Indeed, Antarctica looked like Florida in the United States at one time before it became one of the coldest places on earth! According to evolutionists, it was 53 million years ago and this discovery is supposedly going to help these “guesses about the effects of increasing CO2 today.”
The BBC reports…
“Scientists drilling deep into the edge of modern Antarctica have pulled up proof that palm trees once grew there. Analyses of pollen and spores and the remains of tiny creatures have given a climatic picture of the early Eocene period, about 53 million years ago.”
Researchers suggest that global temperatures were some 5°C warmer than today with 600 ppm of CO2. A number (600ppm) I might add that has been used since the late 80’s and early 90’s to predict global warming. But is it giving scientists greater knowledge in predicting the weather along with man’s connection with warming up the earth?
No! In fact, it demonstrates that the earth historically heats up and cools down without a human-cause. Where is their explanation on why the earth would heat up at that time? Also, how can they prove a Archaea can hold on to their structure for 53 million years?
The creationist model doesn’t use such timelines so in fact the Archaea structure being preserved was a confirmation on the earth being a lot younger. As far as explaining the extreme weather changes in Antarctica…
The creationist model suggests the pre-Flood world contained a moderate climate without the huge differences between the poles and equator, just like the data indicates. But when the Flood came, this changed, burying the antediluvian world beneath miles of sediment – and ushering in a much more recent Ice Age whose effects are still damping out. Which account do you think is a better match to the data?