 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
PrysdieHeer!
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 392
Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 3:06 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Page 2!
Please Read the whole post before you reply.
| Quote: | | Our posts are getting into too many topics at the same time |
I agree
| Quote: | | so I want to handle them sequentially. |
I agree
| Quote: | | So in this post I'm going to address JUST the issue of continental drift and how the evidence shows that the Earth is MUCH more than 6000 years old. |
If you can proof one to be fact! You win. If not, you have to move to the next argument and restart the process.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Please Don`t start over with the argument, We made so good progress so far.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Remember I`m trying to convince, not convey, so I want you to agree that an argument has been Toasted, before we move on.
| Quote: | | Prysdieheer, you seem to have a serious misunderstanding of continental drift: |
Actually I do!
| In my Previous Post, I wrote: | I
understand Your point:
I think what you are trying to say is At the one side of the plate magma makes it bigger and pushes it away, but what about the other side? - - The answer I think You are going to give me is - - The Lithosphere at the other side of the plate is driven into the mantel where it melts. So as the one side grows, the other Shrinks.
|
| Quote: | 1. You seem to be getting caught up on the word 'drift':
;
;
;
It's the same thing. The entire theory is called 'continental drift'. That's just its name. The point is that the Earth's surface is composed of tectonic plates, and over very long periods of time they move. |
Good! So we have consensus - - Continents do not Drift.
| Quote: | | 2. You seem to be trying to argue with me that the plates move and the continents move WITH the plates because they are stuck to the plates. I don't know why you are arguing this with me, because I completely agree. When people say that the continents drifted, really they mean that the continental plates moved. Is this clear? |
Not really. I think What you are trying to say, is Continents move on a conveyor belt system.
They Do not move Really. They Grow at the one point and shrink at another. But There are flaws with this theory.
| Quote: | | 3. You are arguing if you drain the ocean, then we can see that the African and South American plates did not move away from each other because we can see that there are plates below the ocean. |
Not Really!
What I am Trying to say is:
Only the parts Of the Plates sticking out of the water, fits together, But it is not the parts sticking out of the water that moves.
But what I Said is not.
| Quote: | | Africa and South America used to be adjacent to each other. |
Can`t proof that!
| Quote: | | and the edges of the plates grew because new magma from inside the Earth came out and cooled |
Serious problems with this.
| Quote: | | The entire sea floor of the Atlantic ocean is NEW |
Can`t Proof that!
| Quote: | | It is created at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, as I pointed out. |
Maybe not.
| Quote: | | This is all very well-established science. |
Except for the Millions of years, and adjacent part.
| Quote: | | this all shows that the Earth is MUCH more than 6000 years old. |
Wrong!
| Quote: | | Since Africa and South America used to be next to each other |
Actually That is impossible!
| Quote: | | (see the picture which I posted twice), |
This only shows the two continents, Rotated for some reason, Fits together, that that they use to be together.
| Quote: | | it means that the continents have moved more than 5000 kilometers |
Not!
| Quote: | | in AT MOST 6000 years |
What? So you agree?
I think you meant to say AT LEAST!
| Quote: | | That's an average of 229 cm per day, which is impossible. |
I know!
| Quote: | | Plates actually move at a speed of less than 10 cm / year |
Yes?
| Quote: | | When they move at 10 cm / year, we get REALLY powerful earthquakes. |
We do not get them all the time, does that mean they do not move all the time?
| Quote: | | At 10 cm / year, the distance between Africa and South America shows that the Earth is AT LEAST 50,000,000 years old |
Or maybe they were not adjacent.
| Quote: | | which is MUCH more than 6000 years. |
I can see that!
:":":"""":":":":":":"""":::::::":"::":":
OK Now for why I say The Convoy belt system is not proof for an old earth.
To make this system work over Millions of years you need to have:
A smooth flat ocean, which is not what we observe.
--------Because otherwise you can not get it to be driven into the mantel. You can not get a paper through, let alone a mountain.=========
You can not get one continent passing onto another plate, it will be driven into the mantel. Yet we see two plates sharing one continent Asia.
You have to do this to make South America and Africa fit.
You need to always have had all the plates so it work.
One plate can only move to one direction at a time, otherwise it will brake.
At the mid Atlantic, magma comes up, hits the water and forms new CRUST, but the lithosphere is driven into the mantel. So the lithosphere shrinks, but does not grow, If the cooling by the water does create new lithosphere, the ridge will get blocked and no more ocean spreading. This alone proves ocean spreading could not have happened over millions of years, 1000 years at most. Which means Continents was not adjacent to each other millions of years ago.
You would have to fit them together at the fault line, without rotating them. Because you can not take one over, and ocean spreading does not Rotate.
You need the mid Atlantic ridge in the middle between Africa and South America to have a chance of proving they were once next to each other. But it is closer to South America at some parts, and at other parts it is closer to Africa.
You`ll have continents classing into each other.
And you still do not have an explanation for how on earth did the other continents move away.
Since land masses are higher inland, to say Africa and South America were once together, is to say it was part of the same landmass, thus it should be the high at the part they were connected to, and we should see something torn. It is low ate the sides you say they were connected
See I do not deny that The continents move away from each other, only they were not adjacent to each other.
Thus this is not proof for an old earth.
I know this sounds Complicated, Just ask if you have a question.
I see what you are missing, You only look at the Africa and South America situation and forget the whole picture (The world)
Can you now see why this is not an argument for an old earth?
Now I`m sure you have a lot better arguments than this one, pleas just name them. Remember, I`m trying to convince you, I`m not trying to Win the debate.
Now I would love to go more into detail, but I have to add like a 100 pages to one of my websites before sunrise and it is already past 1 am.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Prys die Heer!
_________________
Love is never a problem, it is always the solution!
If God did not exist, you would not Exist.
Im a YEC. Find out more on www.yecheadquarters.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7643
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Prysdieheer, I can't believe that I'm arguing well-established science with you.
On a related note, you are not engaging me in a scientific debate. The way science works is that you look at a physical phenomenon. Then you try to explain it, and your explanation had better fit the evidence.
So far I have given a well-supported SCIENTIFIC argument for why Africa and South America used to be one continent, and that the two have moved apart by a distance of about 5000 km:
1. We know that the continental plates move. This is a scientific fact because it is OBSERVED.
2. Now the question is, which WAY are the plates moving? We specifically know that the African and South American plates are moving DIRECTLY away from each other. Again, this has been OBSERVED. We also understand WHERE the split is (the mid-Atlantic ridge), and how new crust is being created there as the plates move apart.
3. Having established THAT the plates move, and which DIRECTION they move in, a natural question to ask is, if you go backwards in time, what did the plates look like in the past?
The overwhelmingly convincing *scientific* answer to this question is that there used to be one big super-continent.
This is the only conclusion you can come to if you take the motion of the continents and run it in reverse. It is also corroborated by multiple orthogonal threads of scientific evidence. Here are two of the more visual ones:
1. As I've already pointed out, Africa and South America fit together perfectly:
And in fact, the underwater continental shelves (in light blue) fit together even better than the land (yellow). What are the chances that two coast lines and continental shelf borders would develop to fit together PERFECTLY if they had formed totally independently? There's just no chance. Do you understand that this is a scientific argument based on evidence?
2. The scientific fossil evidence also corroborates the conclusion that there used to be one super-continent:
As you can see, the fossils of certain creatures are ONLY found in some areas. Since those areas are now separated by oceans, this implies that the continents used to be adjacent, or else these creatures would not have had the necessary freedom to move and be found where they were. (How could we find fossils in Antarctica if it was always at the South Pole and totally hostile to life?) Again, these are scientific arguments based on EVIDENCE.
This is how the continents moved if we run it in fast-forward:
The theory of continental drift is based on excellent evidence, and it is compelling.
Now, here's the important part: The way science works is that if you have a theory which does a BETTER job explaining the way the world currently looks, and is based on BETTER evidence, then you can put forth that theory and argue in favor of it.
So far, you haven't done that at all. You haven't given one single scientific argument based on physical evidence which even remotely rebuts the well-established theory of continental drift, and you most certainly haven't given an alternative theory.
I can't believe I'm having to go through all of this just to establish that Africa and South America used to be part of the same continent. Regardless of how you feel about it, the evidence really does prove that this was the case and that they have since moved apart by a distance of about 5000 km.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrysdieHeer!
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 392
Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Prysdieheer, I can't believe that I'm arguing well-established science with you. |
We are arguing Whether it is Science or not.
| Quote: | | On a related note, you are not engaging me in a scientific debate. |
I Tried my best, I personally think I did a good Job.
| Quote: | | The way science works is that you look at a physical phenomenon. Then you try to explain it, and your explanation had better fit the evidence. |
And The Observation must not be the same as the Evidence, otherwise you have a circular argument.
| Quote: | | So far I have given a well-supported SCIENTIFIC argument for why Africa and South America used to be one continent, and that the two have moved apart by a distance of about 5000 km: |
I disagree, thus we debate.
| Quote: | | 1. We know that the continental plates move. This is a scientific fact because it is OBSERVED. |
Not completely true!
They work like a conveyor belt.
| Quote: | | 2. Now the question is, which WAY are the plates moving? We specifically know that the African and South American plates are moving DIRECTLY away from each other. Again, this has been OBSERVED. |
1. If they moved directly away from each other, they would not fit. They would have to rotate
2.They Do not move Directly Away from each other. Africa goes in a North East Direction, And South America goes West. Thanks to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.
However they still Don`t Rotate.
| Quote: | | 3. Having established THAT the plates move, and which DIRECTION they move in, a natural question to ask is, if you go backwards in time, what did the plates look like in the past? |
I Think You need to distinguish between PLATES and CONTINENTS.
| Quote: | | The overwhelmingly convincing *scientific* answer to this question is that there used to be one big super-continent. |
What is better, reality, or | Quote: | | Overwhelmingly convincing *scientific* answer |
.
Reality! For it can disproof, that answer, however that answers can not disprove Reality. We are trying to find out what Really says.
| Quote: | | 1. As I've already pointed out, Africa and South America fit together perfectly: |
Proving they Fit together does not prove they DID Fit together.
| Quote: | | What are the chances that two coast lines and continental shelf borders would develop to fit together PERFECTLY if they had formed totally independently |
1. Not really Perfectly.
2. With Ocean floor spreading You can not get this to fit, You Jump the over a fault line - - Mid Atlantic ridge - -
| Quote: | | There's just no chance. |
Coming from someone believing Everything happened by Chance? How can you believe everything happened by chance, but the formation of the continents.
| Quote: | | 2. The scientific fossil evidence also corroborates the conclusion that there used to be one super-continent: |
Now you are being deceived.
I like decoding Magic-Tricks. And this one works one the same principle.
They find Fossils -- - Here and there. Then they connect them with imaginary lines. If they find one away from this line, they just extend the line to fit it, if it is too far off, they scrap it. Of course you will get some to fit your theory, there are literally MILLIONS of fossils, the chance of there being a few fitting your theory is Great.
It is like the stars, you see a bunch of stars, draw imaginary line between them, and make pictures - - And then say it is proof for the existence of Greek gods - - Flaw - - Why you draw that lines has no logic explanation. There are a lot stars, of course some would be in such formation they would look like pictures, The same is with this fossils - Imaginary lines.
Remember Search and you shall find.
| Quote: | | As you can see, the fossils of certain creatures are ONLY found in some areas. |
Certain, Yes - - There are Millions.
| Quote: | | Since those areas are now separated by oceans |
Yes?
| Quote: | | this implies that the continents used to be adjacent |
No
| Quote: | | or else these creatures would not have had the necessary freedom to move and be found where they were. |
Or maybe God Put them there. And how do you Explain Fossils of The Glossopteris-flora plant (And millions of others) Being found far away from each other, It was found in Australia, but not on Antarctic, others Do not Even have such a path. And what happened to the Rest World?
| Quote: | | How could we find fossils in Antarctica if it was always at the South Pole and totally hostile to life? |
Clearly it was not.
| Quote: | | This is how the continents moved if we run it in fast-forward |
This is just absurd. Part of Asia is on the North America plate. For this to have happened (The split) You would need the North America Plate to Magically Shrink in the middle, This is Scientifically Impossible.
Your problem is You Do not look at the whole picture here. This is how you get tricked, especially by magic tricks.
| Quote: | | The theory of continental drift is based on excellent evidence, and it is compelling. |
More like Rich imagination.
| Quote: | | The way science works is that if you have a theory which does a BETTER job explaining the way the world currently looks, and is based on BETTER evidence, then you can put forth that theory and argue in favor of it. |
Unless Logic proves it wrong.
| Quote: | | So far, you haven't done that at all. You haven't given one single scientific argument based on physical evidence which even remotely rebuts the well-established theory of continental drift, |
| in my previous post, I wrote: |
To make this system work over Millions of years you need to have:
A smooth flat ocean, which is not what we observe.
--------Because otherwise you can not get it to be driven into the mantel. You can not get a paper through, let alone a mountain.=========
You can not get one continent passing onto another plate, it will be driven into the mantel. Yet we see two plates sharing one continent Asia.
You have to do this to make South America and Africa fit.
You need to always have had all the plates so it work.
One plate can only move to one direction at a time, otherwise it will brake.
At the mid Atlantic, magma comes up, hits the water and forms new CRUST, but the lithosphere is driven into the mantel. So the lithosphere shrinks, but does not grow, If the cooling by the water does create new lithosphere, the ridge will get blocked and no more ocean spreading. This alone proves ocean spreading could not have happened over millions of years, 1000 years at most. Which means Continents was not adjacent to each other millions of years ago.
You would have to fit them together at the fault line, without rotating them. Because you can not take one over, and ocean spreading does not Rotate.
You need the mid Atlantic ridge in the middle between Africa and South America to have a chance of proving they were once next to each other. But it is closer to South America at some parts, and at other parts it is closer to Africa.
You`ll have continents classing into each other.
And you still do not have an explanation for how on earth did the other continents move away.
Since land masses are higher inland, to say Africa and South America were once together, is to say it was part of the same landmass, thus it should be the high at the part they were connected to, and we should see something torn. It is low ate the sides you say they were connected
See I do not deny that The continents move away from each other, only they were not adjacent to each other.
Thus this is not proof for an old earth.
I know this sounds Complicated, Just ask if you have a question.
I see what you are missing, You only look at the Africa and South America situation and forget the whole picture (The world)
Can you now see why this is not an argument for an old earth?
Now I`m sure you have a lot better arguments than this one, pleas just name them. Remember, I`m trying to convince you, I`m not trying to Win the debate.
|
| Quote: | | and you most certainly haven't given an alternative theory. |
I do have one, but it is just a theory.
But theory does not change reality. Remember this - - You seem to be missing it all the time.
| Quote: | | I can't believe I'm having to go through all of this just to establish that Africa and South America used to be part of the same continent. |
I have to keep rebuting that statements, and so far I have done a very good Job - I think.
| Quote: | | Regardless of how you feel about it, the evidence really does prove that this was the case and that they have since moved apart by a distance of about 5000 km. |
And as I have just shown you - - This is Impossible! - - That which we observe clearly does not allow it to happen.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Can You See My Point?
"""":"""""""""""""":::""""""""""""""""""""
Prys die Heer!
_________________
Love is never a problem, it is always the solution!
If God did not exist, you would not Exist.
Im a YEC. Find out more on www.yecheadquarters.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7643
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | The way science works is that you look at a physical phenomenon. Then you try to explain it, and your explanation had better fit the evidence. |
And The Observation must not be the same as the Evidence, otherwise you have a circular argument.
|
What are you talking about? Observations are perfectly valid examples of evidence! How is that circular at all???
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | 1. We know that the continental plates move. This is a scientific fact because it is OBSERVED. |
Not completely true!
They work like a conveyor belt. |
If you're saying that one side of a plate is created, and the other side is driven underground in a subduction zone and destroyed, then you are partly right. There are three ways in which plates interact:
The Mid-Atlantic Ridge between the African and South American plates is of type 'A'. So forget about the other two types. They really don't matter for this discussion.
The bottom line is that the plates MOVE. This is a FACT. We know that it is a fact because it has been OBSERVED.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | 2. Now the question is, which WAY are the plates moving? We specifically know that the African and South American plates are moving DIRECTLY away from each other. Again, this has been OBSERVED. |
1. If they moved directly away from each other, they would not fit. They would have to rotate
|
I'm not saying that they have always moved away from each other in exactly the same direction. Certainly it is possible for continental plates to change direction slightly.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | 3. Having established THAT the plates move, and which DIRECTION they move in, a natural question to ask is, if you go backwards in time, what did the plates look like in the past? |
I Think You need to distinguish between PLATES and CONTINENTS. |
How about this: Africa and South America are being carried away from each other on roughly opposite-facing conveyor belts. There, I'm using your terminology. Is that better?
In any case, they are moving away from each other, which means that in the past they were closer together.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | 1. As I've already pointed out, Africa and South America fit together perfectly: |
Proving they Fit together does not prove they DID Fit together. |
Yes, it really does. There is no way that two massive coastlines could end up being completely parallel if they formed thousands of kilometers apart.
But by all means, if you have an alternative *scientific* explanation for why their continental shelves fit together perfectly WITHOUT the continents ever having been adjacent, please share it with me.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | or else these creatures would not have had the necessary freedom to move and be found where they were. |
Or maybe God Put them there.
|
No, you need to give a *scientific* explanation for how the same TERRESTRIAL species could cross the Atlantic Ocean.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
And how do you Explain Fossils of The Glossopteris-flora plant (And millions of others) Being found far away from each other, It was found in Australia, but not on Antarctic
|
Are you trying to help me here? Glossopteris is just more evidence that the continents were connected in the past.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | How could we find fossils in Antarctica if it was always at the South Pole and totally hostile to life? |
Clearly it was not. |
So you agree that Antarctica moved from somewhere where it gets enough sun for plants to grow to its present location where it is freezing?
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | This is how the continents moved if we run it in fast-forward |
This is just absurd. Part of Asia is on the North America plate. For this to have happened (The split) You would need the North America Plate to Magically Shrink in the middle, This is Scientifically Impossible.
|
What are you talking about? Asia is NOT on the North American plate. Look at the animation again.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
You can not get one continent passing onto another plate, it will be driven into the mantel. Yet we see two plates sharing one continent Asia.
You have to do this to make South America and Africa fit.
|
No, you really don't. Watch the animation again. No continents pass over any other continents.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
At the mid Atlantic, magma comes up, hits the water and forms new CRUST, but the lithosphere is driven into the mantel. |
There is no lithosphere at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge being driven into the mantel.
Also, do you believe that subduction of plates happens or not? (Not that it matters with respect to Africa and South America.)
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
So the lithosphere shrinks, but does not grow,
|
So the total lithosphere area on the Earth is monotonically decreasing? Eventually the Earth is going to have no surface area at all? Do you even think before you write these things?
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
If the cooling by the water does create new lithosphere, the ridge will get blocked and no more ocean spreading.
|
What are you talking about? WE OBSERVE new lithosphere being created at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, and it doesn't get blocked! WE'VE SEEN IT MOVE FOR DECADES! Your assertions are contradicted by the observations, and that means that your assertions are WRONG!
I also have a question for you: What is the furthest that a continental plate has ever moved?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrysdieHeer!
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 392
Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | What are you talking about? Observations are perfectly valid examples of evidence! How is that circular at all??? |
You must have misunderstood me, sorry about that.
I mean THE Observation you use to make a interpretation, must not be the same as the proof! As I Showed in my Intro.
| Quote: | | If you're saying that one side of a plate is created, and the other side is driven underground in a subduction zone and destroyed, then you are partly right. There are three ways in which plates interact: |
Exactly:
| Quote: | | So forget about the other two types. They really don't matter for this discussion. |
This is where you are wrong.
This is like a magic trick, you see only one part and get deceived, you forget the other, For the conveyor belt system to work, you need the other two.
| Quote: | | The bottom line is that the plates MOVE. This is a FACT. We know that it is a fact because it has been OBSERVED. |
Yes, but not in such a way that it is proof for an old earth.
| Quote: | | I'm not saying that they have always moved away from each other in exactly the same direction. Certainly it is possible for continental plates to change direction slightly. |
Direction: Maybe slightly!
Angle: Not likely!
| Quote: | | How about this: Africa and South America are being carried away from each other on roughly opposite-facing conveyor belts. There, I'm using your terminology. Is that better? |
Almost, they do not move DIRECTLY away from each other.
| Quote: | | In any case, they are moving away from each other, which means that in the past they were closer together. |
A Few meters Yes.
| Quote: | | Yes, it really does. There is no way that two massive coastlines could end up being completely parallel if they formed thousands of kilometers apart. |
Parallel?
Maybe one formed the other!
| Quote: | | But by all means, if you have an alternative *scientific* explanation for why their continental shelves fit together perfectly WITHOUT the continents ever having been adjacent, please share it with me. |
Thank you for asking!
I do have a theory, then again I have a lot of theories.
I believe There was once less water ON the earth, but a lot above it. The Continents was flatter, and did not have the same shape, as today, then man got evil and the world was flooded. 15 Cubits under water was the highest mountain, Now this created serious tides - - No land to stop them! - - And they almost always went West -- This created great erosion, So the whole earth was under water. Now for the earth to get dry land again, mountains have to raise and valleys have to lower, As this is happening the mud under the sea is clashing against this mountain, As the Mountains get higher the tides weaken, Tides then carry Ground from Africa to South America, The further it has to carry it, the longer it takes, Thus the closer points formed First. So Erosion, copied the outline of Africa, Inverted it, and Put in on South America!
It is just a theory I`m working on, Still have to work out some problem though, but they do not prove it impossible. Fish, and ark.
I`ll be glad to go into more detail if I had more time.
See The Flood can explain almost all our findings, maybe there was one, Recorded History Says so.
| Quote: | | No, you need to give a *scientific* explanation for how the same TERRESTRIAL species could cross the Atlantic Ocean. |
This is way you do not believe in God!
You do not classify something possible if God did it!
Try explaining where the computer came from without using man as an answer.
| Quote: | | Are you trying to help me here? Glossopteris is just more evidence that the continents were connected in the past. |
Except for the fact they did not find it on the antarctic.
But you did not answer my question.
| Quote: | | So you agree that Antarctica moved from somewhere where it gets enough sun for plants to grow to its present location where it is freezing? |
Or maybe it was not always as cold!
Where did the ice come from anyway, if God did not put it there?
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
| Quote: | | What are you talking about? Asia is NOT on the North American plate. Look at the animation again. |
The animation does not show plates!
Here:
| Quote: | | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Plates_tect2_en.svg |
The North America plate is the Brown one, as you will notice.
| Quote: | | No, you really don't. Watch the animation again. No continents pass over any other continents. |
So you say something is reality, because there is a .gif showing it. Not this is imagination. You can get anything to happen in your imagination. However reality shows this is impossible, They gen ton jump over to another, the lithosphere either gets push into the mantel, or it pushes the next plate away, this is logic.
| Quote: | | There is no lithosphere at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge being driven into the mantel. |
At the other side, otherwise you can not get your continents to move apart.
| Quote: | | Also, do you believe that subduction of plates happens or not? (Not that it matters with respect to Africa and South America.) |
| Quote: | | So the total lithosphere area on the Earth is monotonically decreasing? Eventually the Earth is going to have no surface area at all? Do you even think before you write these things? |
No if the gap gets too big it stops, the water cools it down, but then you don`t get spreading anymore, thus this could not have happened for millions of years.
| Quote: | | What are you talking about? WE OBSERVE new lithosphere being created at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, and it doesn't get blocked! WE'VE SEEN IT MOVE FOR DECADES! |
Yes decades, not millions of years!
No CRUST is formed, not lithosphere!
| Quote: | | I also have a question for you: What is the furthest that a continental plate has ever moved? |
In what period, since the bigining or the earth? Can not say, Don`t know when it started.
:":":":":":":":":":":":":":":":":":":":":
Prys die Heer!
_________________
Love is never a problem, it is always the solution!
If God did not exist, you would not Exist.
Im a YEC. Find out more on www.yecheadquarters.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7643
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | But by all means, if you have an alternative *scientific* explanation for why their continental shelves fit together perfectly WITHOUT the continents ever having been adjacent, please share it with me. |
Thank you for asking!
I do have a theory, then again I have a lot of theories.
|
You have HYPOTHESES. I want a theory with some evidence backing it up!
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
I believe There was once less water ON the earth, but a lot above it. |
What is the scientific evidence for this claim?
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
The Continents was flatter, and did not have the same shape, as today,
|
What is the scientific evidence for this claim?
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
then man got evil and the world was flooded.
|
What is the scientific evidence for this claim?
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
15 Cubits under water was the highest mountain,
|
What is the scientific evidence for this claim?
Also, there isn't enough water on the whole planet for this to happen.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
Now this created serious tides - - No land to stop them! - - And they almost always went West -- This created great erosion,
|
What is the scientific evidence for this claim?
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
So the whole earth was under water. Now for the earth to get dry land again, mountains have to raise and valleys have to lower, As this is happening the mud under the sea is clashing against this mountain, As the Mountains get higher the tides weaken, Tides then carry Ground from Africa to South America, The further it has to carry it, the longer it takes, Thus the closer points formed First. So Erosion, copied the outline of Africa, Inverted it, and Put in on South America! |
ARE YOU KIDDING? The tides picked up the silt from Africa across almost five thousand kilometers of ocean, and deposited it to create an EXACTLY PARALLEL coastline along the eastern edge of South America???
This doesn't work at all! For one, silt gathering uniformly on a coastline extends the coastline UNIFORMLY. It can't create a coastline with a new shape; all it does is extend the shape which is already there.
You think that this impossibly wild speculation can even begin to compete with the evidence-based scientific conclusion that Africa and South America used to be part of the same continent??? ARE YOU SERIOUS?!?
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
It is just a theory I`m working on, Still have to work out some problem though, but they do not prove it impossible. |
You have to work out A LOT of problems, not the least of which is that you have literally NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support ANY of your arguments.
The theory of continental drift, on the other hand, IS supported by A LOT of scientific evidence, which is maybe why all of the scientists accept it.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | No, you need to give a *scientific* explanation for how the same TERRESTRIAL species could cross the Atlantic Ocean. |
This is way you do not believe in God!
You do not classify something possible if God did it!
Try explaining where the computer came from without using man as an answer.
|
It has nothing to do with me classifying something as not possible. The problem is that you're throwing out WILD speculations which have no basis in FACT.
If you have evidence that God put those specific animals there on opposite sides of the ocean, then share it.
You seem to have a SERIOUS problem with scientific evidence, namely that you don't think you ever have to give any in order to support your arguments. You're just guessing and making stuff up! That's NOT how science works!
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrysdieHeer!
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 392
Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You have HYPOTHESES. I want a theory with some evidence backing it up! |
No Evidence backing up your claims, about Pangaea!
And I have some evidence, Like trees standing upright, connecting liars of the earth.
| Quote: | | What is the scientific evidence for this claim? |
What? you asked for a theory! I gave you one! Nothing proves it wrong, not being able o prove all of it, does not prove it wrong.
My evidence lies in recorded History!
| Quote: | | Also, there isn't enough water on the whole planet for this to happen. |
Actually it does if the mountains were flatter, and the valleys higher.
| Quote: | | ARE YOU KIDDING? The tides picked up the silt from Africa across almost five thousand kilometers of ocean, and deposited it to create an EXACTLY PARALLEL coastline along the eastern edge of South America??? |
Not exactly my theory! A lot of factors was involved in carrying it very far and create shape. Speed, water level, etc.
| Quote: | | This doesn't work at all! For one, silt gathering uniformly on a coastline extends the coastline UNIFORMLY. It can't create a coastline with a new shape; all it does is extend the shape which is already there. |
This is not how my theory works, It works with the rate
erosion decreasing over time, thus creating shape.
| Quote: | | You think that this impossibly wild speculation can even begin to compete with the evidence-based scientific conclusion that Africa and South America used to be part of the same continent??? ARE YOU SERIOUS?!? |
Evidence?
Pangaea is Scientifically impossible, as I showed you many times.
| Quote: | | You have to work out A LOT of problems, not the least of which is that you have literally NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support ANY of your arguments. |
Not many problems!
I`ll try to find some evidence and show you them, later.
| Quote: | | It has nothing to do with me classifying something as not possible. The problem is that you're throwing out WILD speculations which have no basis in FACT. |
They are there, they are far apart, they do not have wings to fly, so someone had to have put them there, Most likely God.
| Quote: | | You seem to have a SERIOUS problem with scientific evidence, namely that you don't think you ever have to give any in order to support your arguments. |
What problem, I do not have a problem with evidence, only unproven theories, and claims of evidence.
| Quote: | | You're just guessing and making stuff up! That's NOT how science works! |
It is if you can proof it.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Prys die Heer!
_________________
Love is never a problem, it is always the solution!
If God did not exist, you would not Exist.
Im a YEC. Find out more on www.yecheadquarters.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7643
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: | | Quote: | | You have HYPOTHESES. I want a theory with some evidence backing it up! |
And I have some evidence, Like trees standing upright, connecting liars of the earth.
|
You're not even *TRYING* to give scientific arguments! You don't even seem to understand that you *HAVE* to give scientific arguments!
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | What is the scientific evidence for this claim? |
What? you asked for a theory! I gave you one!
|
I asked for evidence. You gave me wild, completely unsubstantiated speculation.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
Nothing proves it wrong, not being able o prove all of it, does not prove it wrong.
|
You've really got no idea how to carry on a scientific debate, do you? Your hypotheses are wild guesses, and not only do they have ZERO evidence supporting them, but they're so comically ridiculous and out of touch with physical reality that I wonder if you're just making fun of me here, trying to see how long I'll keep debating with you while you string me along with arguments which you purposefully devised to be comically bad!
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | Also, there isn't enough water on the whole planet for this to happen. |
Actually it does if the mountains were flatter, and the valleys higher.
|
So now you're saying that all of the mountains and valleys on Earth are less than 6000 years old? The Earth was nearly flat 6000 years ago... Is this your claim?
Would you care to back that up with evidence? (The smooth Earth and/or the Earth being only 6000 years old, take your pick.)
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | ARE YOU KIDDING? The tides picked up the silt from Africa across almost five thousand kilometers of ocean, and deposited it to create an EXACTLY PARALLEL coastline along the eastern edge of South America??? |
Not exactly my theory! A lot of factors was involved in carrying it very far and create shape. Speed, water level, etc. |
You're not even trying. Why are we doing this?
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | This doesn't work at all! For one, silt gathering uniformly on a coastline extends the coastline UNIFORMLY. It can't create a coastline with a new shape; all it does is extend the shape which is already there. |
This is not how my theory works, It works with the rate
erosion decreasing over time, thus creating shape.
|
Wild speculation. Let's see some evidence.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | You think that this impossibly wild speculation can even begin to compete with the evidence-based scientific conclusion that Africa and South America used to be part of the same continent??? ARE YOU SERIOUS?!? |
Evidence?
Pangaea is Scientifically impossible, as I showed you many times.
|
You most certainly did not. If you did, then you'd be world famous. You'd have an instant Ph.D. and you could publish lots of papers. So if you really think you did, then by all means submit your arguments to the best geology journal aroudn.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | It has nothing to do with me classifying something as not possible. The problem is that you're throwing out WILD speculations which have no basis in FACT. |
They are there, they are far apart, they do not have wings to fly, so someone had to have put them there, Most likely God.
|
Evidence please.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | You seem to have a SERIOUS problem with scientific evidence, namely that you don't think you ever have to give any in order to support your arguments. |
What problem, I do not have a problem with evidence, only unproven theories, and claims of evidence.
|
You have MASSIVE problems with evidence! For one, you don't accept any of the real evidence which real scientists have discovered, and secondly you seem to be totally incapable of giving any scientific evidence supporting your crazy hypotheses.
Seriously, so far you haven't even *attempted* to engage me in debate. You haven't given one iota of evidence for a young Earth or for your ridiculous geological hypotheses. Are you *ever* going to give real arguments here, or are we wasting our time?
Do you understand that making wildly speculative statements doesn't count as scientific debate?
I could say that the whole universe with you and me and all of your memories was created five seconds ago. There's no evidence at all against this hypothesis. This is why we require JUSTIFICATION for our arguments in the form of physical evidence.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrysdieHeer!
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 392
Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry for taking so long to reply!
Now I hope you will read through this tread again, and look at your own statements with a sceptic eye. Remember a scientific FACT is not equal to believes of scientists.
Now to show you that you have been blinded! Can you see my theory is not proven, thus I can not claim it to be a scientific fact. You get a theory, have NO evidence yet you call it science? I never said My theory is proven, you said your`s was, but as I shown You This is a lie, you have no valid evidence! Pangaea is Impossible.
Remember I`m trying to convince you of a Yong earth, But I can not show you if you close your eyes from the truth, You do not use your logic to argue, instead you use your education, which is flawed, as logic will show.
Thus do us, God, but most of all Yourself, a favour and look at your own statements with a sceptic eye.
| Quote: | | You're not even *TRYING* to give scientific arguments! You don't even seem to understand that you *HAVE* to give scientific arguments! |
Not?
Actually I think I do, Considering you were not able to reply to them, why do you ignore my arguments - - Most of them.
| Quote: | | I asked for evidence. You gave me wild, completely unsubstantiated speculation. |
Actually you asked for an explanation as to why Africa look as if it could have been next to it.
| Quote: | | You've really got no idea how to carry on a scientific debate, do you? Your hypotheses are wild guesses, and not only do they have ZERO evidence supporting them, but they're so comically ridiculous and out of touch with physical reality that I wonder if you're just making fun of me here, trying to see how long I'll keep debating with you while you string me along with arguments which you purposefully devised to be comically bad! |
Your not the first I debate about the age of the earth, and guess what, I won all my previous debates.
But Good, you noticed that I have no proof for my claim, and thus it is not scientific. So it is the same as your claim no evidence, but I don`t claim it to be fact.
| Quote: | | So now you're saying that all of the mountains and valleys on Earth are less than 6000 years old? The Earth was nearly flat 6000 years ago... Is this your claim? |
Yes!
| Quote: | | Would you care to back that up with evidence? (The smooth Earth and/or the Earth being only 6000 years old, take your pick.) |
It is only a theory, I never claimed it to be fact.
| Quote: | | You're not even trying. Why are we doing this? |
What?
| Quote: | | Wild speculation. Let's see some evidence. |
I echo that sentence back to you.
| Quote: | | You most certainly did not. If you did, then you'd be world famous. You'd have an instant PhD. and you could publish lots of papers. So if you really think you did, then by all means submit your arguments to the best geology journal around. |
Have you even read my posts?
You ignore my statements Here they are for the third time!
| Quote: | You can not get one continent passing onto another plate, it will be driven into the mantel. Yet we see two plates sharing one continent Asia.
You have to do this to make South America and Africa fit.
You need to always have had all the plates so it work.
One plate can only move to one direction at a time, otherwise it will brake.
At the mid Atlantic, magma comes up, hits the water and forms new CRUST, but the lithosphere is driven into the mantel. So the lithosphere shrinks, but does not grow, If the cooling by the water does create new lithosphere, the ridge will get blocked and no more ocean spreading. This alone proves ocean spreading could not have happened over millions of years, 1000 years at most. Which means Continents was not adjacent to each other millions of years ago.
You would have to fit them together at the fault line, without rotating them. Because you can not take one over, and ocean spreading does not Rotate.
You need the mid Atlantic ridge in the middle between Africa and South America to have a chance of proving they were once next to each other. But it is closer to South America at some parts, and at other parts it is closer to Africa.
You`ll have continents classing into each other.
And you still do not have an explanation for how on earth did the other continents move away.
Since land masses are higher inland, to say Africa and South America were once together, is to say it was part of the same landmass, thus it should be the high at the part they were connected to, and we should see something torn. It is low ate the sides you say they were connected
See I do not deny that The continents move away from each other, only they were not adjacent to each other.
Thus this is not proof for an old earth.
I know this sounds Complicated, Just ask if you have a question.
I see what you are missing, You only look at the Africa and South America situation and forget the whole picture (The world)
Can you now see why this is not an argument for an old earth?
Now I`m sure you have a lot better arguments than this one, pleas just name them. Remember, I`m trying to convince you, I`m not trying to Win the debate. |
You tried to rebuke some of them but failed!
Impossibility of the contrary - - Logic proves it.
| Quote: | | You have MASSIVE problems with evidence! For one, you don't accept any of the real evidence which real scientists have discovered, and secondly you seem to be totally incapable of giving any scientific evidence supporting your crazy hypotheses. |
Lack of evidence does not prove something wrong, It is a possibility! a Possible explanation.
| Quote: | | Seriously, so far you haven't even *attempted* to engage me in debate. You haven't given one iota of evidence for a young Earth or for your ridiculous geological hypotheses. Are you *ever* going to give real arguments here, or are we wasting our time? |
Do you read my posts?
Failing in replying to my statements usually means you agree, or have no reason to disagree.
| Quote: | | Do you understand that making wildly speculative statements doesn't count as scientific debate? |
1. Why not?
2. That is what you do!
| Quote: | | I could say that the whole universe with you and me and all of your memories was created five seconds ago. There's no evidence at all against this hypothesis. This is why we require JUSTIFICATION for our arguments in the form of physical evidence. |
Listen to yourself, and apply your logic to your own statements
":
":
":
This is totally of topic, You asked for a Possible explanation of the A-SA Fit, I gave you one. Now you go on debating about : You have no proof. I know. I agree - - To some extent. However As I have shown you Pang ea is IMPOSSIBLE thus continental Drift is NOT evince for an old earth.
See you have been blinded from your own statements!
| you wrote: | | But by all means, if you have an alternative *scientific* explanation for why their continental shelves fit together perfectly WITHOUT the continents ever having been adjacent, please share it with me. |
Explanation?
I have more but that is off the topic!
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Prys die Heer!
_________________
Love is never a problem, it is always the solution!
If God did not exist, you would not Exist.
Im a YEC. Find out more on | | |
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
