Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution in the Anarctic
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 44 (7199)
03-18-2002 5:44 AM


Here is an issue that I should bring up- scientists have discovered the fossils of many "polar dinosaurs" in Antarctica, apparently adapted for 6 month winters and long, cold condtions. Just this causes problems and contradictions for the creationist model.
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).
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. (the continental split [and Antarctica's movement south into cooler condtions], according to the creationists, occurred in a year's time.) 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.
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.
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 really have no idea how a creationist could reason his or her way out of this predicament, but in anticipation of another episode of "Reference Wars", I will provide unbiased and highly credible sources.
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.
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... 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.
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? Or am I just a dumb evilutionist drone?
References:
http://www.oceansofkansas.com/antartic.html
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/locations/Antarctica .shtml
---coal---
do I really need a reference for the existence of coal in Anarctica- but just in case.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1137.asp
Ironic- this one is creationist and discusses coal in antarctica.
Any criticisms of these references are welcome. My assertion above is based on my own analysis of the facts. I am yet to find a site that brings up this issue in regard to the YEC-Evo debate. My assertion is very possibly flawed.
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-18-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by quicksink, posted 03-18-2002 11:07 PM quicksink has not replied
 Message 3 by TrueCreation, posted 03-19-2002 5:53 PM quicksink has replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 44 (7275)
03-18-2002 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
03-18-2002 5:44 AM


push--preciate a reply of a sort

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 03-18-2002 5:44 AM quicksink has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 44 (7371)
03-19-2002 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by TrueCreation
03-19-2002 5:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"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.
WE see warm-weather animals, and then cold-weather animals later.
"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.
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.htm
woudl this not indicate that most of the continent was warm, the southernmost regions being temperate or cold at most?
"(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?
SO you have proof that the plates could split under natural conditions within a matter of 4500 years? Well that would mean that 2000 years ago, the earth would have looked very different than today. 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.
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.
"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).
Prove to me that these magnitudes were possible- why don't wee see them today?
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.htm
creationist site...
"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.
Dinosaurs, clearly adapted for the cold (see previous references), and coal, are found in the same areas but in different levels in the strata. 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.
This does require an explanation
"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.
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.
"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..
Where would a polar dinosaur come from? Why would it move into a warm, temperate to sub-tropical climate? These fossils are higher in the strata than coal, indicating they came AFTER the coal and other warm-weather species.
"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.
see above
"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.
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.
The fossil strata indicates this, and common sense indicates this.
Don't you hate repeating yourself?
"Or am I just a dumb evilutionist drone?
"
--No comment there.
I won't even bother responding to your arrogant and truly insulting statement. I could blast you with insults and rhetoric, but I promised to do otherwise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by TrueCreation, posted 03-19-2002 5:53 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by TrueCreation, posted 03-20-2002 10:55 PM quicksink has replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 44 (7420)
03-20-2002 5:37 PM


bump

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 44 (7463)
03-21-2002 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by TrueCreation
03-20-2002 10:55 PM


quote:
"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.
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. 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:
"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.htm
woudl 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.[/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:
"Well that would mean that 2000 years ago, the earth would have looked very different than today."
--No doubt.
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:
"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.
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:
"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..
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:
"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.
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:
"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.htm
creationist site..."
--And?
This creationist site suggests that all continental drift occurred during the flood. What’s your response to that?
quote:
"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.
I have reaffirmed my asserion with another reference. Go to top
quote:
"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.
Coal comes first, and polar dinosaurs come second. Hot-cold-evolution
quote:
"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.
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:
"These fossils are higher in the strata than coal, indicating they came AFTER the coal"
--Applause*
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:
"and other warm-weather species."
--This is your fallacy.
Obviously, since it contradicts his divine word.
Maybe you could be so kind as to go into specifics.
quote:
"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.
Yeah- I’m just wrong.
quote:
"Don't you hate repeating yourself?"
--Yes I sertaintly do (you read my mind).
I’m just so stupid, you have to keep reiterating your basic points, backed up with data.
quote:
"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.
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:
"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.
Right. I made a promise that I would no longer be sarcastic or insulting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by TrueCreation, posted 03-20-2002 10:55 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 6:36 PM quicksink has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 44 (7471)
03-21-2002 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by mark24
03-21-2002 6:04 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mark24, posted 03-21-2002 6:04 AM mark24 has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 44 (7605)
03-22-2002 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by TrueCreation
03-21-2002 9:42 PM


quote:
"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?
Great. Now where is your evidence to disprove or at least challenge this theory?
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.
So how do you date rocks, TC?
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"
--Silly, the bible was written after the flood. I think I am well aware of the placement of the pangean continent.
I am aware that the Bible was written after the flood. I am referring to the new testament. In it, all land masses are completely identical to those of today. But you have passages to suggest otherwise.
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."
--Very realistic, the seafloor spreading at the red sea, is quite slow, many orders of magnitude of decrease from say the east-pacific rise.
Ok- let’s say that continental drift was faster right up to the time of Jesus, when it mysteriously slowed down.
Now scientists, looking at magnetic striped, have found that continental drift has remained at a steady pace (of course I don’t have to explain that)
If we saw an indredible acceleration of continental drift up to year zero of Christ, then we would see magnetic striping packed in early striped, and then at present day layers later. Do we?
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."
--Yes it would have.
Funny how the Indians made no mention of their continent slamming into Asia. Neither did the Tibetans or the Chinese make note of the rapidly sprouting Himalayas. They were around at Jesus’s time and before.
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."
--Why would they, their not too close to any major spreading or continental collision.
As I said before, Africa had a large bite in its northern region. This bite would have had to mend itself 300 years post-flood. Meanwhile, the Ehtiopian Highlands would have been growing at an amazing rate, which they surely would have noticed.
quote:
"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 concede, that was a bad argument. But their would be earthquakes many magnitudes of today- the continents were speeding across the planet.
And what about the Chinese/Japanese? Oh- I forgot, the Japanese didn’t exist at that time- only after Japan was formed by miraculaous volcanic activity did the Chinese migrate to the region.
quote:
"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.
See above.
quote:
"
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):
Like most creationists.
quote:
--The most intense drifting would have occured during the flood though yes.
So where are those tighly packed magnetic stripes? Where are those quickly changing northern orientations? Where is your proof?
quote:
"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.
Please don’t insult me- I think I know that coal is made of ancient planets. I never suggested otherwise. What I did so absurdly suggest is that if coal existed in Antarctica, other warm-weather animals (dinosaurs, maybe) would too. And this site seems to agree with my crazy opinion
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/dinosaurs/antarct.jsp
quote:
Hammer says the animals probably lived more than 175 million years ago, in the middle Jurassic. Few fossils are known from that period, when dinosaurs are thought to have reached their largest sizes. The new find is one of the earliest large carnosaurs; a similar sized skeleton without a skull has been found in South America. The Antarctic dinosaur is 8 to 9 metres long, shorter than the 12-metre Allosaurus of the late Jurassic.
This site also mentions the cold-weather dinosaurs.
quote:
"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.
Were you trying to educate me, or make a point? You have shown me no data that dinosaurs, adapted for the cold, were forced into warmer regions.
quote:
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.
We finished studying Wegener in class.
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? :\
Data for your theory? How is that side-stepping?
Your theory cannot coexist with gradualism. Therefore, there must be some evidence that indicates a chaotic drift, that contradicts gradualism.
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."
--Actually, coal does not require 'warm and moist conditions' for formation, it requires pressure and heat.
Well that’s just wrong. It is true that decayed plants can only be compressed with heat and extreme pressure, but those plants can only get there in the first place in warm and moist conditions. Here is an interesting quote that should hust you a little
quote:
The warm, moist climate of the Carboniferous was ideally suited for the dense forests that left their remains, and also for the amphibians and insects that diversified and radiated throughout the world during the time.
From:
http://seaborg.nmu.edu/earth/Pennsylv.html
You told me that most coal formed during this time, and even reffered to Antarctic coal originating in this period. Hmm
quote:
"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.
Please explain your theory then, and back up your findings with data.
quote:
"Obviously, since it contradicts his divine word."
--I need not excavate scripture to prove anything here, it is apparent enough itself..
It was a joke.
quote:
"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.
Perhaps you could provide me with core samples, or evidence of chaotic drift in magnetic striping.
quote:
"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.
Yes you do- you would like to disprove the theory of gradualism, and prove chaos- now do it please.
quote:
"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.
Give me a break! You know your intention I’m not that dumb.
Why didn’t you just ignore the statement?
quote:
"You really do think I am a stupid twelve year old, don’t you"
--No, just alot to learn.
I do have a lot to learn. Perhaps you could enlighten me with your theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 9:42 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by doctrbill, posted 03-22-2002 11:40 AM quicksink has replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 44 (8090)
04-02-2002 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by doctrbill
03-22-2002 11:40 AM


Hi doctrbill! I'm back (ahhhh!!)
I realized that my knowledge of many subjects is truncated and thus I have difficulty participating in scientifically technical deabtes. Therefore, I have bought a "Handy Science Answer Book". What I have found is that this book, composed of data compiled by some of the more qualified in their fields, supports my presumption that animals adapted, or evolved for cold conditions. This data is supported by the fact that warm-weather creatures are found in the same locations in Antarctica, only warm-weather creatures are lower in the fossil strata. Rapid climate change, which is inadvertantly and irreveresibly suggested by the creationist model of continental drift, would not allow for such adaptation to occur.
So TC, I ask the question again- why do we not find only warm-weather species or cold-weather species in Antarctica.
See- I'm not an idiot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by doctrbill, posted 03-22-2002 11:40 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by doctrbill, posted 10-17-2002 12:05 AM quicksink has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024