There was an interesting program on the local education channel  today.
It seems as if  -when the film was made maybe a decade or two  ago-
ice core samples took the record back 650,000 years. Sort of like 
tree rings. This concerned an ice sheet in the upper Andes although
similar results have been reported for Mt Kilimanjaro and other
high altitude areas  in tropical zones.
 
How it works is that each year in the rainy season snow falls at high  
elevations
where temperature is always below freezing. Then in the dry season dust  
blows
in from desert areas and dry lake beds, etc.  Result is a series of  
clearly defined
annual layers. Each year these layers indicate drought conditions when they 
 exist,
or record volcanic eruptions by amounts of typical minerals, etc, that  are
emitted by volcanoes, which are trapped in the snow  -which, under  
compression
as many years accumulate, become ice.
 
The point of the film was to show that carbon levels in the atmosphere  have
been increasing. Which is hardly a surprise. The record also shows a  
more-or-less
cyclic pattern of highs and lows of carbon. Indeed, while, yes, carbon  
increased 
every year since the dawn of the industrial  revolution, the levels  
reached in ca 1950
were not much different than other peaks in the historic and prehistoric  
past.
Trouble is that we are now at approximately double the carbon  concentration
of any similar peak in 650,000 years.
 
There is all kinds of contextual data also, including photographs showing  
the retreat
of glaciers all over the world. And for all of the 20th century, plus  
several decades
of the last part of the 19th century, there are all kinds of news reports  
to look
over for weather information, exact dates of volcanic eruptions, and the  
like.
And the story has continued for the 14 years, so far, of the 21st  century.
 
That is, if the exact correlation of published news reports means  anything,
which is at least 125+ years worth of utterly hard data, the ice core  
records
for the years previous to about 1880 should also be quite  reliable.
 
We have, then, a solid record going back to 650,000 BC.
 
Uhhh, what does this do to ANY conceivable version of Young Earth  creation?
 
What can anyone predict from Young Earth theory?  Nothing.
 
What can be predicted making use of science? Not everything, that's for  
sure,
but more and more and more, a lot of it very useful.
 
Does this damage the Bible?
 
No.
 
What is does is to utterly destroy an interpretation of the Bible that  
should never
have arisen in the first place, which most Church Fathers did not  accept,
namely the wrong-minded view that the Genesis creation account should
be taken literally. The Fathers understood it metaphorically and they
all lived, by definition, in the era of the first few generations of  
Christians,
a few Fathers even knowing a few surviving Apostles. I'd say that  their
testimony means something vital.
 
More to the point, the translators of the KJV insisted that the  Apocrypha
should always be included in the Bible, and this includes Wisdom of  
Solomon.
Regardless, in almost all published versions after about 1850, except  
England,
the Apocrypha vanished.
 
This was the exact era when Darwin became famous.
 
Suppose most Christians had access to the Apocrypha in that era?
Wisdom of Solomon 19: 18 contains what seems to be the  earliest
version of a theory of evolution extant. It is all too brief, it mixes  in
some speculation about chemical reactions and the like, but there it  is.
Creatures that once lived on land became sea creatures, and some
sea creatures became land animals in the past.
 
This is the Bible's own doctrine and I will take it  to the  erroneous
views of creationists any day.
 
And a question: Don't Christians who attend college ever  study geology
or other earth sciences? In the years I was a college student  everyone
took at least a year of earth science. And as far as I could tell, none  of
my science teachers were on anti-religion crusades. They were simply
reporting the facts of their sciences.
 
Isn't natural science taught routinely as part of everyone's college  
education
these days?
 
 
Billy
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to