Debunking Pangaea/Continental Drift Theory.

[Commander]

Wow! Science can't answer all of our questions? I guess there is nothing for us to do but abandon it in favor of a magical interpretation of an ancient Hebrew text.

Okay, sounds good to me. I only know who inspired men to write the ancient Hebrew text, and it is in Him that I believe.

 

[Commander]

Simple question? It is one of the most complicated questions it is possible to ask.

Not when the One who created it, tells you how He created it, and when He created it.

 

[lesliedellow]

Not when the One who created it, tells you how He created it, and when He created it.

Even if Genesis 1 was a literal account of history, it wouldn't come within a billion miles of being God's account of, "How I did it."

 

[Commander]

Even if Genesis 1 was a literal account of history, it wouldn't come within a billion miles of being God's account of, "How I did it."

Then who's account do you attribute it to?

 

[lesliedellow]

Then who's account do you attribute it to?

You miss the point. Saying that God gives an account of how he created life in Genesis, is like saying that British Aerospace would have given a complete account of how they manufactured Concorde by saying, "In Bristol, out of aluminium, some other materials and third party components." In fact that would be a rather fuller account than Genesis would give of the origination of life, even if it was interpreted as literal history.

 

[Commander]

You miss the point. Saying that God gives an account of how he created life in Genesis, is like saying that British Aerospace would have given a complete account of how they manufactured Concorde by saying, "In Bristol, out of aluminium, some other materials and third party components." In fact that would be a rather fuller account than Genesis would give of the origination of life, even if it was interpreted as literal history.

So, you think science can give you the answer where God(who created it) cannot?

 

[lesliedellow]

So, you think science can give you the answer where God(who created it) cannot?

God reveals as much as he thinks is relevant to our eternal destiny and his purposes. The rest he leaves us to figure out for ourselves. A Bible would be just one volume, amongst many thousands of others, on the shelves of a university library.

 

[Commander]

God reveals as much as he thinks is relevant to our eternal destiny and his purposes. The rest he leaves us to figure out for ourselves. A Bible would be just one volume, amongst many thousands of others, on the shelves of a university library.

Were all of these volumes in the library inspired by God? I will say that it is His word in the bible that He inspired for men to write for a period of over 1500 years in three different languages, stating what He had done, and how He done it?

 

[Ken Behrens]

It's an easy scientific elimination that the moon did not come from the Pacific Ocean.

The Fission Theory: This theory proposes that the Moon was once part of the Earth and somehow separated from the Earth early in the history of the solar system. The present Pacific Ocean basin is the most popular site for the part of the Earth from which the Moon came. This theory was thought possible since the Moon's composition resembles that of the Earth's mantle and a rapidly spinning Earth could have cast off the Moon from its outer layers. However, the present-day Earth-Moon system should contain "fossil evidence" of this rapid spin and it does not. Also, this hypothesis does not have a natural explanation for the extra baking the lunar material has received.
(source: NASA http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question38.html​

We are reexamining that it may have come out some other way than cast off rapidly spinning. If so, the spin evidence is not related. The lack of the iron core would be explained, if the iron remained with the earth. The "baking" is not proven, but is a consequence of the absence of water; so the absence of water must be explained. The sun and moon would have formed at the same distance from the sun, if they were formed together and then separated.

We must remember, we are actually asking three questions here, because this is a Christian forum: 1. What actually happened scientifically? 2. How would the people who wrote and accepted the Bible have processed it in their language with their technological understanding? 3. Is there any application in the answers to the first two that might be helpful to us to understand currently difficult passages of the Bible.

Last night, as I was falling asleep, I had the idea based on: creation is described by the folks contemporary with the early Christians and Jews (Philo and Aristotle and Plato, etc) as having begun with God separating unformed chaos into earth at the center, water around it, air around that, and finally fire around that, leaving the separation incomplete so movement would occur creating life. It would be possible to hypothesize that when God created the sun and moon, He took the earth that He had already raised up to a "top" in the water, and it was in a sphere about 2300 miles across (thank you to whoever got me thinking "smaller sphere"), originally in a ball of water about 9000 miles across total. He then peeled off the top layer of the sphere, leaving Pangea, with about 400 miles of lithosphere and mantle under it. The inner part was the moon, and as Pangea came "up", the moon went "down" (out the other side two Creation days later), and the force of separation slowly pushed the moon to its place in the sky, and also generated energy to create the heat for the molten iron core under Pangea. It makes sense theologically, and satisfies the requirements of the great NASA article you found (making it so simple to know what objections must be answered scientifically). We have satisfied the size of Pangea, the size of the moon, the size of the lithosphere, etc., with one simple drawing.

It would be nice to know if anyone can find any objection to this theory geologically. But I am also looking at this in the light of my question 2. I am mainly trained in mathematics, and one of my specialties is ancient mathematics. So, my next thought was, even if this is wrong, might the authors of Bible been taught this as children? I can't prove they were, but I know that this is how they looked that the world. Here's what I then saw regarding question 3: If the moon went down, to serve the function of marking times and seasons, would it ever come back? Then I saw in my head the image of the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven, and I did a quick calculation. Of course, in that time, there will be no need of sun, and if there is a moon, it will not be visible. The Lamb will be the light of the City of God. Moon is 2100 miles across in a sphere. New Jerusalem a cube 1500 miles on a side. The comparative volume is 3.3x10E9 for the Holy City to 5.3x10E9 for the moon. If you look at it linearly, the New Jerusalem, if it had volume equal to that of the moon, would provide a radius of 930 miles, compared to the actual radius of 1071 miles. Their ability to measure the earth was often off by 10 or 15%, and their ability in space was similar. Now, this could be coincidence that two such computations that no one ever thought to compare before are this close, but it also occurs to me, that we may be on to something here. I have already quoted some other evidence that the ancients believed in Pangea.

 

[Commander]

@ Ken and Rick. Then the conservation of angular momentum would beg the question, why are there planets, moons and galaxies revolving around in different directions?

 

[Ken Behrens]

@ Ken and Rick. Then the conservation of angular momentum would beg the question, why are there planets, moons and galaxies revolving around in different directions?

I'm not sure how celestial motion applies to anything I have posted, but I think you mean me, so I will answer. There is no reason to believe that anything is revolving around anything. It is possible to model the entire universe as a stationary fractal in the fifth dimension. The math is way too complicated to get into here, but some cosmologists are looking at theories of up to ten dimensions. If correct, such a theory would mean that motion is simply created by the observer's choice. I can document at least four major theory changes in the the theory of the nature of the universe since ancient Egypt, and all have affected the Bible, or the people of God interpreting the Bible. In the NT period, the dominant theory is that things went in different directions as part of the expression of God's personality. Some applications will surprise you, for example, planetary motion, apparently retrograde, is modeled as a "wheel in a wheel", which you can see in Medieval astrolabes. It is unrelated to Ezekiel, but the commonality is fascinating.

 

[RickG]

Rick, we only get it from evolutionary scientist themselves. The following are from scientific websites:
http://mappingignorance.org/2014/01/17/open-questions-in-geoscience/
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-biggest-unsolved-problems-in-paleontology
https://scientiaandveritas.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/paleontology-and-the-species-problem/
http://www.icr.org/article/never-ending-problems-evolutionary-biology/
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/07/spinning_fanciful_tales_about_048281.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_biology
http://www.realclearscience.com/lists/unsolved_problems_in_biology/
http://www.discovery.org/a/24041
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_chemistry
http://www.scientus.org/Wegener-Continental-Drift.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
If you need me to list more, I would be more than happy to.'
Yeah, Rick science cannot answer the simple question: How did non-living chemical compounds generate self-replicating, complex life forms?

And which one of those says it contributes to the age of the earth? Dude, you are completely on a different wave length. You might want to consider my updated signature from several hours ago before you posted this. Try addressing what you quote.

 

[Commander]

I'm not sure how celestial motion applies to anything I have posted, but I think you mean me, so I will answer. There is no reason to believe that anything is revolving around anything. It is possible to model the entire universe as a stationary fractal in the fifth dimension. The math is way too complicated to get into here, but some cosmologists are looking at theories of up to ten dimensions. If correct, such a theory would mean that motion is simply created by the observer's choice. I can document at least four major theory changes in the the theory of the nature of the universe since ancient Egypt, and all have affected the Bible, or the people of God interpreting the Bible. In the NT period, the dominant theory is that things went in different directions as part of the expression of God's personality. Some applications will surprise you, for example, planetary motion, apparently retrograde, is modeled as a "wheel in a wheel", which you can see in Medieval astrolabes. It is unrelated to Ezekiel, but the commonality is fascinating.

I was going back to the big bang theory in which it states that everything was in a very small form, which began to spin. When spinning according to conservation of angular momentum, anything coming off of the spinning object would spin in the same direction(as in a clock/counter-clock wise direction). Which we do not see in the universe, there are planets spinning in opposite directions, moons of planets spinning in opposite directions of the planet they are orbiting, and galaxies spinning in opposite directions. Have a blessed day.

 

[RickG]

@ Ken and Rick. Then the conservation of angular momentum would beg the question, why are there planets, moons and galaxies revolving around in different directions?

From what? Be specific.

 

[Commander]

And which one of those says it contributes to the age of the earth? Dude, you are completely on a different wave length. You might want to consider my updated signature from several hours ago before you posted this. Try addressing what you quote.

Yeah Rick, I am on a different wave length. I believe what the word of God says, and not what scientist say.
You might want to consider my updated signature from several hours ago before you posted this. What?

 

[RickG]

So, you think science can give you the answer where God(who created it) cannot?

I use the evidence God provided for us in the Earth, not the writings of man of several thousand years ago that cannot be verified as God's word. We only have the word of man for that.

 

[Commander]

From what? Be specific.

From NASA hubble images.
https://www.google.com/search?q=nas...X&ved=0ahUKEwjXqdP8qqbPAhXn44MKHWY5AWcQsAQIKw

 

[RickG]

Yeah Rick, I am on a different wave length. I believe what the word of God says, and not what scientist say.
You might want to consider my updated signature from several hours ago before you posted this. What?

Like I said, which one of those links has anything to do with the age of the earth other than just mentioning it? None of them are the actual science that determines the age.

 

[Commander]

I use the evidence God provided for us in the Earth, not the writings of man of several thousand years ago that cannot be verified as God's word. We only have the word of man for that.

Rick, does the evidence in the earth come with a date on it?

 

[Commander]

Like I said, which one of those links has anything to do with the age of the earth other than just mentioning it? None of them are the actual science that determines the age.

And how does science determine the age of the earth and universe?