Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Um, wait. Weren't you claiming earlier that you were a geologist?
So basically, you can't bear burden of proof, or back up what you say, so since we are refusing to take what you say at face value, your going to pretend that this is somehow unreasonable, and ignore us.
This is a science forum. Save your smart comments and start to talk about science.
Evidence (see if you can understand, if not, ask again): older continents are much much smaller.
How about you give the ages of each continent and we will see how it stacks up.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
How about you give the ages of each continent and we will see how it stacks up.
According to existed data (the numbers), any continent has a spectrum of ages ranges from very old to very young. So your question is not a reasonable one.
According to existed data (the numbers), any continent has a spectrum of ages ranges from very old to very young. So your question is not a reasonable one.
You are the one who claims that there is a correlation between the size of the continent and its age. If you can't tell us how old a continent is then how can you claim such a correlation?
"Evidence (see if you can understand, if not, ask again): older continents are much much smaller."--juvenissun
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
You are the one who claims that there is a correlation between the size of the continent and its age. If you can't tell us how old a continent is then how can you claim such a correlation?
"Evidence (see if you can understand, if not, ask again): older continents are much much smaller."--juvenissun
I don't think you understand what you are saying. Give you an example:
We know Minnesota has the oldest rock in US, and the area of that old rock is small. So, when Minnesota was a continent, it was very small.
This is a science forum. Save your smart comments and start to talk about science.
Yes, I was commenting that refusals to provide evidence only makes us increasingly confident that you are not telling the truth about actually being a geologist.
__________________ "There is no struggle too vast, no odds too overwhelming, for ever should we fail- should we fall- we will know that we have lived." --Anomander Rake.
"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light." --Plato
"I cried unto the LORD with my voice, and He heard me out of His holy hill." Psalm 3:4
"The virtuous man is never a novice in worldly things." Marcus Valerius Martialis
I don't think you understand what you are saying. Give you an example:
We know Minnesota has the oldest rock in US, and the area of that old rock is small. So, when Minnesota was a continent, it was very small.
Clear?
I missed that in all my history lessons.
When was Minnesota a continent?
__________________ Funny thing about tracking.
Most would fear seeing this -> To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
than seeing this -> To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Isaiah 8:12-13 (NIV) "Do not call conspiracy everything that these people call conspiracy; do not fear what they fear, and do not dread it. The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread."
The oldest part of the North American Continent is called the "Canadian Shield" and there's a bit that is in Minnesota.
Continents in general are more "felsic" in their mineralogy than ocean crust. That is they are made up (usually) of more silica rich rocks like granites etc. Whereas ocean crust is made up of "mafic" (more iron and magnesium rich rocks). The way this happens is called fractional crystallization and allows us to take a magma and make both a basaltic rock and a granitic rock from it.
But early on, when the first continents are thought to have formed they were smaller owing to a number of factors (thinner crust, more dynamic tectonics, etc.)
As to the claim that "older continents are smaller" I'm not quite sure where to land on that one. Indeed most continents are made up of:
The "craton" is the "stable inner portion" of the continent made up of the shield and the platform that overlays it. The outer edge of continents is where more of the "tectonic action" is.
Now this is an oversimplification (it's been a while since I have done this stuff).
HEre's a map of the Canadian Shield:
Minnesota wasn't ever really it's own "continent", but it was part of the oldest portion of the core of our continent.
Linear Mode
