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.

[Salman]

Great find! The global warming NUTS who are so quick to attribute every 0.5 degree temperature increase (real or imagined) to industrialized MAN, will have a hard time spinning this one!

It has more to do with continental drift than global warming. That is, Antarctica was not located at the south pole.

[alrea]

There HAS to be hundreds of billions of barrels, considering that Antarctica used to be tropical/sub-tropical

we must not damage such pristine layers of ice and uninhabitable mud, plus Halliburton would get another contract

[xrp]

Heck, look what Bush, Cheney and Halliburton already did to Mars.

[bert]

here's how is happened...

[farmfriend]

Gods, Graves, Glyphs
List for articles regarding early civilizations , life of all forms, - dinosaurs - etc.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this ping list.

[Burkeman1]

There is a theory that holds tht the Earth's crust shifts dramatically ever several hundred thousand years and that Antartica was at one time near the equator and was not the pole. I find it to be bogus.

[Congressman Billybob]

Beginning with the break-up of Pangea (sp?), the single original continent on Earth, Antarctica was close to the Equator when it first broke away and began to slide and move.

So, jungles and dinosaurs were logical to be there, early on.

John / Billybob

[Jeff Gordon]

Now that you have admitted to the bible as a potential source for reliable knowledge we hereby declare your capacity for inductive and deductive reasoning to be altogether and indefinitely suspended.

I told you that this was a hypothesis. A hypothesis being testing using real Creationists. You have mistakenly stated this as if it was a proven theory, not a hypothesis.

Thank you for your continued participation.

[John H K]

There HAS to be hundreds of billions of barrels, considering that Antarctica used to be tropical/sub-tropical and covered with forests.

Coal comes from buried land forests (and there's a LOT of coal on Antarctica.

Oil comes from layers of tiny dead marine algae in a water environment, not land plants (or animals, for that matter, despite all the nonsense you see about oil being "made out of dinosaurs."

[Freedom2specul8]

Thanks for posting..bookmared to read later..

[John H K]

There is a theory that holds tht the Earth's crust shifts dramatically ever several hundred thousand years and that Antartica was at one time near the equator and was not the pole. I find it to be bogus.

The Velikovsky sudden pole shift stuff is of course bogus, but plate tectonics isn't.

Antarctica wasn't always at the South Pole, due to continental drift.

[Fintan]

And I was hoping they'd found the lost world of the Amazons...

 

[Burkeman1]

Yes- of course.

[Burkeman1]

I think I saw this film? Cinemax?

[Miss Marple]

Continental drift is an accepted and supported theory in geology. Please explain why you find it to be bogus.

[Burkeman1]

I don't disagree. Backtrack on the posts. There is wild theory that holds that the continents shift all of sudden in like a matter of days. And that what was once at the equator is then at the pole. I totally believe in continental drift.

[sirchtruth]

Proof please ... serious question by the way

No, No...Let's see these scientist proof they're the ones making their claim and I don't believe there is anything that PROVES the earth is more than 6-7 thousand years old.

Just because some evolutionist wacko's religion wants to point to the eath being M-I-L-L-I-O-N-S of years old because that is a BELIEF doesn't mean it's factual.

[John H K]

No, No...Let's see these scientist proof they're the ones making their claim and I don't believe there is anything that PROVES the earth is more than 6-7 thousand years old.

Leaving aside radiometric dating, tree rings alone get us back 10,000+ years.

And seasonal layering in ice cores goes back 100,000+ years.

[sirchtruth]

Now that you have admitted to the bible as a potential source for reliable knowledge we hereby declare your capacity for inductive and deductive reasoning to be altogether and indefinitely suspended.

Let's see. I have a choice. Either I believe what God has said, or I BELIEVE what some scientist, who is supposed to observe with an objective eye, and report facts, but instead speculates and makes people believe they're reporting fact, when they are in fact, speculating.

Yes, I chose the BIBLE any day over unobjective, enviromentalist, wacko, scientific THEORIES.

[sirchtruth]

What are your sources?

The Bible, King James Version, original Greek, and Hebrew...