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.

[all_mighty_dollar]

Atkinsaurus?

Very Good ..

[Modernman]

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.

That's just silly. So, based on your reasoning, the civil war did not happen because you did not see it. Since nobody actually saw OJ murder his wife, he was innocent of the crime. Because we can't actually see them, atoms do no exist.

Jesus' crucifiction cannot be a fact, based on your position.

[DannyTN]

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

Well "four corners" is not wrong. It refers to the four directions. It's just some for some evolutionists determined to accuse the church of believing in a flat earth, it does conjure the image of a map. KJV is fine. The following site speaks to what the church believed through the ages and how the "myth of the church believing in the flat earth" came to be.

Who invented the concept of the flat earth (Answer - Evolutionists)"

>Isaiah 40:22 - It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

And which Pillars did God set the Earth upon?

Do you suggest that the ground is foundationless? That the ground is supported is evidenced everytime we walk outside. That your imagination of what God meant by pillars is limited to greek columns is your limitation not God's. That the earth is hung in place is also evident as neither the moon nor the sun has crashed into us. That your imagination thinks of a picture hanger instead of physcial forces like gravitation and momentum is again your limitation not God's.

[DannyTN]

"What percent of trees alive today are 3500 years old? .00001%? You really think is surprising that none such have been found amoung fossils?

Well redwoods commonly live to be 2000 years old. I don't know what percent make it to 3500. I've read that the redwoods don't die of old age. I'm not sure if that is true or not.

[DannyTN]

Here is another response to the "pillars" question and shows the various way the Bible uses the term.

It also brings out the following verse and Job is considered to be one of the oldest books in the Bible:

Job 26:7 ‘He suspends the Earth over nothing’.

Pillars

[Alter Kaker]

Well redwoods commonly live to be 2000 years old. I don't know what percent make it to 3500. I've read that the redwoods don't die of old age. I'm not sure if that is true or not.

Forget redwoods. Of ALL trees in the world, what percent are 3500 years old? 2000 years old? These are extraordinarily rare alive, let alone fossils. You think is surprising?

[Alter Kaker]

>Isaiah 40:22 - It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

The earth is not a circle.

[sirchtruth]

Jesus' crucifiction cannot be a fact, based on your position.

Let me clarify. Not confirmed by a living eye witness!

There is NOTHING you can point to to confirm the earth is millions of years old. It is just speculation and conjecture.

I'm sorry if you don't like that fact!

[DannyTN]

"The earth is not a circle."

It didn't say the earth was a circle, it said "he circle of the earth". The earth has a cirumference which is roughly a circle, and thus appropriately called "the circle of the earth".

You are determined to find fault where there is none.

[DannyTN]

"Forget redwoods."

The petrified forest is primarily redwoods, if you are going to use ring analysis for an historical analysis you should focus on redwoods or sequoias because of their longetivity.

Of course I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't fossils of apple trees living over 1000 years. Because apple trees don't live that long. My comments only make sense with regard to long lived trees like redwoods.

[Modernman]

Let me clarify. Not confirmed by a living eye witness!

I'm not sure why creationists get so hung up on the idea that a living eyewitness is somehow important. One fact to consider is that eyewitness accounts are quite unreliable and generally incomplete. People only remember a minority of what they actually see. If anything, eyewitness accounts are less relible than evidence not based on human senses.

Also, keep in mind that human senses are quite limited. Our eyesight only covers a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Our hearing is pretty primitive, compared to a lot of species.

So, I'm not sure why creationists put eyewitness accounts on such a pedestal.

There is NOTHING you can point to to confirm the earth is millions of years old. It is just speculation and conjecture.

Nothing other than a couple of centuries worth of geological, chemical, physical, astronomical and biological evidence.

And the Earth is billions of years old, not millions.

I've asked creationists this question before: What evidence, if any, would convince you that the Earth is billions of years old?

[sirchtruth]

One fact to consider is that eyewitness accounts are quite unreliable and generally incomplete.

Look, I don't think you're stupid, but this has got to be the most idiotic comment in the context of what we are debating I have ever seen.

Think about what you have written and has to happen for there to be an EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTING of a billion yr old earth.

Like I said I don't mind anyone stating observable facts, but speculation and conjecture is not fact!

I believe in the beginning God... and you believe in the beginning dirt...don't tell me your belief is based on science and not religion.

What evidence, if any, would convince you that the Earth is billions of years old?

Considering there is none that I've seen so far, it's hard to tell, however tell me, how old is the Sahara Desert?

[Modernman]

Like I said I don't mind anyone stating observable facts, but speculation and conjecture is not fact!

Your definition of "observable" seems to be extremely limited. The only way something can be observable, in your view, is if a human being actually saw it occur. So, anything before the existence of human begins (and a system of writing) cannot be observed.

I believe in the beginning God... and you believe in the beginning dirt...don't tell me your belief is based on science and not religion.

Don't presume to tell me what I believe. Just because I don't buy a simplistic, literalist reading of Genesis doesn't mean I don't believe in God.

[sirchtruth]

The only way something can be observable, in your view, is if a human being actually saw it occur.

No, you've misinterpreted what I mean, although I can see why you would think this...let me explain.

Tree and ice rings, eventhough observable, do not neccessarily indicate annual growth. Thus it can not be argued as FACT to decipher the age of anything.

So, since you don't buy a simplistic, literal view of scripture I guess life is a metaphor for you?

Tell me, how long is a day in your time?

[Modernman]

Tree and ice rings, eventhough observable, do not neccessarily indicate annual growth. Thus it can not be argued as FACT to decipher the age of anything.

Just because you can show exceptions to tree and ice ring dating, doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

So, since you don't buy a simplistic, literal view of scripture I guess life is a metaphor for you?

I generally don't buy scripture, period. I certainly don't believe, for example, that Jesus rose from the dead.

Tell me, how long is a day in your time?

Depends on where I'm standing and/or how fast I'm moving. On Mars, the day is longer. If I'm travelling at close to the speed of light, one of my days is a lot longer than one of your days.

[sirchtruth]

Just because you can show exceptions to tree and ice ring dating, doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And it also doesn't mean that you can determin ironclad facts! Thanks for making my point!

I generally don't buy scripture, period. I certainly don't believe, for example, that Jesus rose from the dead.

I tell ya what...I have a challenge for you. If you're so inclined go read Genesis 5 and tell me generally what that chapter is about.

[ApplegateRanch]

Re-read Genesis carefully.

"In the begining..." then comes "and God moved over the face of the waters". There is a break in time between the two parts, of UNKNOWN (and unknowable from text) duration. The only "6-7,000 years" comes from human calculation of time from THE Adam's being "formed" (adam = mankind, having already been Created in the Sixth Day) as the Gardener. i.e. The beginnings of agricultural civilzation.

The actual "beginning" IOW, takes place at the start of the "First Earth Age" "the world that then was", etc mentioned in 2 Peter & elsewhere. That leaves more than enough room for whatever science finds & verifies about the earth's age; and also even allows what evidence of life they find from those times, which Age ended with Satan's fall.

Science & the Bible do not conflict, but it takes more than Webster's to know what some of the words used by the translators mean.

[SunkenCiv]

Just a GGG update.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

[CaptainPenguin]

So... What I want to know is... Why can't we find a happy medium on this?

Let's strike out the whole "glass" argument, that's irrelevant and a cause of strife; let's forget the flat earth thing, which was brought up by the scientifics as a derogatory; let's forget the tree/ice rings, since that seems to be a particular sticking point for the religious...

To the religious:
Think about it.
Perhaps the Bible is an allegory- perhaps Genesis is a metaphor for God's instigation of the Big Bang and His hand causing evolution to come into play on the planet Earth.
If you really get down to it, the basis of your arguments against the scientifics is that you claim that the Bible MUST BE TAKEN LITERALLY. You don't allow that there could be any sort of reconciliation between science and the Bible, and so you instantly believe that if anything a scientific says contradicts scripture it must be wrong. That's simply naive, as naive as believing that all scientific theories are correct.

But let's not be too biased here...

To the scientifics:
Don't be openly dismissive of anything which contradicts known theories. Theories are just that- theories- and they are ready to be replaced at any moment by a new and better theory. Only 100 years ago, it was fairly common among white American scientists(I think, call me on this one, history buffs) to believe that whites were genetically superior to blacks. You are as "religious" in your upholding of your theories as the supposed religious are of theirs, in that you don't allow that there could be others. The only difference here is that the scientifics have a newer, shinier theory, with a more in-depth study to back it up.

I will admit, I think you "6,000-years" people are nutcases, and I am myself a scientific. I believe that Earth is billions of years old. But I think it stands to reason to at least discuss instead of arguing like children, citing your own facts and ignoring those of others.

[Richard Kimball]

So... What I want to know is... Why can't we find a happy medium on this?

...will admit, I think you "6,000-years" people are nutcases, and I am myself a scientific.

I think you answered your own question later on in your post.