Palm Trees Discovered In Antarctica

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?

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Palm Trees Discovered In Antarctica

  1. This is the stupidest post Michael has uttered in a long time.[1] And that’s not easy.

    He completely misunderstands the BBC article. The article assumes what everyone except Michael knows: That Antarctica wasn’t always located at the south pole, but had a much more temperate location in the past.[2] The point of the article is not that palm trees once grew in Antarctica—everyone except Michael already knew that. The point is that at a period in the Eocene (85 Mya) they grew faster than before or afterward, because of a greenhouse caused by increased CO2.

    Once more, we are unsure whether Michael is merely astoundingly ignorant about the subject matter that he pontificates on, or whether he is deliberately lying to his readers. My tentative guess is that his beliefs cloud his mind to such an extent that he can’t even perceive facts that contravene his beliefs—like the driver so distracted by his texting that the car on a collision course is invisible to him.

    Whatever the reason, this particular post is a high point in the extent to which Michael will go to prop up his fantasies.[3]

    ===================

    [1] I remember I said that just a couple weeks ago. But it keeps getting worse.

    [2] This is why we find fossils there that are intermediate between those of South America and Australia.

    [3] The irony is that his position is not even supported by theology. It has been repudiated for 1500 years. But creationists, being addicted to ignorance as a way of life, are even ignorant of the history and theology of their own religion.

  2. 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.

    Please list here ______ all the evidence that creationism suggests a moderate worldwide climate before the Noachian Flood. You may use any evidence you like, but BE SPECIFIC.

    But when the Flood came, this changed, burying the antediluvian world beneath miles of sediment – and ushering in a much more recent Ice Age

    Please list here ______ all the evidence that a global flood would produce an ice age. You may cite any evidence you like, but BE SPECIFIC.

    Failure to respond will indicate, as it did previously,[1] that you have no idea what you are talking about.

    Which account do you think is a better match to the data?

    Well,there certainly is no contest here! Radiometric dating, geologic column, tectonic shift history, magnetic reversals for science, versus one data point and unsupported flights of fancy for a creationist theory[2] that does not even find support in the Bible, much less in the physical world.

    Desperate, Michael. Desperate.

    ================

    [1] Here we have yet another post, while Michael continues to duck the two questions posed in the comments to his July 21 post./

    [2] Michael still will not admit that consistency with a cherry-picked set of data—while ignoring all contrary data—can support a theory. Here’s a major problem: Michael must assume that all ice ages occurred within the past 4-5,000 years. Yet in both Greenland and Antarctica, we can count up to 700,000 separate annual ice depositions, before they stat fading into each other from the pressure of the overburden. Maybe the problem is one of math—creationists just can’t count any higher than 10,000. Then they have to start over again.

  3. 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?

    Another major failure of reading comprehension Why should we believe Michael’s interpretation of facts when he can’t even get the facts themselves straight?

    >> CO2 does not “predict” global warming. pCO2 is a proxy of current global temperature. Ceteris paribus, it is a measure of the earth’s overall average temperature at that time. It does not indicate warming—or cooling, for that matter.

    >> Nor does pCO2 indicate—or rule out—any cause of the temperature it measures. As Michael says—perhaps the only correct thing he said in this post—the earth has heated and cooled many times before man began to distress God with strip mines and peat bogs. Michael could have found the most widely accepted explanation for the Eocene greenhouse in a 10-second Google search. A representative reference is—wonder of wonders!–“The Eocene Greenhouse”. See? That wasn’t so hard.

    >> Nor does the CO2 fraction in the atmosphere help in predicting the weather. Where Michael came up with that nugget of misinformation, is more of a mystery than how he makes do with only 27 neurons. A meteorologist could smile in front of a TV camera and predict next week’s weather for her entire career without even knowing how much CO2 (or other greenhouse gases) the atmosphere contains.

    .

    To top it all off, we have—

    Also, how can they prove a Archaea can hold on to their structure for 53 million years?

    We might ask Michael to prove that they didn’t hold on to their structure for 53 million years. But of course he wouldn’t be able to. Michael might deign to answer this third question, however.[1]—
    What differentiates the microfossils of archea from the fossils of dinosaurs and other plants and animals so that they could not survive as long as these other fossils?

    Paleontologists have recovered microfossils of single-cell organisms that lived more that 800 million years ago, and Michael has not questioned that.[2]

    ===============

    [1] After, of course, answering the two questions above, and the questions from his July 21 post, and the many pending questions that he has ducked out on from posts going back for three years. Such as his promised review of Meyer’s Signature in the Cell, and his background in any form of science.

    [2] Except that creationists can’t count to more than 10,000, as noted earlier.

  4. The original paper that reports these results is Pross, et al., “Persistent near-tropical warmth on the Antarctic continent during the early Eocene epoch”, Nature 488:73-77.(2 Aug 2012)

    Michael’s post again reveals his abilities at selective belief. He accepts that sub-tropical plants were found, yet will not accept their age. He accepts that CO2 caused global warming in the past, yet refuses to accept that man-made CO2 causes it today. Science is unlike religion; you can’t believe only the part of science that you like.

  5. Ten days. Time for a new foray into the mystical jungle of creationism to see what monsters of twisted logic and misrepresented results await.

    Meanwhile, my son won “Best in Show” at the county threshing bee for his restored 1947 Dodge Power Wagon duallie farm truck. He entered his restored 1937 John Deere Model B tractor as well. Since he sold the Hudson Hornet, the next project might be a Ford Model T. People think of the Model T as rattly and clanky. But the 20 or so T’s at Dearborn purr like kittens and regularly haul visitors around Greenfield Village.

  6. Michael obviously needs help in choosing a subject for the next post. The current issue of Nature (9 August) offers several tidbits.
    > A new protohuman species fossil has been found in Kenya. Geological age 1.91-1.05 million years.(p201)
    > Snake evolution has been a mystery for lack of early fossils. But a new fossil foom the Cretaceous has the head of a lizard and the body of a snake, providing a transitional form and establishing that they evolved on land rather than as marine animals. (p205)
    > Evidence of symbolic behavior in early humans has been pushed back by shell beads and other artifacts from up to 44,000 years ago. (p133)
    > A recent analysis attributes recent heatwaves to human-induced global warming. (p143)
    > Two scientists discuss the future of astrobiology. (p160)

  7. If Michael wishes to add David Barton’s new (April 2012) book The Jefferson Lies to his collection, he’d better hurry. On August 9, publisher Thomas Nelson stopped publication, halted distribution, and even recalled copies from dealers.

    This book purported to demonstrate that Thomas Jefferson had been an orthodox Christian who saw no need to separate church and state. In July the History News Network voted the book the “least credible history book in print,” pointing out multitudinous errors of fact and analysis.

    Even Discovery Institute senior fellow Jay. W Richards panned this book, after receiving all negative responses from a survey of ten conservative Christian college professors. Mother Jones opines that “much of what David Barton writes seems to have originated in David Barton’s head.”

    Well, what should we think about someone who claims that Jesus opposed the minimum wage? Does he have documentation for that as well in his climate-controlled vault?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s