Antarctica reached the poles at least several tens of millions of years
ago. Its rather dumb to assert that the presence of fossils proves that
animals once lived at the poles, as they are most likely older than when
the continent drifted that far south. THis is just like the dumb
assertion of creationists who claim that the fact that there are
shellfish fossils on Mount Ararat, this proves that the legend of Noah's
Ark is true, as this shows that Mount Ararat was once under water.
THis is always a great way to point out the contradictions in their
idiotic theories. If they use this fossil evidence as fact, then the
earth could not have been built in 4004 BC like they claim. They claim
that older fossil evidence was created by God as a test of faith.... If
so, then since the Ararat fossils are dated older than 4004 BC, then
Ararat was never under water....
The Poles were pretty much ice free somewhere around 6000 BC according
to treee ring data. There were Alligators and hippos in the Thames at
that time.
>
> Dad tells me that somebody did a simulation of planetary motion over
> the eons, and found that a planet's axis varies chaotically UNLESS
> the planet has a large moon!
>
Has anyone studied what the earth/moon system will do when disturbed by,
say, a large meteor strike. Our own magnetic field and poles are
generated by the rotational differential between the mantle and the
core, caused by the tidal drag produced by the moon on the outer layers
being greater than that at the core. If the moon is highly perturbed by
another body, or disturbed by an impact, its whole orbital plane will
change, which would then change the tidal drag vector it imposes on
earth. If the earth is hit a glancing blow, it should be enough to put
an even greater wobble in its attitude than that at present, or negate
some of the present amount. These phenomenon might possibly be
sufficient to cause the gyroscopic movement of our planetary dynamo to
"tumble" as it were. Even then, it still wouldn't happen overnight.
When these nuts talk about pole shift, it is the magnetic poles, not the
rotational exis that they speak of. We know from astronomical evidence,
and our own planet, that these two types of poles are not one and the
same. As you can see by the scenarios above, it may take a much smaller
astronomical event to cause a pole shift, if it occurs in just the right
way.
-- TANSTAAFL!!! Michael Lorrey ------------------------------------------------------------ mailto:retroman@tpk.net Inventor of the Lorrey Drive Agent Lorrey@ThePentagon.com Silo_1013@ThePentagon.com http://www.tpk.net/~retroman/Mikey's Animatronic Factory My Own Nuclear Espionage Agency (MONEA) MIKEYMAS(tm): The New Internet Holiday Transhumans of New Hampshire (>HNH) ------------------------------------------------------------ #!/usr/local/bin/perl-0777---export-a-crypto-system-sig-RC4-3-lines-PERL @k=unpack('C*',pack('H*',shift));for(@t=@s=0..255){$y=($k[$_%@k]+$s[$x=$_ ]+$y)%256;&S}$x=$y=0;for(unpack('C*',<>)){$x++;$y=($s[$x%=256]+$y)%256; &S;print pack(C,$_^=$s[($s[$x]+$s[$y])%256])}sub S{@s[$x,$y]=@s[$y,$x]}