tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6294744150606571617.post955043412758383754..comments2024-01-16T07:07:11.166-08:00Comments on Bridal Pearl Necklace : Wedding Pearl Jewelry: Pearl Necklace | Pearl Jewelry: Outer Space Jewelry Exhibit Opens to the PublicFor...Pearl Necklacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01857152720762307589noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6294744150606571617.post-50506431541325976832020-01-05T15:09:44.872-08:002020-01-05T15:09:44.872-08:00Judging on the basis of conventional geological me...<br />Judging on the basis of conventional geological methods, detailed consideration of<br />precipitation in the Arctic circle can be considered positive evidence<br />although in the modern period, and there were several rocks<br />mammals, but reptiles do not; on the other hand, the lack of<br />mammals in the Galapagos archipelago, where it occurs a lot<br />reptiles can be considered proof of the opposite. At that<br />time formation, extending nearly two thousand miles along the great<br />barrier reef of Australia - formations in which nothing is<br />in addition to corals, sea urchins, molluscs, crustaceans and fish, with a small<br />a mixture of turtles, birds and cetaceans animals could give rise<br />to conclude, that in our time there was neither terrestrial reptiles, nor<br />mammals living on land. Speaking of Australia, we can not give you<br />another example, already by himself, could be quite<br />convincing proof of our position. The fauna of this country dramatically<br />different from the fauna of other countries. On land all native mammals,<br />with the exception of the bat belong to the lowest division of duotronic;<br />insects also noticeably different from insects of all other countries.<br />District sea contain many more or less strange forms. Between fish<br />there is one species of shark is the only surviving<br />a representative of the genus that flourished in early geologic epochs. Suppose<br />now that the newest layers with fossil mammals in Australia are<br />be considered a person with no knowledge about the existing<br />the Australian fauna; if he will talk in a normal way, he's not<br />dare to classify these residues with residues present.<br />Can we then rely on the default assumption that<br />these formations, located in the most remote from one another parts<br />of the globe, belong to the same period that only<br />ground that the organic parts, involving them, are<br />some common characteristic features; or that such other<br />formations belong to different periods just because of their face<br />fauna different?<br /><br /> Pearl Necklacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01857152720762307589noreply@blogger.com