Scientists have discovered a baby wooly mammoth frozen in the Siberian ice. The carcass was so well preserved that there were still traces of it’s mother’s milk in the stomach. Scientists announced they have been able to learn much more about wooly mammoths than they did from any previous discoveries.
Daniel Fisher, head of the team studying the mammoth, told reporters, "We had no idea from preserved skeletons and preserved carcasses that young mammoths had a discrete structure on the back of the head of brown fat cells."
Okay... so here we are. Scientists have been studying the woolly mammoth for decades, yet the recent discovery of an extremely well-preserved carcass reveals that they "had no idea" about some of the animal's basic physical features — even though they've had other carcasses to work with in the past. This is one of the very few times I've heard a scientist admit that he was wrong.
Having missed the mark while studying actual carcasses, just how accurate would you say their reports have been on various dinosaurs, when they've had only a few bones to work with? Yet they create entire creatures from those few bones and expect us to accept their imagination as fact.
Or how accurate do you think their descriptions of "cave men" are, when they have only a single bone to study? You might recall "Piltdown Man", which was presented as evidence of evolution, but which turned out to be nothing more than the jawbone of an orangutan attached to a human skull. Similarly, the remains of "Nebraska Man" turned out to be a pig's tooth.
No evidence of macroevolution has ever been produced. As someone once pointed out, if the leg of a reptile were to evolve into the wing of a bird, it would become a very bad leg long before it became a good wing. Common sense. Mere common sense.
How accurately do you think scientists can predict the temperature of the sun 50 million years ago? (That’s one of the factors some of them use to extrapolate the catastrophes they think will be caused by so-called climate change.) Or how accurately do you think they are able to predict earth's temperature 10 or 20 years from now — especially when they can’t even accurately predict next week’s weather? The plain fact of the matter is that scientists know far too little about the earth and the environment than they would like us to believe.
According to the Planet Earth series, entire colonies of coral suddenly die off and spring up a short distance away, and scientists have no idea why. Yet these same scientists want us to believe they understand the composition of the ocean and how that vast ecological system works? I don't think so.
I find the world around me endlessly fascinating and I've discovered that my little woods does best when left alone. The woods provides an ever-changing vista. For a few seasons, the woods was filled with great ferny stalks of hemlock. It was a beautiful site! But gradually, the hemlock gave way to dame's rocket, a tall wildflower with magenta and white blossoms. There also appeared lady's slipper (a type of pitcher plant), white violets, and a small but hardy patch of wild narcissus. The woods is ever-changing and is beautiful in all its phases, and who could possibly say which phase is "correct" and should be preserved? Surely not I!
But environmentalists would have you believe that Earth, as it is today (or as it was a couple of decades ago, depending on whose imaginings you believe) is the "perfect" temperature and that we should all strive to prevent that temperature from ever changing. That is nothing less than idiocy.
Our government once tried intervention in some of the national parks, and nearly destroyed Yosemite in the process. Man does not understand the extreme complexities of the environment sufficiently enough to interfere with nature. That fact is borne out every day. The best thing we can do is to control blatant pollution (no brainers, such as factories dumping pollutants directly into the water supply) and then stand back and get out of the way. Anything else is pure idiocy.
I believe in dealing with facts, not science fiction.
Daniel Fisher, head of the team studying the mammoth, told reporters, "We had no idea from preserved skeletons and preserved carcasses that young mammoths had a discrete structure on the back of the head of brown fat cells."
Okay... so here we are. Scientists have been studying the woolly mammoth for decades, yet the recent discovery of an extremely well-preserved carcass reveals that they "had no idea" about some of the animal's basic physical features — even though they've had other carcasses to work with in the past. This is one of the very few times I've heard a scientist admit that he was wrong.
Having missed the mark while studying actual carcasses, just how accurate would you say their reports have been on various dinosaurs, when they've had only a few bones to work with? Yet they create entire creatures from those few bones and expect us to accept their imagination as fact.
Or how accurate do you think their descriptions of "cave men" are, when they have only a single bone to study? You might recall "Piltdown Man", which was presented as evidence of evolution, but which turned out to be nothing more than the jawbone of an orangutan attached to a human skull. Similarly, the remains of "Nebraska Man" turned out to be a pig's tooth.
No evidence of macroevolution has ever been produced. As someone once pointed out, if the leg of a reptile were to evolve into the wing of a bird, it would become a very bad leg long before it became a good wing. Common sense. Mere common sense.
How accurately do you think scientists can predict the temperature of the sun 50 million years ago? (That’s one of the factors some of them use to extrapolate the catastrophes they think will be caused by so-called climate change.) Or how accurately do you think they are able to predict earth's temperature 10 or 20 years from now — especially when they can’t even accurately predict next week’s weather? The plain fact of the matter is that scientists know far too little about the earth and the environment than they would like us to believe.
According to the Planet Earth series, entire colonies of coral suddenly die off and spring up a short distance away, and scientists have no idea why. Yet these same scientists want us to believe they understand the composition of the ocean and how that vast ecological system works? I don't think so.
I find the world around me endlessly fascinating and I've discovered that my little woods does best when left alone. The woods provides an ever-changing vista. For a few seasons, the woods was filled with great ferny stalks of hemlock. It was a beautiful site! But gradually, the hemlock gave way to dame's rocket, a tall wildflower with magenta and white blossoms. There also appeared lady's slipper (a type of pitcher plant), white violets, and a small but hardy patch of wild narcissus. The woods is ever-changing and is beautiful in all its phases, and who could possibly say which phase is "correct" and should be preserved? Surely not I!
But environmentalists would have you believe that Earth, as it is today (or as it was a couple of decades ago, depending on whose imaginings you believe) is the "perfect" temperature and that we should all strive to prevent that temperature from ever changing. That is nothing less than idiocy.
Our government once tried intervention in some of the national parks, and nearly destroyed Yosemite in the process. Man does not understand the extreme complexities of the environment sufficiently enough to interfere with nature. That fact is borne out every day. The best thing we can do is to control blatant pollution (no brainers, such as factories dumping pollutants directly into the water supply) and then stand back and get out of the way. Anything else is pure idiocy.
I believe in dealing with facts, not science fiction.
© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment