Antarctica became a separate continent about 23 million years ago.  

It's been very largely covered with ice for the last 15 my.  Its ice cover has been roughly of its present extent for 6 my, and no evidence suggests afforestation in the last 2-3 my.

Ice cores going back 420,000 years have been extracted from Lake Vostok by Russian research teams.


Now don your YEC goggles and take it that Antarctica has only existed since 4004 BCE.

During that time it hasn't significantly moved, and its climate, vegetation and fauna haven't significantly changed - it is and always has been extremely inhospitable.

That makes it difficult to explain the presence of fossil plants from the Mezozoic (ended 250 mya); and as our Creo friends acknowledge, fossils of large Mesozoic dinies  have been found there.

Buddy Davis, who we're told is a popular lecturer to children, wrote that link.  Buddy thinks the fossils are deposited by the Genesis flood, and wonders if Antarctica were significantly closer to the equator in 2348 BCE, though he doesn't unambiguously assert it.

However Buddy's problem is rather more substantial than that -

(a) We know the rate of tectonic drift is 2-4 cm pa, meaning that Antarctica could have traveled about 260 yds / 240 meters max since creation in 4004 BCE.

(b) No evidence suggests any significant perturbation of that rate.

(c) We have no knowledge of any mechanism by which the rate could be appropriately accelerated even in principle, and

(d) Not even our friend 57 is keen on Wally Brown's fantasias any more, so we don't have to debunk notions like Antarctica skimming along at 45 mph from its former place in the sun.  (Even at that wonderful speed for a continent 40% larger than Australia, it'd take 15 hours for the nearest part to reach Tierra del Fuego.)

So Buddy's explanation fails, and the problem remains: how do we now explain dinies in Antarctica?

Jul 1, 2012 -- 1:17AM, Blü wrote:

Blu: Antarctica became a separate continent about 23 million years ago.  

It's been very largely covered with ice for the last 15 my.  Its ice cover has been roughly of its present extent for 6 my, and no evidence suggests afforestation in the last 2-3 my.

Ice cores going back 420,000 years have been extracted from Lake Vostok by Russian research teams.


Now don your YEC goggles and take it that Antarctica has only existed since 4004 BCE.

During that time it hasn't significantly moved, and its climate, vegetation and fauna haven't significantly changed - it is and always has been extremely inhospitable.

That makes it difficult to explain the presence of fossil plants from the Mezozoic (ended 250 mya); and as our Creo friends acknowledge, fossils of large Mesozoic dinies  have been found there.

Buddy Davis, who we're told is a popular lecturer to children, wrote that link.  Buddy thinks the fossils are deposited by the Genesis flood, and wonders if Antarctica were significantly closer to the equator in 2348 BCE, though he doesn't unambiguously assert it.

However Buddy's problem is rather more substantial than that -

(a) We know the rate of tectonic drift is 2-4 cm pa, meaning that Antarctica could have traveled about 260 yds / 240 meters max since creation in 4004 BCE.

(b) No evidence suggests any significant perturbation of that rate.

(c) We have no knowledge of any mechanism by which the rate could be appropriately accelerated even in principle, and

(d) Not even our friend 57 is keen on Wally Brown's fantasias any more, so we don't have to debunk notions like Antarctica skimming along at 45 mph from its former place in the sun.  (Even at that wonderful speed for a continent 40% larger than Australia, it'd take 15 hours for the nearest part to reach Tierra del Fuego.)

So Buddy's explanation fails, and the problem remains: how do we now explain dinies in Antarctica?

iama:  The Flood / tectonic activity of Noah's time:

The paradox of warm-climate vegetation in Antarctica

The Ice Age and Ancient Maps

New ice core records 120,000 years?

Catastrophic plate tectonics: the geophysical context of the Genesis Flood

Polar Dinosaur Conundrum

.

Jul 1, 2012 -- 3:49PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

The Flood / tectonic activity of Noah's time:

The paradox of warm-climate vegetation in Antarctica

The Ice Age and Ancient Maps

New ice core records 120,000 years?

Catastrophic plate tectonics: the geophysical context of the Genesis Flood

Polar Dinosaur Conundrum

instead of linking to made up stories and pseudo science from your site that publicly promises to lie, why not try finding some actual empirical evidence as support sometime? That's how real scientists do it, why can't you?

Do you really think creation.com has real practicing scientists writing their stories? You sure are gullible if you think so. If you were to know the truth, they are the laughingstock of creationism. 

Midutch

Dear old Kent, Patron Creo of Jailbirds and Tax Cheats, won't be at large again till 2017.

But then (unless his parole terms forbid it) he'll doubtless explain why the poles didn't freeze by themselves instead of waiting for his meteorite. 

420,000 years of ice cores rather shake his story, but facts have never stopped him.

Jul 1, 2012 -- 8:54PM, Blü wrote:

Midutch

Dear old Kent, Patron Creo of Jailbirds and Tax Cheats, won't be at large again till 2017.

But then (unless his parole terms forbid it) he'll doubtless explain why the poles didn't freeze by themselves instead of waiting for his meteorite. 

420,000 years of ice cores rather shake his story, but facts have never stopped him.

At least the law has.