What do you think about the fossil they found in the arctic circle?
199781
I always love it when they find something new.  It is another thing that we now know was here.
78324
no.  you're going to get a variety of responses ranging from the reasonable, like david's to the utterly ridiculous, like a lot of the others already here.\n\nas for the claims that the crater in the yucatan is supposition or "only a theory" (ever heard these words before?) there is a lot of evidence for it:\n\n"Probably the most convincing evidence for a worldwide catastrophe was the discovery of the crater which has since been named Chicxulub Crater. This so-called smoking gun is centered on the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico and was discovered by Tony Camargo and Glen Pentfield while working as geophysicists for the Mexican oil company PEMEX. What they reported as a circular feature later turned out to be a crater estimated to be 180 kilometers in diameter. Other researchers would later find that the end-Cretaceous extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs had lasted for thousands of years instead of millions of years as had previously been thought. This would be the final piece of evidence that convinced the vast majority of scientists that this extinction resulted from a point event that is most probably an extra-terrestrial impact and not from increased volcanism and climate change (which would spread its main effect over a much longer time period)."\n\nIt seems to be a bit more than a layer of clay in the ground.\n\nwhether this is worthy enough for biblical mention is debatable, but it seems that such a large impact would have had tremendous effects on any living species at the time, including (as creationists claim) humans.  why is there no mention of it either in the bible or other human cultures?  probably because it happened long before any humans were around.  it would have been a very important event, more important than a lot of the mentioned events in the bible.\n\nand if it is mentioned in the bible, please provide a passage.
230335
The next ice age is not going to happen for a very long time, there was only one a few million years ago. What could make it happen is a nuclear war or asteroid collision with the earth.
539386
You should go to an university to check that out. Ask for the geology department and ask for a paleontologist, he(she) will help you out.\nI am no expert on this but it looks more like a type of crab, trilobites the head tend to be preserved more easily than the tail. It seems that you can carve the fossil out that will help, but ask a paleontologist first.
492095
depends on how you see them..many see them as huge reptiles and other as the precursor to birds. I personally have always though of them as cold blooded but my opinion is now changing because of the various locations of fossils (montana, Canada, russia)..
172209
Aalexart put the case extremely well, and has obviously like me read several books that have no bias.\nThe site below will help you, the presumptiousness of man that we can influence the weather. King Canute had more success with the tide.\nYes we are gradually returning to the climate pre the mini ice age, but we still have a long way to go.
35629
it's not really a where else, but a when else for me.  i really think i was born in the wrong century.  i feel i'd enjoy things just a little bit more if there were more wonder and less science in the world, more questions and less experts, more discovery and less selfishness.\n\nwhen you ask?  i'd localize it in the 1600s.  the world was largely a mystery, much knowledge to learn, many people to discover, many secrets to share.  today people are so jaded and cynical, they feel they know everything, or they have a right to.  in my mind, at that time there was a healthy respect (with a little fear) of the unexplained.  a little fear is good sometimes, it keeps us from getting too high and mighty.  so this is my when.\n\nbut as it were, my time machine is broken down due to the cold weather.  so i'm in 2006.  since i'm here, my answer of where i'd like to be is, somewhere with an abundance of natural beauty, changing seasons, a clean physical environment, and humble people.  welcome to duluth!  \n\n(ok i've always wanted to visit northern canada, alaska, iceland, siberia or finland, i guess i'm attracted to the edge of things!)
322021
I'm not especially well informed on that subject, but I believe archaeological evidence support it.  Bones, DNA, etc. Pottery shards, all that sort of thing.  It's my understanding they crossed a land bridge that used to exist across the Bering Strait,  then the land bridge was gradually eroded away.
142213
There are theories about a new ice age created by a magnetic reversal of the poles. Polar ice caps melting is bad, but there is no impending doom. If you feel so strongly about this you should get started on your ark.
557279
I took anthropology 101 and they didn't cover that question, sadly!  You think all the cave people would want to keep up with the Jones, or whatever they called them back then.  Maybe a lot of them were unsure, and there were no "Interior Decorating for Neanderthals" books available.  Plus (as you know) it was too far to drive to the nearest IKEA which is where I buy all my art, because they weren't as widespread as they are now.
276822
If you do your research you will see that the concept of time in mens eyes compared to Gods eyes are probably two very different things!\nwe are told to go to the fossil record for final, conclusive proof that evolution really did take place. You might imagine we would find a succession of fossils, for example, starting with shellfish, in which the hard shell gradually turns into a covering of scales, while part of it turns inside and grows into a backbone. At the same time, successive fossils would be developing a pair of eyes and a pair of gills at one end and a finny tail at the other. Finally, lo and behold, we would have a fish!\n\nBut a fish would not stay a fish. Coming on up in the geologic column of sediments, we would expect to find fish changing their fins into legs, with feet and toes growing out of them, and their gills into lungs. Higher up, we would no longer find their fossilized remains in old seabeds but buried in dry land deposits. And in other fish, their forefins would be changing into wings and their back ones into legs with claws. Their scales would change to feathers and they would grow a horny beak around their mouth. And, presto! the magic of evolution would have given us reptiles and birds. So we could line up intermediate forms exhibiting transitional features between every ancestral species and each type of their progeny.\n\nIs that what we really find? Of course not! That would be an evolutionist’s dream. Darwin himself was the first to bemoan the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. But he was hopeful that time would supply the transitional forms between species—missing links, they came to be called. These would vindicate his faith in the process of evolution by natural selection.\n\nBut these hopes have not been realized. What does the record actually show? Each new kind of plant or animal—fern, shrub, tree, fish, reptile, insect, bird, or mammal—appears suddenly in the geologic column. Beginning immediately above the lifeless sediments of the Azoic era, the Cambrian layer carries an abundance of fossil crustaceans and shellfish, in great variety, already fully developed. Plants with woody stems appear suddenly in the mid-Paleozoic. Fossil wood has not been found in lower strata but is abundant in all later ages. Large collections of insect fossils have been found in upper Paleozoic rocks, fully developed and in great diversity, but none have been found in earlier strata. Early in the Cenozoic era, modern types of mammals make a sudden appearance; there is no record of their evolution from earlier types.\n\nThis is the repeated testimony of the fossil record: Sudden appearance of new kinds of plants and animals—no precursors. Does this not suggest, to the unprejudiced observer, the creation of these new kinds in successive ages, rather than continuous evolution?\n\nPermanence of Species\n\nBiologists have devised an elaborate system for classifying different species. Naturalists continue to find species that are different from those already classified, and those are fitted in between the others. Extinct species, represented by fossils, also have been assigned places in the classification. Different fossils continue to turn up that have to be put between others in the system. The evolutionists call these transitional species, a word that implies a temporary existence, during which it falls between an older species and a new one that is to appear. Even calling them transitional reveals a bias in logic. A neutral expression would be “intermediate” forms.\n\nMuch emphasis is put on the search for these “transitional” forms. As an example they point to the lungfish, which has gills for taking in oxygen when in water and also a bladder that serves as a lung for breathing when out of water. This is supposed to have marked a stage in evolution between fish and reptile. But there is a snag in the logic. The lungfish did not change into a reptile. It is still living today, the same
237516
Yes, it is. I've seen pictures of the polar caps 10yrs.\nago & today. The ice caps are melting. This reduces the \nnumber of seals in that area. There for, there is less \nprey (food) for the polar bears. \nThe number of polar bears is in decline. This a serious \ntragedy that is occuring, but, you know our leaders - \nIf it doesn't make them money, they could care less.
13317
Firstly, it is politically incorrect to refer to the native people of the north as "Eskimos." \nAlthough they have many names, they are most commonly called the Inuit.\n\nSecondly, who said anything about evolution stopping? The only reason that say "fish aren't walking up on beaches constantly" is that not every species evolves in the same way. Hence the idea of a "common ancestor" or "missing link."\n\nThirdly, as for evidence for evolution, look around at the various slight differences between species.\n(i.e. Black spruce and white spruce)
79202
it hasnt been proven, but there are pictures out there, tho most of them are fake\n\ni personally believe that there probably once was one, but there really isnt much chance that it is still alive\n\nit was probably a decendent of some dinosaur thing\n\nso yea, id say it is, well, WAS real
78167
The prevailing theory at this time is an asteroid impact that caused a nuclear winter. more than half the life on earth is thought to have become extinct at this time. I believe it was at the beginning of the cenazoic era. as evidence there is a layer of iridium at this geologic layer that covers the entire planet. Otherwise iridium is pretty rare on earth but quite common in asteroids.\n\nWhile this event may have contributed to the onset of an iceage, the energies involved were probably not great enough to give credit for an iceage.
269591
I was looking at the images on livescience.com yesterday - but despite the useful red circles and scale maps telling me how big this 'anomaly' is, all I can see is ice and rock.\n\nSurely something 2000+ years old and made of wood would have perished in such an exposed location? I know human remains have been found in the French/Italian Alps pretty intact but they were buried under metres of snow and ice...
651692
They came down with the polar bears, via FedEx.  God destroyed the first incarnation of FedEx, as well.\n\nEdit - reading a couple responses here, I see that we have a couple folks that actually DO believe this ridiculous fairy tale.  Let me explain... first of all, the story of Noah and the ark is quite impossible.  (But through God, anything is possible, right? Mmkay)  If the fact that it's impossible isn't good enough for you...\n\nHow about the fact that it's a pagan myth dealing with worship of the sun god?  This is not conjecture, folks.  This is fact.  See my source...