- Posts: 46
- Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:19 am
I'm still not sure how that that would make the argument tighter. I see the argument this way: The author basically says, some fossils were found that had previously only been found under water, but these have been discovered under ice--so the ice must have at one time been water (and then he offers two ways that the ice could have at one time been water). How the ice became water, and whether there is only one possible way, or multiple ways that could have all worked together, doesn't seem that central to this argument. The problem as I see it is that the author gives the idea of a melted ice sheet (regardless of how it happened) as one possible explanation of the fossils, when for all we know there might be another explanation.