Evolution in the Anarctic

"According to creationists, continental drift occurred primarily during the flood. If this were true, then we would see no fossils of "polar" animals (all animals existed in at the same time pre-flood, and at this time the antarctic was warm)."
--Actually, you would see lots of fossils, you know why? Because they were all part of one continent pre-flood and then it split. I know know where you thought up such a conclusion."So what exactly does this mean? Well, it means that we should see a sudden extinction of creatures existing in tropical Antarctica, and these creatures should all be adapted to warm and realtively easy conditions."
--Mind you, the plate of antarctica during the time of pangea was stretching into a polar region."(the continental split [and Antarctica's movement south into cooler condtions], according to the creationists, occurred in a year's time.)"
--Wow, 1 year? Not very close. More like 4500 years, were still moving aren't we?"But we don't- we see dinosaurs on the continent gradually adapt to conditions in the region, which would be becoming progressively cooler as the continent moved south. This adaptation, or evolution, would have required a very long period of time to occur."
--Lets read further."Creationism would not allow this adaptation. Their only explanation for rapid continental drift is the world flood. Before the flood, the continents would have been drifting at their current rate, which would certainly not produce such miraculous terrestral changes. Thus, dinosaurs inhabiting the Antarctica would not be required to adapt to cooler conditions, as the continents would be drifting at an extremely slow rate. When the flood occurred, there would be a mass extinction of the animals inhabiting the continent, which would have been adapted, once again, to a warm climate."
--The continent of antarctica didn't just fly over to its current destination, it moved gradually (though still many orders of magnitude faster than today)."Creationists must inescapably accept that all Antarctic creatures existed at the same time pre-flood, despite the inadvertent assertion that creatures adapted for very cold condtions were living on a sub-tropic Antarctica, alongside sub-tropic creatures. (Antarctica was much further north and was thus much warmer when it was a part of the pangaea.) How do you explain this?"
--I think your confused, this is what we would expect, they didn't 'adapt', or speciate to be more accomidatable for such climates, as they moved down there they would have died when they reached climates that were too cold to tolerate, possibly even being sustained by the warm oceans. I see no need for an explination."And just the fact that there is coal in Antarctica alongside polar dinosaurs (higher in the strata, indicating a gradual drift south) would raise some eyebrows."
--Why would there 'not' be any coal in antarctica."Basically, why would polar dinosaurs, clearly adapted for harsh and cold conditions, be found on the smae continent that possesses coal, which requires very warm, moist conditions to form..."
--Thats a good question isn't it! Its because, they didn't adapt.."If the creationist model is correct, then we could expect to find only coal and warm-weather dinosaurs, considering that Anarctica was sub-tropic or temperate right up to the Great Flood, where it drifted, or rather, sped, to its current desolate and unihabitable position, leaving no time for the appearance of polar dinosaurs."
--I think we are still very confused, we find coal and 'warm weather' 'reptiles' (Most of them were not 'actually' dinosaurs) because these were the types of lizards existing at the time."Could the fact that dinosaurs are found to be younger than coal in Antarctica indicate a very slow and gradual drift south, and a very slow change in climate, allowing for the adaptation of polar dinosaurs?"
--No it does not indicate this, it indecates that these 'reptiles' were smarter than plants. And your 'polar dinosaurs' are not an indication that they adapted for cold climates but an indication that antarctica was not in such a climate at this time."Or am I just a dumb evilutionist drone?"
--No comment there.------------------

"JM: How does a creationist arrive at Pangea?"
--Plate tectonics, and it explains why we have magnetic anomalies in the ocean lithospheric basalt plates, which cooperates with a continental drift, in which you end up at a connection of the continents into a land mass which is known as Pangea.------------------

"JM: Wait a minute...Don't gloss over the details. Explain which magnetic stripes and how creationists used these to arrive at a Pangea configuration. Be specific in your answer. Explain how you arrived at time etc. You see, you have a real problem with your magnetic stripe story that you haven't been able to see. I want the details in order to hang you out to dry unless, of course, you realize it yourself. So, let's have the details of reconstructing all of Pangea according to Tc's hypothesis. Take your time, but give exact details. Be sure to corroborate your story with the land record of reversals."
--I'll be as specific as my current references allow, my best is of the lithospheric basalt polarity variegation is 'The historical atlas of the earth - Gould et al.'.
--I would consider some things such as erosion of the continental shelves, which would very likely have been at sea level at the time because of this effect it is a plausable inference. Considering the Mid-Atlantic ridge we see that there is reversing polarity indications in basalt in such striped fasions, the youngest crusting the ridge and the oldest outwardly. Knowing the effects of such polarity anomalies, that they occur in striped fasion, and that it continues today known by continental drift and sea-floor spreading. We come to a conjunction of, Eurasia, Africa, North America, Africa, and Antarctica. Thus, what we know as Pangea.
--Is there an error in my logic?------------------

"JM: Of course there is an error in your logic insofaras you wanting it to fit within a young earth scenario."
--Well of course you would think that, otherwize, you would not be an old earther now would you, heh."You say 'as far as my references allow'. I suspect you are drawing out the parts you like and disregarding the implications that hurt your hypothesis. I am willing to wait for you to think this one all the way through and answer questions as needed. The problem is this 'selective' filter you are placing on the data."
--Well in all respects, your inference on my word usage was a bit inaccurate. when I say 'as far as my references allow' (which was actually posed as 'as my current references allow', so it was a bit of a misnomer, not to mention misleading) I am saying that I obtain limited references, so I can only go by the information that it contains. These are my references I can go by:-Jon Erickson - Craters, Caverns, and Canyons; Delving beneath the Earth's surface. (World Tektite Distribution pg. 33-36)
-A Field Guide to Geology - David Lambert pg. 28-31
-The historical atlas of the earth - Gould et al; pg. 26-29--I am in no way, nor would ever, purposefully ignore relevant data in such an hypothesis on any supposition of bias. I am feeling a scence of disapprobation and malevolence. Infact, I would most love to see this data that I have biasedly inflicted to the creationist recycle bin."The magnetic anomalies on the ocean floor are part of a much larger story that you are ignoring. In fact, your acceptance of the anomalies already puts a hole in your young earth argument from simple physical principles."
--I am most interested in seeing how this is so. Please tell me Joe, what is it that I am missing or ignoring?------------------

"wo wo wait a minute. Pangea? the super continent? 4500 years ago? this is a joke right?"
--Sorry to disappoint you Ludvan, this is no Joke. I have found throughout my reading, that is there is no problem, and is infact, more appealing to the young earth theory with the inclusion of Pangea, or a relatively similar super-continent.------------------

"WE see warm-weather animals, and then cold-weather animals later."
--This is 'Not' what your references imply, they imply that this because it is 'required' for the gradualistic theory to be valid."These fossils were found in an area that was previously tropical. Here's a quote"In Antarctica, heaps of 3- million-year-old fossil leaves have been found within 400 kilometers of the South Pole. "from
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf075/sf075g10.htmwoudl this not indicate that most of the continent was warm, the southernmost regions being temperate or cold at most?"
--No problem with that."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."Well that would mean that 2000 years ago, the earth would have looked very different than today."
--No doubt."But it doesn't say that in the Bible. The Mediterranean, the Middle East, etc. are all mentioned and realted to in their current form, unless you beg to differ."
--Genesis 8 and Isaiah 52, if you read, you see where it indicates a topographical alteration."If we were spreading at a rate as to allow rapid drift, Mt. Everest would be springing up at a faster than an inch a year."
--Yes it did spring up faster than it does to day at a former date.."Prove to me that these magnitudes were possible- why don't wee see them today?"
--Lower mantle viscosity, a higher convection rate of the mantle from a heat produced out of high radionuclei decay rate in the outer core."Here is something of interest"The Bible framework for earth history makes no statement about continental splitting, so it is unnecessary and unwise to take a "Biblical" position on the question. When God created the land and sea, the waters were "gathered together unto one place" (Genesis 1:9), which may imply one large ocean and one large land mass. The scripture which says "the earth was divided" in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10:25) is generally thought to refer to the Tower of Babel division (Genesis 11:1-9) and some suppose this included continental separation. To believe, however, that the continents moved thousands of miles during the Tower of Babel incident without causing another global flood requires a miracle. Similarly, it is doubtful whether the long day of Joshua can be explained naturalistically by plate tectonics."from
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-032.htmcreationist site..."
--And?"Dinosaurs, clearly adapted for the cold (see previous references)"
--Please see top, this is not what is found, there is a lack of differentiation between these fossils and the only reason cold adaption is infered is because of the theory of gradualism."and coal, are found in the same areas but in different levels in the strata."
--Oh silly boy, Coal is found in vastly high quantities all throughout the globe in Carboniferous sediments, I do not see what your argument is attempting to support."The only explanation is that this area became gradually cooler as it drifted southward, resulting in the adaptation of dinosaurs. But at some point it became to cold for even these specially adapted dinosaurs to exist, and they gradually died out."
--Refer to the above statments."OK-look. The coal is found in the same areas as the polar dinosaurs, that are clearly adapted for cold climates. In the beginning of Antarctica, it was warm- thus, warm-climate species adapted/ As Anarctica became colder, animals either died out or adapted, up to the point at which conditions became intolerable."
--See above."Where would a polar dinosaur come from?"
--This requires that your 'polar dinosaurs' exist in your context."Why would it move into a warm, temperate to sub-tropical climate?"
--Plate tectonics."These fossils are higher in the strata than coal, indicating they came AFTER the coal"
--Applause*"and other warm-weather species."
--This is your fallacy."Antarctica was warm in the beginning. There were plants and animals appropriately adapted for these climates roaming the plains. Then the continent drfited south and became cooler. New and better adapted dinosaurs emerged, but other plants and animals died."
--Please see above."Don't you hate repeating yourself?"
--Yes I sertaintly do (you read my mind)."I won't even bother responding to your arrogant and truly insulting statement."
--You set yourself up on that one, besides, I wasn't the one insulting you, you were."I could blast you with insults and rhetoric, but I promised to do otherwise."
--Yes, though I am sure you would not lower yourself to such an insignificant immature level.------------------

"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?------------------

"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:

---

Geographical - Some continents coasts would almost interlock if rearranged like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. for instance, South america fits into Africa.

​

Geological - Old mountain zones of matching ages appear as belts crossing southern continents if these are joined together in a certain way.

​

Climatic - Glacial deposits and rocks scratched by stones in moving ice show that ice coverd huge tracts of southern continents 300 million years ago. This suggests these places lay in polar gegions.

​

Paleomagnetic - Alignments of magnetized particles in old rocks show that southern continents all lay in polar regions.

---

--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:

---

The theory of plate tectonics was formulated during the early 1960s, and it revolutionized the field of geology. Scientists have successfully used it to explain many geological events, such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions as well as mountain building and the formation of the oceans and continents.
Plate tectonics arose from an earlier theory proposed by German scientist Alfred Wegener in 1912. Looking at the shapes of the continents, Wegener found that they fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. Using this observation, along with geological evidence he found on different continents, he developed the theory of continental drift, which states that today's continents were once joined together into one large landmass.
Geologists of the 1950s and 1960s found evidence supporting the idea of tectonic plates and their movement. They applied Wegener's theory to various aspects of the changing earth and used this evidence to confirm continental drift. By 1968 scientists integrated most geologic activities into a theory called the New Global Tectonics, or more commonly, Plate Tectonics.

​

"Plate Tectonics." Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

---

And about the the first theoretical scientist to assert this hypothesis of continental drift:

quote:

---

Wegener, Alfred (1880-1930), German meteorologist, noted chiefly for advocating the theory of continental drift at a time when the technological means for proving the theory had not yet been developed. Wegener served as professor of meteorology at Graz University from 1924 to 1930. Drawing on several lines of evidence, he rejuvenated the idea that all the continents were once joined as one landmass, which he named Pangaea. He further proposed that this ancestral supercontinent had begun breaking up approximately 200 million years earlier into a northern portion, which he called Laurasia, and a southern portion, named Gondwanaland by the Austrian geologist Eduard Suess. Wegener's theories, described in The Origin of Continents and Oceans (1915; trans. 1924), did not receive scientific corroboration, however, until the 1960s when oceanographic research revealed the phenomenon known as seafloor spreading. Wegener died during an expedition to Greenland.

​

"Wegener, Alfred." Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

---

"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. ------------------

"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.------------------

"JM: Umm, I just told you. Please explain the physical process of magnetization in rocks"
--If I may quote from a book reference:

quote:

---

All materials are magnetized when they cool to below their Curie point. They then carry the magnetic orientation of the Earth's field at that time. Igneous rocks, formed from cooling magma, therefore show the direction of the Earth's field at the point when they solidify into rock. In sedimentary rocks the process is more subtle. Provided there are tranquil conditions, magnetized particles of sediment will orientate themselves in the direction of the prevailing magnetic field. As they fall slowly through water the tiny particles of magnetized mud and sand will line up. When the sediment forms into rock this direction is preserved. Unfortunately rocks are often reheated by turbulent events around them, and their magnetization can be destroyed and reformed many times. Geologists have to ensure that the magnetization they are measuring is of the original field, when the rock was first formed.

---

"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]

"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.------------------

"TC,i'm not talking about your wish list that you NEED for your model to work. I asked you to share with me...and everyone else here,this OBSERVABLE,QUANTIFIABLE,QUALIFIABLE evidence that you seem to possess that indicates to you that 4500 years ago,there was a super continent that DID break up into what we can see today. In other words,im not interested in what you BELIEVE happened or WANT to believe happened but on what you can DEMONSTRATE happened based on evidence observable TODAY. clear enough for you?"
--Right, I think you are commenting on a different post, I would like a reply to my post #28 in this thread. I give a very plausable explination based on known naturalistic science.------------------

"You give a good explanation of what MIGHT have happened IF certain elements DID all come into play as noted...and at the risk of repeating myself tonight,i'm still gonna ask you what EVIDENCE you can point to that would lead ME to believe that this explanation is the correct one..."
--If I might quote myself from another thread with basically the same comment:

quote:

---

--What 'could have happend' is the most your ever going to get from an inference on the past ludvan, it is what Evolution is entirely based on, along with gradualistic geologic time, its a 'could have happend' explination. Now whether this explination can explain all evidence, and is plausable, is something that is worthy of discussion. If you can challenge whether it can explain such phenomena or its plausability, have at it.

---

"and then explain to me how come 200 years of geological studies simply "missed" it and needed the help of a highschool kid to open their eyes to the "truth"..."
--Hey, I should start a new revolution. (they have a pre-consieved assumption on gradualism and uniformitarianism, everything must comply with that scale, and how can it not when it the time scale is so long?)------------------

"And you conclude that this "pre-conceived assumption" IS NOT based on very good deductive resoning or decades of experience in their respective field,i take it."
--This is an assumption based on uniformitarianism, that is, the idea that how it occurs today, is how it has always occured, and in doing so, reject any other notion on this fundamental assumption. So again I must ask, is there an objection toward my hypothesis, may it become a theory, as I see it at this point just as conceivable as the theory of plate-tectonics.------------------