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, it is that easy - punish the one who incites it instead of the one defending himself.
Survival of the fittest?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
Is the debate over evolution a political question? Surely it is, first of all, a scientific question. And yet, it is a sign of how far we have strayed from our common sense as citizens that the implications of evolutionary theory for our project of self-government are almost never seriously considered. The American nation and our way of life were founded on an articulated and explicit moral premise – one which the doctrine of evolution directly contradicts. We better start thinking about this.
...
But the importance to our political and moral lives of facing the question should be immediately evident to anyone who remembers what it means to be an American, and who hopes to see justice prevail over the rule of tooth and claw.
Let us be clear. The problem is Jesus Christ, not Christians. Jesus is very intolerant about the truth of our reality, and who has the hope of eternal life with the Creator.
Matt 19:4-5
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
John 14:6
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
The reason these issues are relevant to this forum and these threads is they go to the foundation of our nations freedoms and justice.
Not at all. The fact is that physicist is right. On top of that I'll add that Creationists give Christians a bad rep. See God is logical and does not decieve. There is nothing hidden, it is all open to see and understand. Science has uncovered what was previously unknown. The world is not 6000 y/o.
" Jesus Christ is God, and He supported the STRAIGHTFORWARD reading of Genesis."
We went over that before. He did not endorse your reading of it and your claims regarding what was said.
" You folks have a problem with Jesus Christ, not Creationists."
No. That's just another unfounded Creationist claim.
Did God create or not?
How sad that Dr. Keyes is evidently unable to distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive theories.
It is the evolutionists who are anti-science as I have detailed on these threads numerous times. Science is about cause and effect, about predictable and repeatable occurrences. A theory, like evolution, which claims that biological change occurs randomly is perforce anti-science. To this one must add evolutionist's use of such words as 'imagine', 'possibly', 'could be' and 'perhaps' as proof of their theory. This started with Darwin and continues to this day. They call this science and have tried to push this totally unscientific criteria unto the scientific community. So, yes, evolution is anti-science and if you are a friend of science, then you (meaning not just you, but all who believe in truth and the value of true science) should be opposed to evolution.
Further, politics is not just about making oneself the same as the opposition which is what you are advocating, it is about establishing one's views and ideas in the battle for the conscience of the society. Without winning the battle of ideas, the political battles will eventually be lost. The Democrats know this and that is why they try to destroy the basis of conservatism in every way possible. The basis of conservatism is Christianity as almost every conservative will tell you.
Evolution is a theory promoted by atheists, for atheists and to spread and undermine the moral and Christian fabric of the country. It was used in such a way in Germany. It was used by the Communists and is still being used by them in that way. It is used by the atheists in this country, that is why they join hands with evolutionists in the school battles. It is used in the same way by liberals, Democrats and the NEA in those most important battles that try to drive God from the schools.
As to evolution being scientifically true, the use of insults and character assassination by evolutionists at those who give scientific evidence which they cannot refute shows very well that evolution is not science. For those who still wonder what the scientific facts against evolution are they can check out Evidence Disproving Evolution. There are also numerous Amazing Creatures which could never have arisen if evolution were true. There is also tons of Nobel Prize design in DNA which shows evolution to have been impossible. All the above and more are ample reasons for reasonable people to have said Bye, Bye Darwin a long time ago.
And what deception is that? You cannot answer a simple question, and now turn to a logical Ad Hominem. I am not the question. "Did God create or not?" is the question. You have started down the road to further Ad Hominem by not answering a simple question.
He's a superb speaker and debater with whom I was at first greatly impressed. Voted for him in the WV primary in 2000, in fact. I no longer think he's a very practical man, however. (I forget the details of why, but it was more than just his anti-E article. Some of his other positions.) I'm very glad we got the initially less-flashy W.
He knows the difference, he stated as much in the first paragraph. Then he argues that ideas sometimes go beyond their intended area and we must be aware of that.
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.