Continental Drift

[TheBear]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
*snort* That was hardly an edit.

LOL!!!

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by ocean
It's not flaming, because he was responding to your flaming. I should be a mod.

LOL!! If you are going to be a mod, you had better get some thicker skin.

 

[Stormy]

Unknown Initial Force

There are several important questions that remain to be answered by the Continental Drift, Plate Tectonic, or the Gottsland/Vortex Theories. One is what initiated the breakup of Gottsland or Pangaea and caused the continents to move. One of the possibilities given in the Plate Tectonic theory is that convection caused the movement. This could not be the explanation because when the super continent existed, the displacement of the earth's crust by convection would not deposit the crust in a location that would cause the continent to break apart. The convection mechanism does accurately relate what is currently observed, but it was not the initial energizing force. The near pass of a comet has also been proposed, where the gravitational pull would be excessive and cause the super continent to fragment. Some scientists have suggested the earth would be "off balance" because of the location of the land mass and this would cause "wobbling" of the earth and would put an undue strain on the super continent, causing it to break apart. The most accepted theory is that the shift in the magnetic pole caused the initial breakup of the super continent, but this cannot be verified. There has been no totally acceptable explanation for the breakup of the super continent.

Hey Bear... just thought this might interest you.

I Know the Truth.... Goddidit!!

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Stormy
Unknown Initial Force

Hey Bear... just thought this might interest you.

I Know the Truth.... Goddidit!!

Thanks, Stormy.

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by Stormy

I Know the Truth.... Goddidit!!

Yep!

That's probably him banging saucepan lids together in electrical storms to make the big noises, isn't it?   

Cheers,

Prax the Facetious. 

 

Edited to cover up atrocious lack of formatting ability.

 

[lithium.]

haha

 

[lithium.]

Hmm? I find it really weird that when you are talking about real science people always bring in the Metaphysical and say that a GOD did this and did that.

 

[TheBear]

Thanks for the link, Stormy.

 

[npetreley]

This one raises an interesting point. Again, I haven't researched this, so I won't commit to a conclusion, but on first glance it does seem logical to me that given the varying rates of deposition and erosion of coastlines in different areas over 200 million years that the continent coastlines shouldn't fit as well as they seem to today. There may be an explanation for retaining their overall shape which this writer has not considered, however. Or he could be right. Scroll to the bottom for the continental drift stuff.

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/The Geologic Column.html

 

[TheBear]

"Goddidit!!" That's rich.

I guess if you went to a doctor, you would only be interested in him saying 'Goddidit!!!', when you asked him to diagnose your aillment. Heck, for that matter, do you even see doctors?

 

[TheBear]

BTW, I may be compulsive/obsessive about this, but instead of links to 'special' authors, who cite other 'special' authors, who's main targeted audience is the uninformed layman who has no reference point to argue from, I really respect and pay attention to Caltech, NASA, UC Berkley, U.S. Geologic Survey, institutes like that. Not because I think they are 100% right, on 100% of their positions, 100% of the time, but because they are credible.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by TheBear
BTW, I may be compulsive/obsessive about this, but instead of links to 'special' authors, who cite other 'special' authors, who's main targeted audience is the uninformed layman who has no reference point to argue from, I really respect and pay attention to Caltech, NASA, UC Berkley, U.S. Geologic Survey, institutes like that. Not because I think they are 100% right, on 100% of their positions, 100% of the time, but because they are credible.

I'm not surprised you think they are credible. How do you feel about the fact that others may not agree that their conclusions are so credible? Is that acceptable to you?

 

[lithium.]

see what makes Caltech, NASA, UC Berkley, U.S. Geologic Survey credible is that they have proven facts, and the others havn't.

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by npetreley
I'm not surprised you think they are credible. How do you feel about the fact that others may not agree that their conclusions are so credible? Is that acceptable to you?

Now, that would be an eye-opener!

Other than some detailed specifics, what institutes of the same caliber as the ones I mentioned are in total disagreement with the entire theory Continental Drift? While we are at it, which major scientific institutes completely deny the Theory of Evolution? Which scientific institutes, of the caliber I mentioned, present proof of a young earth?

I am really curious about this one.

John

 

[chickenman]

pre-emptive strike

AIG and ICR aren't scientific institutions, they're political movements

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by TheBear
Now, that would be an eye-opener!

Other than some detailed specifics, what institutes of the same caliber as the ones I mentioned are in total disagreement with the entire theory Continental Drift? While we are at it, which major scientific institutes completely deny the Theory of Evolution? Which scientific institutes, of the caliber I mentioned, present proof of a young earth?

I am really curious about this one.

John

Those are really odd questions. You seem to be asking "what sources that I respect hold positions that would make them sources I do not respect"?

 

[TheBear]

Okay. We'll just leave it at that.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by notto
One of the best confirmations of the theory of Continental Drift is the Hawaiian island chain. This allow us to see the affects of continental drift over a hotspot, the building of new mountains and islands, and their subsequent erosion to sea level as they become dormant.

This also demonstrates the uniformity of these processes because both the building and erosion that is shown is slow and constant and is affected by the relatively uniform sea level over time.

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html
(click here for pretty PICTURES and GRAPHS)

The formation of these islands also allow scientists of this generation to observe and determine how a bare rock island can develop to a tropical environment that supports both animal and plant life.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by ocean
I have heard about the ice core in greenland and this in no way indicates a pole shift or CD (continental drift). What it does indicate is a large dust event 7,000-12,000 years ago, probably an asteroid impact or a volcanic eruption.

ocean...have a link for this ice core Duane keeps referring to? 

 He's brought it up in several other threads...HOWEVER he's never mentioned the Tens of Thousands of OTHER core samples from other places on the globe. 

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by TheBear
BTW, I may be compulsive/obsessive about this, but instead of links to 'special' authors, who cite other 'special' authors, who's main targeted audience is the uninformed layman who has no reference point to argue from, I really respect and pay attention to Caltech, NASA, UC Berkley, U.S. Geologic Survey, institutes like that. Not because I think they are 100% right, on 100% of their positions, 100% of the time, but because they are credible.

They've also paid, sponsored, and conducted ACTUAL research.