Warm climate dinosaurs in the antartica?

[Knight]

Gee.... who would have thunk? :chuckle:

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/package.jsp?name=fte/dinoantarctica/dinoantarctica

[Aussie Thinker]

Knight…

I am curious as to why someone who denies evolution would have linked and article confirming much of what evolution says ?

The “Walking with Dinosaurs” series from PBS had several episodes devoted to the creatures of the Antartica with was further North and rainforested before Continental drift took it down to the pole.

Do the word 70 million year old and 200 million year old dinosaurs fit with your 6,000 year old Earth ?

[BillyBob]

I'm kinda curious why you linked that site, myself.

[naima]

...reminds me of the cheesy mid-50's B-movie sci fi "The Land Unknown" about an expedition that uncovered a warm prehistoric world at the South Pole...:)

[brother Willi]

why do folks always wonder why a creationist would link to a web site.
its true we dont agree with millions of years part, it just assumes to much.

but read and wonder about the title of the thread

[docpotato]

Maybe someone else can confirm this, but I think a warm climate dinosaur in Antarctica actually fulfills a prediction that the Old-Earth Geologists have regarding how the continents were once arranged differently than they are today. Pangea and so-forth.

[Jukia]

the title of the thread?

[The Barbarian]

Because of continental drift, Anarctica was much farther north, almost to the equator, many millions of years ago.

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/meer510.gif

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/meer510.gif

Here's a great place to learn about some of it:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by The Barbarian

Because of continental drift, Anarctica was much farther north, almost to the equator, many millions of years ago.

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/meer510.gif

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/meer510.gif

Here's a great place to learn about some of it:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

Well, those are all fine sites.
but if you want to learn the truth, go HERE (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html)

:D

[Jukia]

Go HERE? Utter and absolute nonsense.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by Jukia
Go HERE? Utter and absolute nonsense.

:up:

[Knight]

Originally posted by Jukia

Go HERE? Utter and absolute nonsense. Uh yea.... :rolleyes: I think I would give Walt Brown a tad more respect.

But then again.....

But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. - 1Corinthians 14:38

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by Knight
Uh yea.... :rolleyes: I think I would give Walt Brown a tad more respect.

This doesn't have anything to do with Walt Brown. This is about his theory.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Greywolf

This doesn't have anything to do with Walt Brown. This is about his theory.

you dont agree with it?:think:

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
you dont agree with it?:think:

Walt Brown's theory? No.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Greywolf

Walt Brown's theory? No.
care to elaborate?

[Aussie Thinker]

Why would you give Walt Brown respect when he is theorising about something TOTALLY out of his field of expertise.

Most of his points are illogical to say the least.

Every expert in the relevant field completely disagree with his assumptions..

I have a Master in Economics.. if I wrote a theory on biology would you say my qualifications are relevant ?

[The Barbarian]

Actually, Walt Brown has been dodging Dr. Joe Meert for several years. Meert agreed to the conditions set forth by Brown in his challenge, but Brown reneged on the issue of whether or not an impartial party would be the final arbiter of conditions and rules. (this was explicitly in the contract Brown offered)

A lawyer (a creationist, BTW) wrote an unsolicited opinion on the dispute to Meert and Brown, and his interpretation of the contract is here:

http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm

It appears that like so many of these creationist "debate offers", Brown will only do it if he can rig the debate from the get-go.

I got as far as #2 on his site (aquired characteristics) to find the first major goof:

"New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present."

In fact, many examples of new genes have been observed. A number of them have been directly observed in laboratories, and other have been seen in nature.

Here's one:
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/5/2020.pdf

Would you like some more?

[Jukia]

Brown gets no respect from me. His hydroplate theory is total garbage.