lunt@mhuxh.UUCP (LUNT) (10/17/85)
This is a firt posting, so I hope this all works. I have been reading net.origins for sometime, and have learned a lot. In general, the debates are held in a civil fashion, though there is the occassional degeneration into name calling. Anyway, into the fray: In <432@imsvax.UUCP> Ted Holden writes: > Mammoths died out very recently. There are pictures of them in ancient > American artwork. Do you have any explanation as to how ice sheets could > have crept over temperate zones that recently, Michael? I mean an explanation > for so called "ice-ages"? If you have, it should be good for at least a > PHD dissertation somewhere; nobody else has ever come up with such an > explanation. On the other hand, Immanuel Velikovsky has presented very > good explanations as to catastrophies causing effects which scientists could > MISCONSTRUE as evidence of ice sheets having once crept over temperate zones. > I honestly regard "ice-ages" as a modern fiction. Well, I'm not Michael, but I can't let the assertions in the above paragraph go unchallenged. Firstly, I think there is some confusion as to the currently accepted (or mainstream, if you prefer) theory as to why the mammoths did become extinct. It is my understanding that the extinction was due, not to an ice age starting, but to one ending. Mammoths were adapted to living on cold steppes, which were disappearing as the glaciers receded. Man may have contributed to the problem through his hunting practices, but the mammoths were already on the way out because they could not adapt to a changing environment. The assertion that there are other explanations for the evidence of glaciation is one that I would like to see backed up. Creationists also claim that they can account for the evidence commonly attributed to ice ages, however they invoke the Great Flood. I have never heard how the Flood accounts of the evidence. To those of you out there who have an alternative theory to ice ages, I hereby offer the following challenge: In Northern California there is a very beautiful area called the Yosemite Valley. The scenery, as well as being some of the best in the U.S., if not the world, also has some rather unique features commonly attributed to glacial valleys. The valley is "U" shaped, i.e. broad on the bottom. Valleys formed by normal erosion are shaped much closer to a "V". The side, or tributary valleys, are about a thousand feet higher than the floor of the Yosemite. The "hanging" streams produce some rather spectacular water falls. There is also a prominent feature called Half Dome. The name says it all. There are several places around Yosemite were there are long, parallel scratches easily seen in the granite. All of the above geographical features are accounted for very well by glaciation. So now the challenge. I would like to hear how any alternative theory, Creationism, Velikovsky's, or any other alternative any one wants to argue, accounts for the geography of Yosemite and other glacial valleys. I want specific mechanisms, not generalizations. Your pet theory must explain why these valleys are different than ones formed by simple erosion. Physical observations supporting the hypothesese, are of course greatly appreciated. Sharon R. Lunt AT&T Bell Labs Murray Hill, NJ allegra!mhuxh!lunt