Ice Ages

[Loudmouth]

Do Eukaryotes eat their babies?

Hamsters are eukaryotes, and I remember a pet hamster eating her babies right in front of my 2nd grade class when I was a young'un.

I thought that was just recycling where you break down an old organism to recycle the elements to make a new organism.

There were predatory species in the Cambrian.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014...mbrian-predator-preserved-with-brains-intact/

 

[joshua 1 9]

Hamsters are eukaryotes, and I remember a pet hamster eating her babies right in front of my 2nd grade class when I was a young'un.

That was never God's plan for hamsters to eat their babies. This is a part of the fallen condition of mankind. We had this happen with a dog of ours that just had puppies. The vet said to take the puppies away from the mother and when she calms down she will be alright. This is something that we have gone over many times looking at a passage in Isaiah. Often this time of year people quote Isaiah on their Christmas cards. It was never God's plan for the species to hurt or destroy each other. This is a simple concept to grasp and I am sure you understand it. Although you do not seem to accept or believe that a world like that could exist.

11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

 

[RickG]

That was never God's plan for hamsters to eat their babies. This is a part of the fallen condition of mankind. We had this happen with a dog of ours that just had puppies. The vet said to take the puppies away from the mother and when she calms down she will be alright. This is something that we have gone over many times looking at a passage in Isaiah. Often this time of year people quote Isaiah on their Christmas cards. It was never God's plan for the species to hurt or destroy each other. This is a simple concept to grasp and I am sure you understand it. Although you do not seem to accept or believe that a world like that could exist.

11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

Joshua, please stick to the topic of this thread.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Joshua, please stick to the topic of this thread.

Loudmouth keeps going off of topic. I am going to have to start to ignore his questions again because they have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Loudmouth keeps going off of topic. I am going to have to start to ignore his questions again because they have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Actually, you were the one who went off topic by talking about creationism and the Fall.

 

[Loudmouth]

That was never God's plan for hamsters to eat their babies. This is a part of the fallen condition of mankind. We had this happen with a dog of ours that just had puppies. The vet said to take the puppies away from the mother and when she calms down she will be alright. This is something that we have gone over many times looking at a passage in Isaiah. Often this time of year people quote Isaiah on their Christmas cards. It was never God's plan for the species to hurt or destroy each other. This is a simple concept to grasp and I am sure you understand it. Although you do not seem to accept or believe that a world like that could exist.

11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

Once again, you ignore the important part of my post. There were carnivores in the Cambrian.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Once again, you ignore the important part of my post. There were carnivores in the Cambrian.

By your definition of the word, not by my definition. That is why it is difficult for us to have a conversation. Evolutionists hijacked the dictionary and changed all the meanings of the words to suit their purpose.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Hamsters are eukaryotes,

They do not look the same to me.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

By your definition of the word, not by my definition. That is why it is difficult for us to have a conversation. Evolutionists hijacked the dictionary and changed all the meanings of the words to suit their purpose.

What?

 

[lasthero]

They do not look the same to me.

...but they're still both eukaryotes.

 

[joshua 1 9]

...but they're still both eukaryotes.

Wait a minute. I thought that a eukaryote was a one celled organism. So your telling me that a eukaryotes is a organism make up of multiple eukaryote cells?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Wait a minute. I thought that a eukaryote was a one celled organism. So your telling me that a eukaryotes is a organism make up of multiple eukaryote cells?

All creatures, are biological beings on this Earth, are made up of eukaryotes.

 

[RickG]

Okay guys, enough, let's get back to the ice ages.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think one of the things that should be considered with regards to Ice Ages is that glaciers are, not solely but more often than not, the cause of canyons being formed, specifically U-shaped canyons.
I'm not that great with geology, but wouldn't we seem some serious deforming in the canyons if we forced the glaciers in to a smaller time frame?

(Edited to change 'ox-bow- to 'U-shaped'. I got them mixed up.)

 

[Doveaman]

Pretaining the Pliocene-Quaternary, yes, we are still technically in an ice age. What we are experienceing presently is an interglacia period. Glacial periods are those of ice advance while interglaical are periods of ice retreat.

That would explain the huge amounts of waters described in Genesis 1:2. The ice melted.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That would explain the huge amounts of waters described in Genesis 1:2. The ice melted.

No it doesn't.

 

[RickG]

That would explain the huge amounts of waters described in Genesis 1:2. The ice melted.

No it would not, but the origin of the story most certainly involves a sudden sea level rise due to a large glacial lake outbreak such as one experienced with proglacial Lake Agassiz-Objibway, raising sea level as much as 2.2 meters (YX-Li et al, 2012)

 

[myownmynativeland]

Plate tectonics would have been a major influence. Looking at past continental positions, continental glaciation only occurs when there is a continental mass in a polar region covering the area significantly. And of course, ocean currents would have an influence as well.

Personally, I am an Old Earther. There is a strong possibility that plate tectonics rather than being an always slow dare I say glacial process has at times been very rapid shifting the Poles by thousands of miles in a period of under a decade. Last such event around 11,000B.C.

 

[RickG]

Personally, I am an Old Earther. There is a strong possibility that plate tectonics rather than being an always slow dare I say glacial process has at times been very rapid shifting the Poles by thousands of miles in a period of under a decade. Last such event around 11,000B.C.

I gather you are talking about the "Younger Dryas" event. That is believed to have been triggered by a decline in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation of the gulf stream, which would have been due to a large influx of cold fresh water from an outbreak of glacial Lake Agassiz-Ojibway; not a polar reversal. There hasn't been one of those for 780,000 years, though we are way over due for one on average.

 

[Doveaman]

No it would not, but the origin of the story most certainly involves a sudden sea level rise due to a large glacial lake outbreak

The Genesis 1 account begins with a large body of water on earth, which is what we would expect at the beginning of an interglaical period.

It is no coincident that the current Holocene interglacial period began about 11,000 years ago around the time estimated for the creation events in Genesis 1.

The interglacial evidence, 11,000 years ago, supports the Genesis 1 account.

The Genesis 1 account is describing re-creation events following the last ice age.