*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1050
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Antarctic fossil finds
« on: September 09, 2020, 05:06:31 PM »
Hundreds of fossils have been recovered from various parts of Antarctica. These range from plants, sea creatures, large reptiles and dinosaurs, to coal beds. In particular, large reptile fossils (Lystrosaurus) that date back to the Triassic Period can be found across the interior of the continent, and are also found in bands across southern India, Africa, and South America. *there is an excellent page outlining lots of these on the Geological Society's website, and hundreds of images, journal articles, and news reports can be found by a quick search on google and/or researchgate.

These fossils, the wide variety of rocks which contain them, and the additional older igneous and metamorphic rocks underlying those, demonstrate that the Antarctic continent has a dynamic geologic past. They provide evidence for long-term plate tectonics, by suggesting it was once connected to parts of the other continents mentioned above, and that the climate in the area was warm enough for large reptiles to live (unlike the modern tundra environment we know today, now that it is located at the south pole).

How do these observations of fossil abundances and diversity within the rocks of the Antarctic continent fit within a flat earth framework, where the leading views (monopole model) advocate that Antarctica  is an unknown part of the earth surrounded by an ice wall with only minor rock outcrops (source:fes wiki)?

Italics added to correct an originally misquoted statement.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2020, 01:57:00 PM by Iceman2020 »

Re: Antarctic fossil finds
« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2020, 12:32:35 PM »
Fossils are mostly fiction.  This is important to understand. The natural museum of history is a taxidermy and sculpture museum - no science takes place there nor are fossils good evidence of anything beyond swift cataclysm.

The process of interpreting a dead animal from a few bone fragments (we virtually never find more than 10% of a fossilized animal) is art - not science.

The climate of antarctica has clearly changed over time, it's location - most likely not. That's stupid and we have no evidence to support it beyond pointing at volcanic activity underwater and saying SEE?! Or worse, look at this unvalidatable satellite data that says the continents are drifting apart, and the moon too (why the hell not right?).

Climate change is real, and recorded in human history. They skated on the themes in the 15-16's - this is NOT evidence that england is brigadoon and floats around. Holy hell the stupid things we are taught as "fact", as children no less...

In any case, none of this is relevant to the shape of the earth.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2020, 12:34:54 PM by jack44556677 »

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1050
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctic fossil finds
« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2020, 01:09:05 PM »
We'll have to agree to disagree about the fossils, but what I would add is that rocks dont generally form beneath ice sheets (rocks are eroded, sediment mobilized, and deposited, then is liquified later) and the rocks that host the fossils (regardless of whether they're real or not) dont form in glacial environments. Combined this indicates that the magnitude of climate change in Antarctica is much greater than anything weve seen in human history, and it doesnt matter how much time you ascribe to it.

In RE, that magnitude of difference is generally explained by the southward movement of the Antarctic continent to it's current position at the south pole, where average temperatures are always cold.

The follow-up question to the initial would then be: what process can explain the magnitude of climate change that is documented between the rocks in Antarctica, to the permanently frozen ice sheet we know today?

The two implications this has for FE are that 1. The Antarctic continent didnt always have an ice sheet, therefore what was holding our oceans up in the past? And 2. The only thing I can think of (there could be other possibilities thougg) to explain the enormous climate transition for Antarctica is movement to increasingly southern latitudes where it would receive increasingly less heat from the sun - both in FE and RE models.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13208
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Antarctic fossil finds
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2020, 01:19:31 PM »
Antarctica is just an ice wall with only minor rock outcrops (source:fes wiki)?
I'm not convinced that the Wiki says that. All I can see is a breakdown of the Antarctic coastline (which appears to be consistent with RET).

Perhaps you could reference your source for the claim that Antarctica is all ice?

Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1050
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctic fossil finds
« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2020, 01:34:28 PM »
A fair point - I didnt word that properly. Should I change to
"the Antarctic is an ice wall that contains minimal amounts of rock"
I'll take suggestions to improve the wording and edit the original post. Was not my intention to to misrepresent things there.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13208
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Antarctic fossil finds
« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2020, 04:48:12 PM »
I didn't mean to raise it to nitpick on the phrasing. It's the substance of the point that matters. I don't think many people, RE or FE, would claim that Antarctica is mostly ice, with little land.

FE'ers claim we don't know much about what lies far beyond the Ice Wall. This is not to dispute the knowledge of Antarctica within the known Earth.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1050
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctic fossil finds
« Reply #6 on: September 25, 2020, 05:03:22 PM »
We can disagree on how much information we have on the characteristics of Antarctica, but I'll admit the way I had written things at the end of the original post wasn't a fair representation of what is argued by FE. I dont think it changes the substance of the questions, but it was definitely fair to call that out - sometimes a few words make a difference, I hope the edited version is better.

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctic fossil finds
« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2020, 02:09:17 PM »
Antarctica is just an ice wall with only minor rock outcrops (source:fes wiki)?
I'm not convinced that the Wiki says that. All I can see is a breakdown of the Antarctic coastline (which appears to be consistent with RET).

I know I'm being pedantic, but all the Wiki shows is a tiny fraction of the Antarctic coastline.  Of course the Wiki is consistent with RET, because that's what the video and photograph shows, the real Antarctic ice shelf.  However, it doesn't talk about the length of the coastline or the area of the land mass or the continent/ring contradiction (which admittedly is mentioned in the Antarctica Wiki).  Whether or not you choose to believe the topological surveillance and measurements, the Antarctic has a measured coastline of 33,000 miles including the ice sheet, with a measured area of 5.5 million square miles.  This is not theory, I hope we can agree?

I'm not saying FET says it should have the same length coastline, but if it did, the ice wall/sheet would have to extend approximately 7,200 miles inland, giving it a surface area of over 400 million square miles.  This would leave an occupied area in the middle of the Earth of roughly 10,600 miles in diameter.  There are cities on Earth that are more than 10,600 miles apart, so this suggests that under FET, the Antarctic must have a much longer coastline than we actually measure, and indeed it does if you look at the flat Earth maps. I know the maps are just representative, but if that's all we have to go on then so be it, but based on the Azimuthal Polar Projection map that seems popular, Antarctica would have a coastline in excess of 70,000 miles, closer to 78,000 miles depending on how wide the ice sheet is.  This is within the known Earth, so if it is over 70,000 miles, why has this not been verified?

Fossils are mostly fiction.  This is important to understand. The natural museum of history is a taxidermy and sculpture museum - no science takes place there nor are fossils good evidence of anything beyond swift cataclysm.

The process of interpreting a dead animal from a few bone fragments (we virtually never find more than 10% of a fossilized animal) is art - not science.

I somewhat disagree with that statement. Art is subjective, science is objective.  Taking some bones from an animal and piecing them together doesn't just take place in isolation, it happens in the context of other knowledge and reference material from decades of discovery.  Of course there has to come a point where some artistic license is applied, but that shouldn't undermine the science that preceded it, in my opinion anyway. 

The notion that fossils are mostly fiction is an interesting one though.  I assume from your comments that you do believe in the process itself of fossilisation?  If so, I'd love to understand why it's mostly fiction.  Is it a case that you accept some fossils as real because you know and recognise those animals, but choose to reject the ones where such proposed animals no longer exist?  I know I'm relatively new here and I don't want to come across as anything other than curious and wanting to understand more about flat Earth theory and the views that people have in relation to it and related conspiracies.
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

Re: Antarctic fossil finds
« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2020, 06:42:58 AM »
Fossils are mostly fiction.  This is important to understand. The natural museum of history is a taxidermy and sculpture museum - no science takes place there nor are fossils good evidence of anything beyond swift cataclysm.

The process of interpreting a dead animal from a few bone fragments (we virtually never find more than 10% of a fossilized animal) is art - not science.

The climate of antarctica has clearly changed over time, it's location - most likely not. That's stupid and we have no evidence to support it beyond pointing at volcanic activity underwater and saying SEE?! Or worse, look at this unvalidatable satellite data that says the continents are drifting apart, and the moon too (why the hell not right?).

Climate change is real, and recorded in human history. They skated on the themes in the 15-16's - this is NOT evidence that england is brigadoon and floats around. Holy hell the stupid things we are taught as "fact", as children no less...

In any case, none of this is relevant to the shape of the earth.


Hi,

Regarding your comment that fossils are mostly fiction, can you provide scientific evidence and/or scientific data that shows this?

Also, regarding your statement the the natural museum of history is a taxidermy and sculpture museum, can you share your scientific evidence of this? Do you have direct eyewitness accounts of this? Which natural museum of history -- there are many.
 
Also, regarding your statement that "we never find more than 10% of a fossilized animal".... what scientific study or data can you share to show this? How do you know its 10%?

Again, any scientific data or scientific evidence is welcome.

Thank you.

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctic fossil finds
« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2020, 10:06:17 AM »
Again, any scientific data or scientific evidence is welcome.

So based on a previous comment by jack44556677 in another thread, I fully expect that we should be able to be provided with some hard, scientific evidence that fossils are mostly fiction and not what science says they are:

And I say as a (scientific?) researcher you should know better than to believe anything (especially that you can't prove/demonstrate)!  I appreciate that your colloquial (mis)use was intentional and is commonplace.  I feel strongly that the word belief not be corrupted/eroded.  It has a distinct meaning and turning it into a synonym for "knowledge"/"perspective"/"view"  is indefensible.  I have found that the verbiage of belief is best left relegated to mythology/religion - in this discussion and outside of it.

He doesn't just believe that fossils are mostly fiction, he knows they are mostly fiction, because his notion of belief has no place outside of mythology/religion (which I disagree with, but I digress).  Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what we get back.  This is coming from somebody who knows that NASA is a conspiracy, that we have never been into orbit above Earth, mass is not real, gravity is not real, and currently concludes that the Earth is not round, which in itself is fine in the context of these forums.  I'd also be interested to know peoples views on the theory and process of Relative Dating (comparing to similar rocks and fossils of known ages) vs Absolute Dating (measuring the decay and levels of radio isotopes with known half-lives).  Are those just poor science theories or conspiracy as well?

The whole thing comes down to choosing what you want to accept to fit your narrative.  It's hard to dismiss something that you know to be completely true, like the fact that cars exist and we can get in the them and drive around.  That also means you accept that fuel exists, although you might not accept where it comes from.  It's much easier to dismiss something like a fossil where it's almost impossible as an individual to independently verify that yes, they are the bones of this animal which looked like that 50,000 or 50,000,000 years ago.  By the same token, it's almost impossible to prove that no, they are not the bones of this animal which looked like that 50,000 or 50,000,000 years ago.

At the end of the day, either fossils are real or they aren't.  If they aren't, why would they lie about them and make up these art and taxidermy displays?  To make us think that the age of the planet is much younger than we are told?
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

Re: Antarctic fossil finds
« Reply #10 on: November 14, 2020, 07:33:58 PM »
Fossils are mostly fiction.  This is important to understand. The natural museum of history is a taxidermy and sculpture museum - no science takes place there nor are fossils good evidence of anything beyond swift cataclysm.

The process of interpreting a dead animal from a few bone fragments (we virtually never find more than 10% of a fossilized animal) is art - not science.

The climate of antarctica has clearly changed over time, it's location - most likely not. That's stupid and we have no evidence to support it beyond pointing at volcanic activity underwater and saying SEE?! Or worse, look at this unvalidatable satellite data that says the continents are drifting apart, and the moon too (why the hell not right?).

Climate change is real, and recorded in human history. They skated on the themes in the 15-16's - this is NOT evidence that england is brigadoon and floats around. Holy hell the stupid things we are taught as "fact", as children no less...

In any case, none of this is relevant to the shape of the earth.


Hi,

Regarding your comment that fossils are mostly fiction, can you provide scientific evidence and/or scientific data that shows this?

Also, regarding your statement the the natural museum of history is a taxidermy and sculpture museum, can you share your scientific evidence of this? Do you have direct eyewitness accounts of this? Which natural museum of history -- there are many.
 
Also, regarding your statement that "we never find more than 10% of a fossilized animal".... what scientific study or data can you share to show this? How do you know its 10%?

Again, any scientific data or scientific evidence is welcome.

Thank you.


T-Rex skeleton = killer Whale skeleton with legs.  The whales fins are the T-Rex’s feet same amount of bones on each toe/fin.  Both have same tail, Rib cage, teeth. Etc. 
I’d post pics but it won’t let me saying File to big.  I’ll bet it’s user error.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2108
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctic fossil finds
« Reply #11 on: November 14, 2020, 07:58:13 PM »
Fossils are mostly fiction.  This is important to understand. The natural museum of history is a taxidermy and sculpture museum - no science takes place there nor are fossils good evidence of anything beyond swift cataclysm.

The process of interpreting a dead animal from a few bone fragments (we virtually never find more than 10% of a fossilized animal) is art - not science.

The climate of antarctica has clearly changed over time, it's location - most likely not. That's stupid and we have no evidence to support it beyond pointing at volcanic activity underwater and saying SEE?! Or worse, look at this unvalidatable satellite data that says the continents are drifting apart, and the moon too (why the hell not right?).

Climate change is real, and recorded in human history. They skated on the themes in the 15-16's - this is NOT evidence that england is brigadoon and floats around. Holy hell the stupid things we are taught as "fact", as children no less...

In any case, none of this is relevant to the shape of the earth.


Hi,

Regarding your comment that fossils are mostly fiction, can you provide scientific evidence and/or scientific data that shows this?

Also, regarding your statement the the natural museum of history is a taxidermy and sculpture museum, can you share your scientific evidence of this? Do you have direct eyewitness accounts of this? Which natural museum of history -- there are many.
 
Also, regarding your statement that "we never find more than 10% of a fossilized animal".... what scientific study or data can you share to show this? How do you know its 10%?

Again, any scientific data or scientific evidence is welcome.

Thank you.


T-Rex skeleton = killer Whale skeleton with legs.  The whales fins are the T-Rex’s feet same amount of bones on each toe/fin.  Both have same tail, Rib cage, teeth. Etc. 
I’d post pics but it won’t let me saying File to big.  I’ll bet it’s user error.

I'm not sure what pics you are referring to but there's this:

Size Comparison of T-Rex, Orca Whale, and Human Skulls, Scanned by the Idaho Virtualization Lab