Continental Drift

[TheBear]

Does Continental Drift give any clues as to the age of the earth? Or, is this yet another scientific observation, overturned in the light of the Bible?

 

[ocean]

Continental drift does prove the earth is more than 6000 years old, but some YEC's have "theories" as to why this happens. One is the pole shift theory, the idea that the earth was turned upside down and all the continents were jerked out of place, but that is impossible.

 

[nbkan67]

Actually - not impossible - the MAGNETIC north pole moves every year and that is where the pole reversal theory comes into place.

Plate tectonics deals with normal flows and contraction/expansion due to the heating of the earths core (magma). Hot flows up cold down, etc.... You cant create matter - the earth is really the same just moving due to heat is the short story.

Dont know how the bible deals with it (or if it even matters.). I dont think it can be used to prove/disprove anything.

 

[TheBear]

http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/understanding.html

 

[nbkan67]

The 2 are separate - Been about 10 years since I did seismology. Read the squigglies for about 6 years. Had a lot of training in plate tectonics. Theories are like opinions are like **(*(* - everyone has one and they all stink.

That aside. I tried to be basic and brief about plate tectonics - the normal accepted theory of Harry Hess - and the movement of the mantle due to heat.

Now the pole reversals was something they were using to show age - IE: they used magnetic reversals in polarity in the basalt in the ocean floor. THey have been using this theory for about 40 years or so. Started with fossil discoveries, then they started creating pangea, etc..

SO, to answer the question about the age of the earth - Not that I think it is relevant to anything. Anywhere from 300-600 million years I believe is their finding - but my question is does it matter - Could God have made it old??? Can science and the bible agree - or is the bible above science.?

Science and the bible - Amazing that the more we learn with science the more we try to prove what we know. We know what we are allowed to know and one day it will all be answered for us...

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by nbkan67
Actually - not impossible - the MAGNETIC north pole moves every year and that is where the pole reversal theory comes into place.

Plate tectonics deals with normal flows and contraction/expansion due to the heating of the earths core (magma). Hot flows up cold down, etc.... You cant create matter - the earth is really the same just moving due to heat is the short story.

Dont know how the bible deals with it (or if it even matters.). I dont think it can be used to prove/disprove anything.

Contintental Drift proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the earth is much, much older than a mere 10,000 years.

 

[nbkan67]

OK - and what does that mean - I believe plate tectonics proves 300-600 million but rock dating says 4.5billion or so.

Are you trying to prove a specific point? Am I missing something.

 

[TheBear]

I am addressing the audience who believe that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

 

[nbkan67]

Here are more quick earth notes:

We can use sediment rates on the ocean floor to date the "earth" - there are about 7-10k years of sediment on the ocean floor (this is a constant over time)

The earths magnetic filed decays at a fixed rate - about 20k years ago life could not have existed on earth because it would have been as strong as the suns gravitational pull.

The moon - It used to be on the earth - supposedly - Based on the fact it is moving away from the earth you assume it was closer and has been moving further away..

Leap seconds - the earths rotation is slowing - therefore it was faster and would have been inhabitable at one time.

Population dating - based on census records - it would have taken about 5000 years to get our population from 2 people.

So...

 

[TheBear]

I have edited the opening post to address Continental Drift, only.

I don't want to throw confusion in.

 

[nbkan67]

I think it is a difference between EARTH and WORLD - Look at my statistics from above - The "earth" as we know it - lets say new earth, the earth of people, is about 5-10k years old - The WORLD, the PLANET or whatever is much older. I guess it depends on what your definition is....

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by nbkan67
We can use sediment rates on the ocean floor to date the "earth" - there are about 7-10k years of sediment on the ocean floor (this is a constant over time)

The earths magnetic filed decays at a fixed rate - about 20k years ago life could not have existed on earth because it would have been as strong as the suns gravitational pull.

The moon - It used to be on the earth - supposedly - Based on the fact it is moving away from the earth you assume it was closer and has been moving further away..

Leap seconds - the earths rotation is slowing - therefore it was faster and would have been inhabitable at one time.

Population dating - based on census records - it would have taken about 5000 years to get our population from 2 people.

You must have gotten these all from Kent Hovind, because they are all wrong.

See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by nbkan67
I think it is a difference between EARTH and WORLD - Look at my statistics from above - The "earth" as we know it - lets say new earth, the earth of people, is about 5-10k years old - The WORLD, the PLANET or whatever is much older. I guess it depends on what your definition is....

Riiiiiight. I will not be playing word games here. The people who I am addressing, assert that absolutely nothing, (no 'world', no 'planet', no solar system and no universe), existed beyond 10,000 years ago.

BTW, welcome to the forums.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by nbkan67
I think it is a difference between EARTH and WORLD - Look at my statistics from above - The "earth" as we know it - lets say new earth, the earth of people, is about 5-10k years old - The WORLD, the PLANET or whatever is much older. I guess it depends on what your definition is....

So.... you're saying the Earth looks old, but really it's not?

 

[nbkan67]

I am saying - The blob of rock is old - the question becomes " When does it become the EARTH?" - Do you have to have people, or form or livability or land or what???? - In the beginning the earth was without form and void.

Kind of like debating whether or not Pluto is a planet or a big chunk of ice. If we say it is a planet it is - If scientists decide its not its not.

Problem comes "in my opinion" with defining EARTH - what requirements must exist for this to be the EARTH....? -

 

[ocean]

Earth is the name of the third planet from the sun. That's how we define earth.

 

[TheBear]

Good greif! Read post #13 again, and let's get back on topic. Shall we?

 

[nbkan67]

But again - you are using a 15th century translation - Who named it earth and when- does it have to be named to exist. During King James reign, did God create the world to be flat....

I was trying to differentiate (poorly I guess) - between the age of the planet and the timeframe when life suddenly became possible and began.. I will now leave..

 

[TheBear]

Back on topic: Continental Drift

 

[TheBear]

God is not the author of confusion. Keep this in mind.