|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution in the Anarctic | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
quote: Oh...on second thoughts,i allready know what you're gonna reply(thats back then,the continents moved faster) so i'll skip to the next question immediatly. Do you advance that the continents began separating 4500 years ago because there is evidence that they began moving at that time or because they have to had begun moving 4500 years ago for your model to work?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
quote: May I quoteIt was once thought that dinosaurs were strictly tropical or sub-tropical animals that avoided the colder regions of the world. In the late 1970s/early 1980s dinosaur remains were discovered along the southern coast of Victoria, in southeastern Australia, an area that would have been within the Antarctic circle at the time the animals lived. In 1987 dinosaur remains were also found within the Arctic circle in North Antarctica. A Now I’m either stupid, or does it say that these animals were living in very cold areas. Well, since I’m contradicting the Bible, I’m stupid. merica. quote: "SO you have proof that the plates could split under natural conditions within a matter of 4500 years? "--Yes I have given proof that they could have easilly done so, its quite apparent by the inability to refute its implications.[/quote] Funny how that proof is undoubtedly based on incredibly in accurate methods of dating, yes, the same dating methods that indicate a very old planet.
quote: Again, the Bible makes references to Israel, the Mideast, and the Mediterranean. Now let me describe to you the position of the continents half-way to today’s position:North America resembles a lemonade jug with an alta california on the back. There is not Europe, nor is their a Arabian Peninsula. Africa is far from Asia and has a bite in its top. South America is attached to Africa by a narrow bridge of land. India is around present day South Africa, and Australia is still a part of Antarctica. Asia is completely deformed- The areas of the present day malay and thai peninsulas can be discerned as nothing more than a leg, about 15 degrees east of where it is now. The rest of Asia is unrecognizable. Doesn’t sound like the Biblical world of Jesus, where Moses managed to part the non-existent red sea quote: Had the Red Sea existed in Moses’s time, You would be squashing most continental drift in to a 2000 year time period. A little unrealistic.
quote: Really? Well, India would have to be moving damn fast to sprout such a tell mountain in around, oh, let’s say, 500-300 years.
quote: You certainly seem to have it all figured out- funny, though, how th Egyptians, who according to you came around 300 years after the flood, never mentioned incredibly fast rates of drift, high tectonic activity. Funny, also, how they managed to construct 100 foot high temples while the ground was shaking beneath their feet. I’ve been to those pyramids, I can tell you that no one could construct them while the plates were speeding across the planet in a sick game of bumper cars.
quote: This creationist site suggests that all continental drift occurred during the flood. What’s your response to that?
quote: I have reaffirmed my asserion with another reference. Go to top
quote: Coal comes first, and polar dinosaurs come second. Hot-cold-evolution
quote: So which scientist discovered that polar regions in Antarctica or Australia were moving north into warmer areas?Perhaps you should give me some data. quote: So this means, my friend, that Antarctica was once warm (when it was part of the Pangaea), evident in the existence of coal, which requires warm and moist conditions. Antarctica moved gradually south, slowly enough to allow the appearance of newly-equipped species.But you know better, judging by what data? quote: Obviously, since it contradicts his divine word.Maybe you could be so kind as to go into specifics. quote: Yeah- I’m just wrong.
quote: I’m just so stupid, you have to keep reiterating your basic points, backed up with data.
quote: Note the smiley face beside my statement. You jumped on the opportunity to insult my level of intelligence.You really do think I am a stupid twelve year old, don’t you quote: Right. I made a promise that I would no longer be sarcastic or insulting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b] quote: Can you show how the conditions you describe came to be, why they weren't extant before the "flood", & why they no longer exist? Please don't dredge up Brown or Baumgardner again, they both assume initial conditions without evidential basis. I've been digging for this for several posts now culminating in message 253 at .
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=29&p=17 Saying you have the mechanism when all you have is a wish list of phenomena you need to be true is a bit rich, mate. You need positive evidence that ; 1/ There was a lower mantle viscosity for a year, & provide a model that allows this to start & stop within the flood time scale. 2/ That radioactive decay was significantly different 4,500 years ago. Despite positive evidence that at high temperatures & pressure half lives show little to no variation. Also, you need to explain why this radioactive decay occurred during the flood year only. What CAUSED the rate of decay to increase for a year, then return to "normal" levels? It must've done, or the continents would've been hurtling around since creation, according to you. If you can’t do this, point 1/ is falsified, & you STILL need to explain the alleged high rate of continental drift you assert occurred 4,500 years ago. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 03-21-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
Could someone please tell me where I've gone wrong in believing that animals adapted to changing climates in Antarctica, as well as other continents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I find it interesting that it is enough for you to look around until you find "no problem" in reconciling what science has discovered and what you have chosen to believe about nature from theat great scientific tome, the Christian Bible. You do not care if it is a good explanation, much less the best explanation. It is only important that it doesn't contradict. Oh, and you most certainly do reject evidence that contradicts the Bible. For example, you have not explained why it is that there are no flowering plants below a certain level in the geologic strata. Remember, I am not talking about flowers. I am talking about flowering plants, like trees, grasses, cacti, etc. ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5707 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Umm, I just told you. Please explain the physical process of magnetization in rocks, describe the physical process of how that magnetization is symmetric about the ridge. Describe why the sedimentary sequences on land show the same signature as in the ocean floor and finally, explain all of this in the context of a global flood. You see, you have an overly simplistic view of magnetostratigraphy and tectonics in general. Such things are not 'healed' on bulletin boards such as these. You are getting grief, not so much because of your young earth stance, but because you don't understand how your arguments actually negate themselves. So, I say once again, grab those references I gave you and learn a bit more about the subject. Then come back and you won't make the same mistakes. At the very least, your arguments will be more learned and you might get useful dialogue. Quite frankly, this is how your argument sounds to people who have studied the subject: Imagine: Person A: Hi, you don't look so good. Person B: Well, I don't feel so good. Person A: I've read a couple of medical books written for the layman and an introductory physiology book. Person B: Gee, I don't know if that means you know what you're doing. Person A: Sure, the bible says all you need is faith. Now let me have a look at you. Person B: I dunno. Person A: I remember my references saying to check lymph nodes for infection. Lemme try. Person B: HEY! Those aren't my lymph nodes! Person A: Well, maybe it's your gall bladder! Person B: I thought the gall bladder was right here? Person A: No, it's able to move quite a bit. Let's listen to your heart. Person B: Aren't you using the wrong end of that thing? and on it goes... Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Joe,
So there are magnetic "anomalies" on land as well? Could you post a ref, or e-mail me with one, thanks, Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 03-21-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"TC,whats the rate of continental shifting please?"
--The rate of 'continental shifting', or 'mid-oceanic sea-floor spreading', is currently estimated at about 1-2 inches a year, though other ridges have separation rates 5-10 times more rapid such as the East-Pacific rise. If I am in a car and I speed to 100mph on a slightly sloped road, and shift into neutral, I'm going to start to slow down, pretty soon you will be going quite slowely compaired to your rapid advancement some time back. So what is the argument? ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5707 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Your argument is internally inconsistent with the observations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
quote: You havent read the post that just followed that one o take it. My argument in that one was what sort of evidence do you possess that no geologist on planet earth has,that 4500 years ago,the continents all started to move?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
TC,
Message 18 pls. Cheers, Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"May I quote
It was once thought that dinosaurs were strictly tropical or sub-tropical animals that avoided the colder regions of the world. In the late 1970s/early 1980s dinosaur remains were discovered along the southern coast of Victoria, in southeastern Australia, an area that would have been within the Antarctic circle at the time the animals lived. In 1987 dinosaur remains were also found within the Arctic circle in North Antarctica." --Lol, Exactly, they require gradualistic continental drift for this to be true. Have you not read your quote? "Funny how that proof is undoubtedly based on incredibly in accurate methods of dating, yes, the same dating methods that indicate a very old planet."--If you continue to assert that these relative dating methods are evidence of an indevidual interperetation of the old earth, than I find a great amount of ignorance in you. I should hope we do not continue asserting this. You would doubtedly even understand the evidence of such catacalysmic sea-floor spreading. "Again, the Bible makes references to Israel, the Mideast, and the Mediterranean. Now let me describe to you the position of the continents half-way to today’s position:North America resembles a lemonade jug with an alta california on the back. There is not Europe, nor is their a Arabian Peninsula. Africa is far from Asia and has a bite in its top. South America is attached to Africa by a narrow bridge of land. India is around present day South Africa, and Australia is still a part of Antarctica. Asia is completely deformed- The areas of the present day malay and thai peninsulas can be discerned as nothing more than a leg, about 15 degrees east of where it is now. The rest of Asia is unrecognizable. Doesn’t sound like the Biblical world of Jesus, where Moses managed to part the non-existent red sea" --Silly, the bible was written after the flood. I think I am well aware of the placement of the pangean continent. "Had the Red Sea existed in Moses’s time, You would be squashing most continental drift in to a 2000 year time period. A little unrealistic."--Very realistic, the seafloor spreading at the red sea, is quite slow, many orders of magnitude of decrease from say the east-pacific rise. "Really? Well, India would have to be moving damn fast to sprout such a tell mountain in around, oh, let’s say, 500-300 years."--Yes it would have. "You certainly seem to have it all figured out- funny, though, how th Egyptians, who according to you came around 300 years after the flood, never mentioned incredibly fast rates of drift, high tectonic activity."--Why would they, their not too close to any major spreading or continental collision. "Funny, also, how they managed to construct 100 foot high temples while the ground was shaking beneath their feet."--Even if there were, It would take an earthquake many magnitudes more catastrophic than todays most powerful to have any effect on such multi-ton bricks. "I’ve been to those pyramids, I can tell you that no one could construct them while the plates were speeding across the planet in a sick game of bumper cars."--You have a very large missunderstanding of plate tectonics, an in the very least, the model of rapid continental movement. "This creationist site suggests that all continental drift occurred during the flood. What’s your response to that?" --I'd have to say they never read a geology book in their life (continental drift occurs in modern times): quote: --Reference - The field guid to Geology - David Lambert; pg. 46--The most intense drifting would have occured during the flood though yes. "Coal comes first, and polar dinosaurs come second. Hot-cold-evolution"--Coal beds are composed of organic 'plants', not 'warm dinosaurs' let alone any dinosaurs. And again, coal beds are found all throughout the world in Carboniferous sediments, thats a good 180 million years of (assumption with gradualistic) geologic time. "So which scientist discovered that polar regions in Antarctica or Australia were moving north into warmer areas?"--Some clips from Encarta for your convenience: quote: And about the the first theoretical scientist to assert this hypothesis of continental drift:
quote: "Perhaps you should give me some data."--I don't know what you would use it for, I hope were not 'side stepping', isn't that the Creationists job? :\ "So this means, my friend, that Antarctica was once warm (when it was part of the Pangaea), evident in the existence of coal, which requires warm and moist conditions."--Actually, coal does not require 'warm and moist conditions' for formation, it requires pressure and heat. "Antarctica moved gradually south, slowly enough to allow the appearance of newly-equipped species.But you know better, judging by what data?" --judging by the fact of a very flawed missunderstanding. "Obviously, since it contradicts his divine word."--I need not excavate scripture to prove anything here, it is apparent enough itself.. "Maybe you could be so kind as to go into specifics."--specifics on what? I have shown you why you have a missunderstanding on what your quote says. "I’m just so stupid, you have to keep reiterating your basic points, backed up with data."--Your giving me the data, and your missunderstanding it yourself, I need not to do any research at this point. "Note the smiley face beside my statement. You jumped on the opportunity to insult my level of intelligence."--If I wished to do so, I would have done so. I said 'no comment'. I think I was being nice, most people on these boards would take the hit. "You really do think I am a stupid twelve year old, don’t you"--No, just alot to learn. "Right. I made a promise that I would no longer be sarcastic or insulting."-- Allright then. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"1/ There was a lower mantle viscosity for a year, & provide a model that allows this to start & stop within the flood time scale."
--Its not exactly that low viscosity was a one time event, that is, that it was normal (relatively as today) pre-flood, and it suddenly jumped off the scale and then settled down post-flood. It was more as, post flood, heat accumulated since its creation by effects such as mantle pressure, and isotopic disintegration of elements such as uranium and thorium. This heat as it accumulated would produce more and more pressure and from its heat and pressure it would have been eating away at weak points in the earths lithosphere (most of the lithosphere would have been a thicker continental equivalent density mass). Magma upwelling would have been chewing away at the crust and was either broken by this alone, or by impacting bodies transfering their energy to the ground and rifting nearby magma upwelling sources, which also would have contributed little heat early on. --I further explain in #2 "2/ That radioactive decay was significantly different 4,500 years ago. Despite positive evidence that at high temperatures & pressure half lives show little to no variation."--Not different, though at an increasing rate of decay because more nuclei would have been present to have yet to release their energy in desintegration. I don't think I would be to argue with how decay would have been irregular, in this scence. "Also, you need to explain why this radioactive decay occurred during the flood year only. What CAUSED the rate of decay to increase for a year, then return to "normal" levels?"--Not just during the flood, this would have been when lithosphere was becoming increasingly thin and the reason for higher decay rates is from higher quantities of nuclei to decay. "It must've done, or the continents would've been hurtling around since creation, according to you."--Continents wouldn't have been hurtling around because the lithosphere would have been much to stable. "If you can’t do this, point 1/ is falsified, & you STILL need to explain the alleged high rate of continental drift you assert occurred 4,500 years ago."--Newely researched points, though I expect to add on to this hypothesis as I do more reading. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"JM: Umm, I just told you. Please explain the physical process of magnetization in rocks"
--If I may quote from a book reference: quote: "describe the physical process of how that magnetization is symmetric about the ridge."--Because at the time of cooling, as explained above, after curie point is reached, the magnetic orientation of the current magnetic polarity is 'set', or 'locked'. "Describe why the sedimentary sequences on land show the same signature as in the ocean floor"--Because the rate of sea-floor spreading is a continuous effect that took place durring deposition of sedimentary deposits. "and finally, explain all of this in the context of a global flood."--The rate of seafloor spreading was a continuous action taking place during deposition of various sedimentary deposits. Because of this, you can come up with a relatively good estimate for how continents drifted through this process. "You see, you have an overly simplistic view of magnetostratigraphy and tectonics in general."--No, it is because we were unable to engage into such a discussion on paleomagnetism. "Such things are not 'healed' on bulletin boards such as these. You are getting grief, not so much because of your young earth stance, but because you don't understand how your arguments actually negate themselves."--Tell me how this is invalid. I have a fairly good education on paleomagnetismic properties and characteristics throughout geologic time. "So, I say once again, grab those references I gave you and learn a bit more about the subject. Then come back and you won't make the same mistakes."--I have not seen myself make a mistake within this hypothesis. "At the very least, your arguments will be more learned and you might get useful dialogue. Quite frankly, this is how your argument sounds to people who have studied the subject:"--I would beg to differ. --As a good note, I would advise you to keep arrogance to a minimum, when you make your assertions you make them with such convidence, which isn't the most wise thing to do. Something (edited; some people around the forums) have done many times over. ---------------- [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-21-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"You havent read the post that just followed that one o take it. My argument in that one was what sort of evidence do you possess that no geologist on planet earth has,that 4500 years ago,the continents all started to move?"
--See my response to Mark24's post 18. ------------------
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024