[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

300 million years ago, Antarctica was not at the South Pole. It was not frozen, either; it was actually more like tropics.

So clearly not a gigantic ice wall.

[Stagiri]

300 million years ago, Antarctica was not at the South Pole. It was not frozen, either; it was actually more like tropics.

So clearly not a gigantic ice wall.

Got any proof for that?

[SiDawg]

300 million years ago, Antarctica was not at the South Pole. It was not frozen, either; it was actually more like tropics.

So clearly not a gigantic ice wall.

Got any proof for that?

If there wasn't proof it wouldn't be accepted science would it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/weekinreview/16chang.html

[JohnAdams1145]

While your argument seems logically sound, from a debate perspective it is 100% useless. Why? It's far harder to prove the layout of continents hundreds of millions of years ago if we can't even prove the obvious fact that the Earth is round... which is far more certain to science.

So FE people will likely tell you your argument is a fallacious "appeal to authority" (even if it's not really).

[Tontogary]

Also you are likely to be asked for pictures or proof that you were there!

If one accepts dinosaurs, fossils and similar discoveries elsewhere on the earth, you would have to accept that fossils and potential oil and coal found in the Antarctic would need to have been laid down in at least a temperate climate, which is not what is experienced in the high south latitudes.

Indeed EnaG uses the lack off plants and animals as a further “proof” that the sun passes quickly overhead in high southg latitudes, so has much less energy. Without the plants and animals there would be no oil or coal or hydrocarbons inn the south.

Unless you believe EnaG fantastical explanation of the land floating on seas of oil which is spewed out of volcanoes............

[Pete Svarrior]

Also you are likely to be asked for pictures or proof that you were there!

No. No, you're not. The Flat Earth Society is generally quite sceptical of photographic evidence, and doubly so for photographic evidence that predates photography by hundreds of millions of years.

However, you are likely to be corrected on an important technical point: The Ice Wall as we know it now is a somewhat arbitrary delineation of the known Earth. What lies beyond is largely unknown. Thus, even if Antarctica were not always part of the Ice Wall, it's likely that there still was an Ice Wall.

[SiDawg]

Indeed EnaG uses the lack off plants and animals as a further “proof” that the sun passes quickly overhead in high southg latitudes, so has much less energy. Without the plants and animals there would be no oil or coal or hydrocarbons inn the south.

Yeah I particularly enjoyed that section... as someone who grew up in New Zealand and goes back regularly. Seems pretty "leafy" to me lol Now I live in Australia... aside from the central desert bit, equally as leafy on the coast

Pretty silly really... given it's light for on average 12 hours a day, regardless of north or south, somehow the sun moving faster overhead means there's less light? So it's lighter for the same amount of time, yet also less light... somehow. Doesn't reconcile. No doubt due to "magnetism" or "celestial gravity"

[Tontogary]

Indeed EnaG uses the lack off plants and animals as a further “proof” that the sun passes quickly overhead in high southg latitudes, so has much less energy. Without the plants and animals there would be no oil or coal or hydrocarbons inn the south.

Yeah I particularly enjoyed that section... as someone who grew up in New Zealand and goes back regularly. Seems pretty "leafy" to me lol Now I live in Australia... aside from the central desert bit, equally as leafy on the coast

Pretty silly really... given it's light for on average 12 hours a day, regardless of north or south, somehow the sun moving faster overhead means there's less light? So it's lighter for the same amount of time, yet also less light... somehow. Doesn't reconcile. No doubt due to "magnetism" or "celestial gravity"

It’s not that leafy and green here in Dampier, just bloody hot with no rain!

I think what he was getting at is that the suns energy is spread out over a further distance, so less plants. It was just his reasoning for it which was off, but then he had to come up with an explanation that fitted in with his other theories.

He was sort of right, as the higher the lattitude the shallower the angle of the sun, so the same amount of solar radiation is spread over a larger area, therefore less heat, equals cooler. However as New Zealand is slightly closer to the tropics then the UK (on the most part) it is not surprising it is nice and green, plus the rain that falls!

The real difference is lack of land mass until you get to the Antarctic circle, so less land to soak up the suns energy when it is shining. Which is the reason there is lots and lots of Tundra, and great north forests in the north, and none in the high south latitudes.

Anyway the wiki does nothing to adequately explain about plate tectonics, and all the multitude or theories are just that theories, which is not Zetetic in any way! There is a monopole, a bi polar model, but no consensus off which is right, the ice wall was described in EnaG as being to the south, but “might” not be, and if it is not where Antarctica is (bi polar model) then why has no one got any pictures of it, or can describe where exactly it is?
If indeed the monopole is the answer to the flat earth, then how can it explain that people have travelled right across the South Pole, starting at South America (or thereabouts) and ended up south of Australia (or thereabouts)? And planes have flown over it, photographed it, yet no one has got to the edge of the world........

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

However, you are likely to be corrected on an important technical point: The Ice Wall as we know it now is a somewhat arbitrary delineation of the known Earth. What lies beyond is largely unknown. Thus, even if Antarctica were not always part of the Ice Wall, it's likely that there still was an Ice Wall.

When did it become the ice wall then?

As for proof: we've found fossils of tropical plants in Antarctica, and geological indicators give a pretty good idea of where it was.

[TomInAustin]

Also you are likely to be asked for pictures or proof that you were there!

No. No, you're not. The Flat Earth Society is generally quite sceptical of photographic evidence, and doubly so for photographic evidence that predates photography by hundreds of millions of years.

However, you are likely to be corrected on an important technical point: The Ice Wall as we know it now is a somewhat arbitrary delineation of the known Earth. What lies beyond is largely unknown. Thus, even if Antarctica were not always part of the Ice Wall, it's likely that there still was an Ice Wall.

Pete,  I know there are many competing theories but do you belieive in the ice wall surrounding the earth?

[Pete Svarrior]

When did it become the ice wall then?

I do not know.

Pete,  I know there are many competing theories but do you belieive in the ice wall surrounding the earth?

I do, for the most part. Or, well, it's surrounding the known Earth

[TomInAustin]

When did it become the ice wall then?

I do not know.

Pete,  I know there are many competing theories but do you belieive in the ice wall surrounding the earth?

I do, for the most part. Or, well, it's surrounding the known Earth

Cool, I like your direct answers.  Are you in the monopole or 2 pole camp?  I almost said Bipolar but that would have been a loaded question.

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

When did it become the ice wall then?

I do not know.

Perhaps a better question is: how did it become the ice wall? What happened to the ice wall before it? What did it look like before it was the ice wall?

[Spycrab]

Actually we're talking about antarctica's movement, but isn't it a ring around the earth next to the ice wall? How did it stretch from a continent to a ring? For the record, if it is a disc, how would continents stretch and fold as the moved without creating intense rift valleys and mountains all over? What force would cause them to be molded that way? Surely not sea-floor-spreading
Actually, how would geothermal processes and magnetism from the core work on a static flat earth?
The liquid core is spun by the earth's rotation, so if there's no rotation, no magnetism. And on a gratuiously smaller e.g. less massive earth would not be able to put adequate pressure on the inside to generate enough heat. This is quite the conundrum for FE.