easy....the initiator of insults on any particular thread gets banned for two weeks, then a month, and third offense permanent. Would clear up personal attacks in record time.
Here's a frozen lake. What are these people doing, and why?
Baiting lutefisk and clubbing baby møøses, because they are nasti persons.
I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.
From: Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution. The note to the text above says: "These recollections were confided to her son Francis and recorded by him soon after the death of Charles Darwin (Cambridge MSS). An expurgated version may be found in Emma Darwin, Letters I, 40.
While classifying the barnacles he collected during the Beagle voyage, Darwin discovered that the taxonomy of Cirripedia was in disarray. He decided to set this right. It was a project that he thought would take a year or so. Instead he spent eight years at it. The result was a series of monographs on the entire systematics (taxonomy, anatomy, life history, etc) of barnacles, living and fossil. This work is still cited today as a standard scientific reference. (Admittedly taxonomic references are often longer lived than other scientific works, but it is still astonishing for a scientific reference to remain relevant after more than 160 years.)
In conducting his research Darwin dissected thousands upon thousands of barnacles UNDER HIS MICROSCOPE and made innumerable original discoveries about these creatures (in addition to constructing a comprehensive scheme of classification which modern scientists still use).
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.