I'm one of those wacky "intellectually challenged" Bible people you may have heard about ;)

But I can actually agree with you here... because reason and intent is something that is awfully hard to prove without, uh, well, something that has reason and intent. As I understand it, unless you go for theistic evolution, evolution is entirely a natural process and evolution does not occur with some future reason or intent in "mind." It can't. It has no mind, reason, or intent.

So to say that something evolved to prevent something? I could see trying to argue that it was, at least, a side-effect, perhaps even a primary effect, but to give a purely natural process an intent of *prevention* ...

When I was growing up, the teams were life-sized humans on grass.

Which, actually, is why we're on your lawn. ;)

Natural is definitely not always easy.

Lots of things come naturally. Like war. Humans seem to like to kill each other. Is war "easy?" No. Some job professions seem to come "naturally" to people, too. How about farming? Definitely not easy.

If things that come "naturally" were easy, then life would be easy (after all, most people do what is "natural" to them; not too many people consciously and intentionally seek out things they feel are unnatural to do). And life is not "easy." For most.

So, this makes it sound like it was a climate change - an ice age - that caused this area to get totally covered in ice, right? But isn't one of the major concerns about the proposed AGW/CC that said ice is melting (presumption: it shouldn't)?

I realize maybe we could argue about the rate of change, but didn't the previous ice ages ... kinda ... supposedly happen rather quickly, too?

Truth be told, my views are significantly different than the above, ha. But I'm curious how this works out, since I believe the overlap of those who accept this history of the earth with those who accept AGW is likely pretty large.