Antarctica 'Lost World' Found

Netscape News ^ | March 7, 2004

[pepsi_junkie]

Two teams of researchers, working separately thousands of miles from each other but both defeating incredible odds, have made stunning finds in frozen Antarctica -- so stunning that the National Science Foundation calls their discoveries evidence of a lost world.

The researchers found what they believe to be the fossilized remains of two species of dinosaurs previously unknown to science. One is a 70-million-year old quick-moving meat-eater found on the bottom of an Antarctic sea, while and the other is a 200-million-year-old giant plant-eater that was found on the top of a mountain, reports Reuters.

The lost world in which these two dinosaurs lived was very different from the Antarctica we know now. Their Antarctica was not frigid and frozen. Their Antarctica was warm and wet.

The 70-million-year-old carnivore was small for a dinosaur at just 6 to 8 feet tall. Scientists believe it is an entirely new species of carnivorous dinosaur that is related to the enormous meat-eating tyrannosaurs and the equally voracious, but smaller and swifter, velociraptors. Think "Jurassic Park." Now scream in terror! Found on James Ross Island off the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula by a team led by Judd Case from St. Mary's College of California, it likely floated out to sea after it died and then sank to the bottom of the Weddell Sea. Reuters explains that its bones and teeth show that it was a two-legged animal that survived in the Antarctic long after other predators took over elsewhere on the globe. "One of the surprising things is that animals with these more primitive characteristics generally haven't survived as long elsewhere as they have in Antarctica," Case told Reuters.

The 200-million-year-old herbivore, a primitive sauropod that had a long neck and four legs, was found by a team led by William Hummer from Augustana College in Rock Island, Illinois on the 13,000-foot high Mt. Kirkpatrick near the Beardmore Glacier. When this dino lived, the area was a soft riverbed. The team found dinosaur bones, specifically part of a huge pelvis and ilium. "This site is so far removed geographically from any site near its age, it's clearly a new dinosaur to Antarctica," Hammer told Reuters. This dinosaur was probably about 30 feet long, but was part of a lineage that went on to produce animals as large as 100 feet long.

Both excavations were supported by the National Science Foundation, an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering.

[DannyTN]

Here is a response to the Flat-Earth article which shows it's nothing more than a contortion of what the Bible really says. Nowhere does the Bible say the earth is flat.

It does say God hung the earth and fixed it so that it is immovable. That doesn't mean that the earth isn't in motion or in orbit, just that nobody but God can move it out of orbit. If you can, then lets see a demonstration.

Flat Earth Bible Response

[Dead Corpse]

Revelation 7:1-17.

I thought you guys said that God protected his word from abuse and mistranslation and that every word is true.

Guess not huh?

[Alter Kaker]

Once again, still came to the conclusion that glass is an amorphous solid and not a crystaline solid. Do look up the difference sometime. Thanks.

Amorphous or crystaline, glass is solid. Thank you, have a nice day.

[Alter Kaker]

Don't you think it's strange that tree rings can't take you back further than 10,000?

No. There are not dead trees around older than that.

Shouldn't you be able to dig down find a fossilized tree, match the rings and keep going.

Not enough fossil trees for that.

[DannyTN]

"Not enough fossil trees for that."

Really?! Shouldn't there be? 100's of millions of years of evolution and there aren't enough fossils of even something as plentiful as trees?

[RinaseaofDs]

Antarctica warm and wet?

Impossible, the world would have come to an end. Just ask a greenie.

[DannyTN]

"I thought you guys said that God protected his word from abuse and mistranslation and that every word is true. "

We said God has preserved His word. People abuse it and mistranslate it all the time. The cites you've posted have certainly abused it. Fortunately for you and probably the rest of us too, God doesn't blast us off the face of the earth for misusing scripture.

What is your point with the Revelations passage? Four corners is a reference to the four directions which we still use today. Here is another site that refutes the flat earth and has some excellent references showing the Bible considers the earth round. Round Earth Bible

[Dead Corpse]

Yes. Solid. I never argued that now did I? Look up Amorphous. Crystaline structures are held in place by the internal arrangement of atoms. "Amorphous" solids react quite differently to heat and stress than crystaline solids. Glass and water ice do not fall under the crystaline definition.

So, what does this mean in relation to our discussion. Well, take a dark ariplane, park it on ice, and let it sit. As the ice heats and cools, at a completely different rate than the surrounding ice, it will eventually "bury" itself in the ice thorough a number of different reactions, including the addition of more snow on top of it. Ice cores, on the other hand, are all made of ICE. They melt and freeze at the SAME rate. So while ice core data may be great for determining the age of the ice itself and any gas bubles frozen in it, it isn't an accurate portrayal for the age of more solid objects like airplanes.

[Dead Corpse]

So, if the plain language of the KJV is no longer a valid Bible translation, which one is the One True Bible?

And which Pillars did God set the Earth upon? Face it Bub, there is more evidence in the KJV Bible to support a flat Earth viewpoint than there are Biblical scholars willing to dig into the original languages.

If the resulting translations are so far off in their meaning, then I'd say God needs to fire whatever Angel he has keeping an eye on those re-printing his texts.

[Outlaw76]

Never heard of Petrified Trees? The rings are a pain to try and count most of the time, and you would really need a point of reference to do it.

That being said, I'm sure someone has tried to align things and make the count. Also, we have fossils from before the time that tree's inhabited the planet. But I don't think you 'Young Earth' types believe that dinosaurs really existed much less early single cell and simple multi-cell organisms do you?

[Outlaw76]

"Not enough fossil trees for that."

Really?! Shouldn't there be? 100's of millions of years of evolution and there aren't enough fossils of even something as plentiful as trees? Hmmm What about this forest? Patagonia

Let me guess, seeds planted by Satan to test the faithful...

[The Scorpion King]

Eutopia? Arcadia? Cythera? Shangrala?

[DannyTN]

What about them? The link you provided didn't say anything about the rings being used to determine their age. Only that scientists think they are 150 million years old. But they don't say how they arrived at that age.

They mention lava rocks, but we've seen Radiometric dating fail spectacularly by falsely dating 16 recent volcanic erumptions as millions of years old.

[DannyTN]

"Never heard of Petrified Trees?"

Of course I have. They are more evidence for the flood.

It's interesting that the oldest trees in the petrified forest are around 1000 years. But there are redwoods growing in California that are 3500 years old. Why aren't there older trees in the fossils?

Were there two catastrophic events, one 3500-4000 years ago and another 1000-1500 years before that? Or is it possible that the 1000 year old trees preserved as fossils are those that grew in the time between creation and the flood and the redwoods alive today grew after the flood?

petrified forest

bristlecone pine ring dating

[sirchtruth]

It is a belief - just like my belief that world is round. Both are supported by absolute evidence

Ah... NO! But your religion is showing!

[sirchtruth]

Which is what, that world was created 6000 years ago? You must be mad.

I might be mad but I have more evidence that supports young age theory...than you do that supports the 70-200 million old age theory.

Oh, wait it's not really millions of years with you guys, it's BILLIONS.

[sirchtruth]

One: There is not one line in the bible that attributes the age of the earth being spoken by God.

Let me explain something to you...I'm not offended at all at your opinions and your right about attributes toward the age of the earth, However there is one thing you totally over look. There is much more evidence in the bible to lead one to conclude it's accounting is authentic. Much more than any scientist rogue theory.

I believe in science, I believe in the pursuit of accuracy, what I will not put my trust or faith in is some far fetch theory for which there is no way to test the accuracy...and that is evolution an old earth theory.

The most important thing I want you to understand is you faith in your theory is RELIGION just as mine is. So don't tell me yours is scientific and mine is religious when we are discussing something we both can not prove scientifically.

[sirchtruth]

How do you explain away tree rings and ice core samples?

It's not a fact that these two are annual. Especially ice rings which can simply be due to temperature variants...Look it's a simple matter of faith, not fact. I don't have a problem at all with someone BELIEVING that the earth is millions of years old. What bothers me is treating it as fact, when it is nothing more than speculation...and not scientific at all.

Unless you were there millions of years ago, it can not be fact and I can point to just as many things as you can to show why the earth is NOT old.

I can speculate too based on the observable facts.

[Don Joe]

Here's an experiment for you Einstein. In the middle of the Winter when you get a good solid cold snap. Take a dark colored rock and set it on the ice. Come back in a few weeks.

THAT was my original contention moron. A dark substance absorbs radiant HEAT, more so than the surrounding ICE would. See my post #29. Also, WEIGHT can cause compressive HEAT which increase local thermoplasticity.

You can continue to argue against Newton, I just don't have the time.

As for using the whole Greenland Airplane under Ice to support your Young Earth theory of Biblical accuracy, here's some more flat earth stuff for you...

Blah, blah, blah. I got your message at the first "moron". Insults like that are the debate equivalent to the "click click" of an empty gun.

By the way, you might want to lay your Weston Master II (the III and later aren't black, you see) on the ice, and measure exactly how much light there is once it's under the ice. I'd be interested in your explanation of how a dark object can absorb enough light to melt the ice when the ice itself is thick enough to block the light.

But since you said you're done with me, I guess I won't ever find the answer. Boo hoo...

[Admin Moderator]

Let's tone it down a bit.

Thanks.