About the north pole: it's far under water and I don't think anyone wants to claim that it wasn't ca. 10,000 BC.
About the south pole:
I spend no time talking about "fossil vegetation and pollen" because they are irrelevant with regard to the geological debate (which was my topic). Hapgood's (and hence Hancock's) 'theory' is based upon faulty geologic information; problematic fossil data does not change this fact.
In particular, "earth crust displacement" is a joke and based upon concepts that contradict not only accepted geologic theories and geologic features, but also physical properties. Now, earth crust displacement was only "necessary" because it was used to explain how Antarctica could have supposedly been in a temperate zone ca. 10,000 BC. 1) If Antartica were in a temperate zone ca. 10,000 BC, another explanation besides earth crust displacement is necessary. 2) That Antartica was in a temperate zone ca. 10,000 BC is disputed. For example the 'data' cited by Hancock is not verified elsewhere. In fact, geology texts regularly cite explorations from the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s that place the age of the glacial layer at far beyond that which Hancock claims. The same goes for the "fossil" evidence, which is cited (in more reputable sources) as hundreds of thousands to millions of years old.
I will here cite http://www.violations.dabsol.co.uk/discover/discover.htm as a reference that cites numerous other sources and deals with much of the same material my paper did.
And, naturally, if the fossil evidence is, as commonly accepted, much older than Hancock et. al. claim, then there is no problem, since plate techtonics and continental drift cover this possibility.
Finally, to quote you:
> You seem > to have avoided as much evidence in your efforts to > debunk these theories as you accuse Graham Hancock of > doing.
This isn't a problem. My point is simply that Hancock is full of shit. He proposes an illogical and internally inconsistant "theory" based upon unreliable "data" and faulty reasoning. Any new scientific theory needs to explain current data as well or better than the accepted theory. Hancock's pet theory fails to do so; furthermore, the new data he proposes is unreliable, and hence hardly a true critique of current accepted theories. Of course, if the type of data he puts forth eventually achieves a reliable status, then the current theory must 1) explain it, 2) be modified to explain it, or 3) be replaced with a better theory. In contrast, I am not putting forth a new theory; I was merely pointing out that Hancock's ideas have no merit.
I hope this answers your questions. If not, let me know.
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 19:02:08 +1000, nick palmer wrote:
> Do YOU have an explanation for the fossil vegetation > and pollen from tropical and temperate climates that > has been found at the north and south poles?? You seem > to have avoided as much evidence in your efforts to > debunk these theories as you accuse Graham Hancock of > doing. > > Interested in hearing your reply ...