Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: mammoth wool

Expand Messages
  • jcampbell90
    ... is not interwoven like sheep s wool, it is still shaggy and multi- layered and would provide good insulation, especially when matted as it would no doubt
    Message 1 of 30 , Jun 1, 2002
      --- In creation_evolution_debate@y..., "kel_bc_ca" <group@b...> wrote:
      > Jim wrote:
      > Bil now writes:
      >
      > Jim's statement is, not surprisingly, a lie. Although mammoth wool
      is not interwoven like sheep's wool, it is still shaggy and multi-
      layered and would provide good insulation, especially when matted as
      it would no doubt become by early adulthood. Some Russian scientists
      on primary field discovery sites even called the long woolly
      hair "tresses" or "skirts".

      Jim: "It appears to me impossible to find, in the anatomical
      examination of the skin and (hair), any argument in favor of
      adaptation to the cold." H. Neuville, "On the Extinction of the
      Mammoths", 'Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1919, p.
      332.
      "Mammoth and elephant skin are similar in thickness and structure."
      Neuville, p. 327
      "Both lack oil glands, making them vulnerable to cold, damp
      climates. Apparently all Artic mammals have both oil glands and
      erector muscles- equipment absent in mammoths." Hans Krause, "The
      Mammoth- In Ice and Snow", p. 53.

      The climate evolutionists describe, such as is found in Canada today,
      simply couldn't support a mammal equipped like a mammoth. No
      elephants could exist there outside of a heated zoo environment. No
      animal with loose, stringy hair like a mammoth could live in the wild
      there in steppes below glaciers. It becomes nesessary to fabricate a
      non-existent mammal with characteristics allowing it to survive such
      harsh winters to support a lie, the lie of evolution. Mammals are
      real, but adaptation to cold winters and wet environments is false.

      Your charge of lying is against people a lot more knowledgeable on
      the subject than you or I will ever be. According to one poster
      here, you are a heretic for making a liar out of scientists. Better
      watch out.

      The simple expanation for this attraction to fable is that regardless
      the actual evidences, people will accept the lies to support their
      own preconceived beliefs. That is typical of evolutionists who
      believe only evolutionists and the textbooks they wrote to plant
      their own atheistic seeds. But the lies are being exposed anyway,
      whether one is persuaded or not. The height of ignorance is blind
      embracement of obvious lies. Eventually such conduct leads to
      embracing the lie that damns the soul. I suppose it is fair game to
      do some preaching here, since others appear allowed to preach against
      me for exposing error. So be it. False accusers are children of the
      devil, you know, doomed to spend an eternity in hell with their
      spiritual dad. Repent, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and be
      saved. If you have already done that some time back, great. Behave
      like a proper son of God.

      In His Royal Service,
      Jim Campbell
    • Dave Oldridge
      On 1 Jun 2002 at 1:23, jcampbell90 wrote: [long but wrong bunch of nonsense about Arctic geology deleted] Jim, there s only one problem with all this. It s
      Message 2 of 30 , Jun 1, 2002
        On 1 Jun 2002 at 1:23, jcampbell90 wrote:

        [long but wrong bunch of nonsense about Arctic geology deleted]

        Jim, there's only one problem with all this. It's almost ENTIRELY WRONG.

        It almost looks as if whoever wrote it was counting on his audience just accepting him on his own say-so.

        Muck, of course, is the normal soil of the high arctic. There is not, at present, enough grass or plants to
        produce much else, but the constant freezing and thawing of the arctic summer literally powders the stuff
        at the surface. Where wind or water erosion has removed it, though, you get a variety of rock formations
        just as you do in the south and I've picked up trilobite and other fossils within 800 miles of the north pole.

        And, as far as I can tell from my reading, wooly mammoths were highly cold-adapted. The ears are
        smaller, the trunk and tail shorter. The FUR is actually a double coat that is shed in summer (the long
        outer "guard" hairs giving the name "wooly" ARE sparse). And there is a layer of heavy fat under the skin.
        Size alone is an advantage for the mammoth.

        Carbon dates of well-preserved remains are interesting. They fall into two groups. One centers about
        35,000 years ago, the other about 11,000 years ago. Both are periods without significant glacial
        expansion. Remains found from the period between these groups tend to be skeletal and fragmentary
        rather than well-preserved.

        This probably just indicates that your base "muck" is what a glacier leaves behind in high latitudes. In
        lower latitudes, such as around here, it is quickly incorporated into organic soils due to quick forestation.

        You need to start getting your science from science books instead of from pseudoscience books. When
        an apologetic is down to nothing but lies about science for its main arguments, it is clear that it is an
        apologetic for a heresy.

        Dave Oldridge
        ICQ 1800667
      • kel_bc_ca
        ... *1919*? Do you suppose anything has been learned about these creatures since then? Like maybe dozens, even hundreds more have been found, and that the new
        Message 3 of 30 , Jun 1, 2002
          --- In creation_evolution_debate@y..., "jcampbell90" <jcampbell90@y...> wrote:

          > Jim: "It appears to me impossible to find, in the anatomical
          > examination of the skin and (hair), any argument in favor of
          > adaptation to the cold." H. Neuville, "On the Extinction of the
          > Mammoths", 'Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1919, p.
          > 332.

          *1919*? Do you suppose anything has been learned about these creatures since then? Like maybe dozens, even hundreds more have been found, and that the new evidence shows your claim to be, ahem, a lie?

          /Bil:)
        • kel_bc_ca
          Jim, oh Jim, I was just wondering: what is your scientific theory of creation (or Intelligent Design if you like), and how can we test it using the scientific
          Message 4 of 30 , Jun 1, 2002
            Jim, oh Jim,

            I was just wondering: what is your scientific theory of creation (or Intelligent Design if you like), and how can we test it using the scientific method?

            [hint: you may want to review the archives before you answer]

            /Bil:)
          • Dave Oldridge
            ... Maybe if you got your misinformation from creationists who updated their science more than once a century, you d not look QUITE so bad! Dave Oldridge ICQ
            Message 5 of 30 , Jun 2, 2002
              On 1 Jun 2002 at 9:41, jcampbell90 wrote:

              > --- In creation_evolution_debate@y..., "kel_bc_ca" <group@b...> wrote:
              > > Jim wrote:
              > > Bil now writes:
              > >
              > > Jim's statement is, not surprisingly, a lie. Although mammoth wool
              > is not interwoven like sheep's wool, it is still shaggy and multi-
              > layered and would provide good insulation, especially when matted as
              > it would no doubt become by early adulthood. Some Russian scientists
              > on primary field discovery sites even called the long woolly
              > hair "tresses" or "skirts".
              >
              > Jim: "It appears to me impossible to find, in the anatomical
              > examination of the skin and (hair), any argument in favor of
              > adaptation to the cold." H. Neuville, "On the Extinction of the
              > Mammoths", 'Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1919, p.
              > 332. ^^^^^

              Maybe if you got your misinformation from creationists who updated their science more than once a
              century, you'd not look QUITE so bad!

              Dave Oldridge
              ICQ 1800667
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.