>>Think about this... Ice takes up more physical space than water. If all the polar ice melts we should end up with LOWER water levels. *g*
>
>The ice they are refering to is currently above sea level. Of course the prediction of melting is based on the same type of fallacy as in your following point.

9/10 of all ice (on water which is most) is below sea level. Think - Titanic. *g* And, a lot of that ice is floating on the ocean extending many miles from the South Pole (for example) actual land mass.

>
>>Kind of like evolutionists saying that evolution has taken 200 million years. Hmm.. Since the sun loses five (5) miles off it's diameter each day that would mean that back then the surface of the sun physically touched the Earth, or was close enough to melt the dirt and burn off all water. *g*
>

>Just because the current rate of change is -5 miles per day does not mean that the rate of change has always been the same.

True enough. As a matter of fact I tend to think that it was faster in the past for the simple notion that observable facts tell us of radioactive decay - ie. things deteriorate and slow down. The whole notion of the Big Bang reflects this thought process. There are some interesting notions regarding the structure and speed, if you will, of time as a result of this aramachisis (sp?) or decay.

But remember... How old are we told that the Earth is? 4 billion, 7 billion, 5 billion years? Kind of a moot point unless you assert that the Sun *spontaneously* decided to start burning at just the point man (or life actually) was viable. Uh huh... *g* It isn't rational IMO to take that pov.

Let's not allow ourselves to get off the FoxPro issues here. I'd be happy to chat with you about this, just not too much here, ok? Otherwise one of us at least will get tarred and feathered. *bg*

Best,

DD