Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 4:05 AM
17 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (3 members, 14 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,955 Year: 4,992/19,786 Month: 1,114/873 Week: 10/460 Day: 10/91 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
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 yet responded
 Message 3 by TrueCreation, posted 03-19-2002 5:53 PM quicksink has responded

  
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 yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 44 (7341)
03-19-2002 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
03-18-2002 5:44 AM


"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.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 03-18-2002 5:44 AM quicksink has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Joe Meert, posted 03-19-2002 7:04 PM TrueCreation has responded
 Message 7 by quicksink, posted 03-19-2002 10:27 PM TrueCreation has responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3786 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 4 of 44 (7349)
03-19-2002 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by TrueCreation
03-19-2002 5:53 PM


quote:

--Mind you, the plate of antarctica during the time of pangea was stretching into a polar region.

JM: How does a creationist arrive at Pangea?

Cheers

Joe Meert


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by TrueCreation, posted 03-19-2002 8:22 PM Joe Meert has responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 44 (7362)
03-19-2002 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Joe Meert
03-19-2002 7:04 PM


"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.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Joe Meert, posted 03-19-2002 7:04 PM Joe Meert has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Joe Meert, posted 03-19-2002 9:37 PM TrueCreation has responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3786 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 6 of 44 (7367)
03-19-2002 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by TrueCreation
03-19-2002 8:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"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.

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by TrueCreation, posted 03-19-2002 8:22 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 03-20-2002 6:08 PM Joe Meert has responded

    
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 responded

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

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


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


bump
  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 44 (7427)
03-20-2002 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Joe Meert
03-19-2002 9:37 PM


"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?

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Joe Meert, posted 03-19-2002 9:37 PM Joe Meert has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by LudvanB, posted 03-20-2002 6:14 PM TrueCreation has responded
 Message 11 by Joe Meert, posted 03-20-2002 6:46 PM TrueCreation has responded

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 44 (7428)
03-20-2002 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by TrueCreation
03-20-2002 6:08 PM


wo wo wait a minute. Pangea? the super continent? 4500 years ago? this is a joke right?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 03-20-2002 6:08 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by TrueCreation, posted 03-20-2002 10:10 PM LudvanB has responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3786 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 11 of 44 (7433)
03-20-2002 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by TrueCreation
03-20-2002 6:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--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. 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. 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.

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 03-20-2002 6:08 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 03-20-2002 10:08 PM Joe Meert has responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 44 (7443)
03-20-2002 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Joe Meert
03-20-2002 6:46 PM


"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?

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Joe Meert, posted 03-20-2002 6:46 PM Joe Meert has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Joe Meert, posted 03-21-2002 9:07 AM TrueCreation has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 44 (7444)
03-20-2002 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by LudvanB
03-20-2002 6:14 PM


"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.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by LudvanB, posted 03-20-2002 6:14 PM LudvanB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by LudvanB, posted 03-21-2002 1:00 AM TrueCreation has responded
 Message 20 by nator, posted 03-21-2002 8:25 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 44 (7448)
03-20-2002 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by quicksink
03-19-2002 10:27 PM


"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.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.

"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.htm

creationist 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.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by quicksink, posted 03-19-2002 10:27 PM quicksink has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by quicksink, posted 03-21-2002 4:08 AM TrueCreation has responded
 Message 18 by mark24, posted 03-21-2002 6:04 AM TrueCreation has responded

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 44 (7459)
03-21-2002 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by TrueCreation
03-20-2002 10:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"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.


TC,whats the rate of continental shifting please?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by TrueCreation, posted 03-20-2002 10:10 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by LudvanB, posted 03-21-2002 1:26 AM LudvanB has not yet responded
 Message 23 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 11:42 AM LudvanB has responded

  
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019