Debunking Pangaea/Continental Drift Theory.

[Commander]

Here is what is taught in our public schools, the theory of Pangaea or the continental drift theory. The theory is that over millions of years the continents have drifted apart and some into each other(India into Eurasia). Notice, how it is in the cartoon format. Do you notice Central America? Neither do I. Now, here is how to debunk this fallacy of evolution, and anyone wanting to use this as a teaching tool/mechanism has my permission to use the mathematical calculations that I have used to debunk this theory. According to the theory of continental drift- the tectonic plates drift at 0.8 inches per year. When you are educated in math you can take a number like 0.8(the distance according to the theory) and times it by 4,500,000,000(years/age of earth according to some scientist ) and get the answer of 3,600,000,000 then you can divide it by 5,280(the feet in one mile) and get the answer of 681818.18 miles, and divide it by 24,901 miles(the circumference of the earth) and get the answer of 27.381. 27 times the tectonic plates have circled the globe, according to the theory of continental drift...that is how much the continents have drifted! It is mathematically impossible! Have a blessed day. Barry Dennis-Commander.

 

[Speedwell]

Here is what is taught in our public schools, the theory of Pangaea or the continental drift theory. The theory is that over millions of years the continents have drifted apart and some into each other(India into Eurasia). Notice, how it is in the cartoon format. Do you notice Central America? Neither do I. Now, here is how to debunk this fallacy of evolution, and anyone wanting to use this as a teaching tool/mechanism has my permission to use the mathematical calculations that I have used to debunk this theory. According to the theory of continental drift- the tectonic plates drift at 0.8 inches per year. When you are educated in math you can take a number like 0.8(the distance according to the theory) and times it by 4,500,000,000(years/age of earth according to some scientist ) and get the answer of 3,600,000,000 then you can divide it by 5,280(the feet in one mile) and get the answer of 681818.18 miles, and divide it by 24,901 miles(the circumference of the earth) and get the answer of 27.381. 27 times the tectonic plates have circled the globe, according to the theory of continental drift...that is how much the continents have drifted! It is mathematically impossible! Have a blessed day. Barry Dennis-Commander.

Except that the theory of continental drift proposes no such thing, and your calculations are based on assumptions that the theory does not make.

 

[Ken Behrens]

The other theory is that in the Flood, the continents separated very swiftly (perhaps a few days). You can make a bit of a case for it, like Plato says so, there is a verse in the Bible, a phrase in the Babylonian flood story, a few old maps, a few anomalies in archeology, and a reconstructing of the continental movements in the Battle of the Stars poem in the Christian Sybilline Oracles. Nothing proven, but in this forum, worthy of note.

 

[juvenissun]

Here is what is taught in our public schools, the theory of Pangaea or the continental drift theory. The theory is that over millions of years the continents have drifted apart and some into each other(India into Eurasia). Notice, how it is in the cartoon format. Do you notice Central America? Neither do I. Now, here is how to debunk this fallacy of evolution, and anyone wanting to use this as a teaching tool/mechanism has my permission to use the mathematical calculations that I have used to debunk this theory. According to the theory of continental drift- the tectonic plates drift at 0.8 inches per year. When you are educated in math you can take a number like 0.8(the distance according to the theory) and times it by 4,500,000,000(years/age of earth according to some scientist ) and get the answer of 3,600,000,000 then you can divide it by 5,280(the feet in one mile) and get the answer of 681818.18 miles, and divide it by 24,901 miles(the circumference of the earth) and get the answer of 27.381. 27 times the tectonic plates have circled the globe, according to the theory of continental drift...that is how much the continents have drifted! It is mathematically impossible! Have a blessed day. Barry Dennis-Commander.

Brother, it is not that simple.
People do not times the 0.8 by 4.5E9, but by about 2E6.

 

[RickG]

Here is what is taught in our public schools, the theory of Pangaea or the continental drift theory. The theory is that over millions of years the continents have drifted apart and some into each other(India into Eurasia). Notice, how it is in the cartoon format. Do you notice Central America? Neither do I. Now, here is how to debunk this fallacy of evolution, and anyone wanting to use this as a teaching tool/mechanism has my permission to use the mathematical calculations that I have used to debunk this theory. According to the theory of continental drift- the tectonic plates drift at 0.8 inches per year. When you are educated in math you can take a number like 0.8(the distance according to the theory) and times it by 4,500,000,000(years/age of earth according to some scientist ) and get the answer of 3,600,000,000 then you can divide it by 5,280(the feet in one mile) and get the answer of 681818.18 miles, and divide it by 24,901 miles(the circumference of the earth) and get the answer of 27.381. 27 times the tectonic plates have circled the globe, according to the theory of continental drift...that is how much the continents have drifted! It is mathematically impossible! Have a blessed day. Barry Dennis-Commander.

Have you ever considered reading what the science actually says instead of what your sources say it says? I would suggest at least comparing them before expressing things that your source claims that mainstream science says. I suggest that because mainstream science doesn't say what your source says, or at least the way it is presented in the OP.

First of all the "continental drift" theory was never accepted by the scientific community. The reason for that was that Alfred Wegner

, the scientist that proposed it could not propose a method in which the continents moved. It was not until later when mapping of the oceans topography begin along with core samples being taken that the mechanism was discovered, observed, and measured. What developed was the Plate Tectonic Theory, abandoning the original continent drift "hypothesis". As for Pangaea, it was not the only paleo-supercontinent that was discovered. Before Pangaea there was Pannotia, Rodinia, Columbia, Kenorland and Ur. After Pangaea, there was Laurasia, Gondwana, and the current configuration. And of course you don't see Central America, it formed later. As for you math example, well, let's just say it is quite flawed in that it is not the way Plate Tectonic movement is calculated.

Oh, and one last thing, one of the Noah's Flood arguments uses Plate Tectonics. So, which is it you are questioning?

 

[RickG]

The other theory is that in the Flood, the continents separated very swiftly (perhaps a few days). You can make a bit of a case for it, like Plato says so, there is a verse in the Bible, a phrase in the Babylonian flood story, a few old maps, a few anomalies in archeology, and a reconstructing of the continental movements in the Battle of the Stars poem in the Christian Sybilline Oracles. Nothing proven, but in this forum, worthy of note.

Hi Ken,

I am quite familiar with both the mainstream science Plate Tectonic theory and that of the catastrophic plate tectonic idea proposed by the creation science community. Note that I described the creation science (CS) theory as an "idea" rather than a theory. I say that because the CS community presents absolutely no science with their presentation. Also, with the CS idea there are many problems. The major one I see is the rate of continental movement. To break up the continents and move them the distance in the time frame would require an enormous amount of energy. So much in fact, that the entire planet would have not only become molten, but would still be molten today (Thermodynamics 101).

 

[Ken Behrens]

Hi Ken,

I am quite familiar with both the mainstream science Plate Tectonic theory and that of the catastrophic plate tectonic idea proposed by the creation science community. Note that I described the creation science (CS) theory as an "idea" rather than a theory. I say that because the CS community presents absolutely no science with their presentation. Also, with the CS idea there are many problems. The major one I see is the rate of continental movement. To break up the continents and move them the distance in the time frame would require an enormous amount of energy. So much in fact, that the entire planet would have not only become molten, but would still be molten today (Thermodynamics 101).

I don't want to write a treatise (I have several at my website, lol). You are correct on the energy (the "a lot" part, not on the "molten today" part). If one approaches it from the actual ancient writings that agree with the Bible, and uses those to define which of the other acient writings are valid (admittedly, that is already an assumption), one gets a consistent theory. It's shocking at first, but it is scientifically justifiable, and once you get the idea in your head, you start to see that it makes sense. Suppose that before writing was invented, a small group of intelligent people set out to rule the world. Next, suppose they built a technology capable of controlling the weather. Next, suppose that as greed mounted, the multiplied this technology to where it became unstable. Now, suppose that this technology literally sucked out huge quantities of electromagnetic energy from the earth's magnetic field, saved it locally, and moved it around to create lightning hoping to create rain. Now suppose that the earth's center is in fact molten metal, and oscillations created by the unstable electromagnetic field caused the earth's center to bounce up and down against Pangea on one side, and the open ocean on the other. One day, the molten field struck Pangea hard from below and shattered it into two pieces, one (now called the Americas 1/3 the original size) and the other (Eurasia-Africa 2/3 the original), with smaller islands (including Antarctica and Australia) splitting off. In such a case, Coriolis forces would have moved the continents very rapidly for a few days. Eventually the earth would have settled into some kind of temporary equilibrium, and possibly after a couple more later corrections (like say in Joshua's time and King Hezekiah's time) stabilized almost completely. Now you have another theory to explain continental drift. And this theory is completely consistent with evolution, creationism, or any blend you like, since it deals only with events that could have happened as recently as 3300BC or so.

Of course it raises lots of other questions about how this all worked, where is the archeology, how did we forget, etc.. But like I say, I don't want to write a treatise here. But this is actually what the ancient books say happened. Well, not in our words. It took me quite a while, and several languages to get it together. But I will answer the energy question by saying that a typical machine was capable of storing and directing approximately 10 times the voltage of our most powerful nuclear reactors today, and at its peak, there were dozen of machines operating simultaneously. That's what the writings, existing models and tech specs imply.

 

[Commander]

Except that the theory of continental drift proposes no such thing, and your calculations are based on assumptions that the theory does not make.

You should read again, what the theory proposes. Have a blessed day.

 

[Speedwell]

You should read again, what the theory proposes. Have a blessed day.

Have you got a link which supports your view not from a Creationist propaganda mill?

 

[Commander]

Brother, it is not that simple.
People do not times the 0.8 by 4.5E9, but by about 2E6.

Then they do not understand how old the theory of evolution states the earth is, evolutionary scientist states that the earth is 4.543 billion years. But, you may also use 2E6, and see what that calculation is. Would that be approximately 13 times, still a ludicrous theory. Have a blessed day.

 

[Commander]

Have you ever considered reading what the science actually says instead of what your sources say it says? I would suggest at least comparing them before expressing things that your source claims that mainstream science says. I suggest that because mainstream science doesn't say what your source says, or at least the way it is presented in the OP.

First of all the "continental drift" theory was never accepted by the scientific community. The reason for that was that Alfred Wegner

, the scientist that proposed it could not propose a method in which the continents moved. It was not until later when mapping of the oceans topography begin along with core samples being taken that the mechanism was discovered, observed, and measured. What developed was the Plate Tectonic Theory, abandoning the original continent drift "hypothesis". As for Pangaea, it was not the only paleo-supercontinent that was discovered. Before Pangaea there was Pannotia, Rodinia, Columbia, Kenorland and Ur. After Pangaea, there was Laurasia, Gondwana, and the current configuration. And of course you don't see Central America, it formed later. As for you math example, well, let's just say it is quite flawed in that it is not the way Plate Tectonic movement is calculated.

Oh, and one last thing, one of the Noah's Flood arguments uses Plate Tectonics. So, which is it you are questioning?

"In 1915, the German geologist and meteorologist Alfred Wegener first proposed the theory of continental drift, which states that parts of the Earth's crust slowly drift atop a liquid core. The fossil record supports and gives credence to the theories of continental drift and plate tectonics." http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/glossary/Contdrift.shtml
Yeah, Rick it is still taught and believed on in the scientific community. Sorry, but there is no flaw in my calculations, you just don't want to admit that the scientific community is wrong. There is no discipline of science(geology/biology/chemistry/physics/paleontology) where there is not major problems with the theory of evolution, and this comes from scientist. Have a blessed day.

 

[Speedwell]

"In 1915, the German geologist and meteorologist Alfred Wegener first proposed the theory of continental drift, which states that parts of the Earth's crust slowly drift atop a liquid core. The fossil record supports and gives credence to the theories of continental drift and plate tectonics." http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/glossary/Contdrift.shtml
Yeah, Rick it is still taught and believed on in the scientific community. Sorry, but there is no flaw in my calculations, you just don't want to admit that the scientific community is wrong. There is no discipline of science(geology/biology/chemistry/physics/paleontology) where there is not major problems with the theory of evolution, and this comes from scientist. Have a blessed day.

And that is supposed to prove that the continents existed and began to move 4.5 billion years ago and have moved at a constant rate and in a constant direction ever since?

 

[Commander]

Have you got a link which supports your view not from a Creationist propaganda mill?

Here are three:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html
http://www.scientus.org/Wegener-Continental-Drift.html
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/glossary/Contdrift.shtml

 

[Commander]

And that is supposed to prove that the continents existed and began to move 4.5 billion years ago and have moved at a constant rate and in a constant direction ever since?

You do understand that the tectonic plates are not lily pads floating on top of the oceans, right? You do understand that there is dirt under the water, connecting the continents?

 

[Speedwell]

You do understand that the tectonic plates are not lily pads floating on top of the oceans, right? You do understand that there is dirt under the water, connecting the continents?

Dirt underwater connecting the continents? Wow! You're getting way too scientific for me.

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

Just to throw my hat in the ring...

I'm pretty much in agreement with Ken. It has been my understanding for some time, although without any evidentiary proof of the matter, that when God separated the water and the dry ground appeared, that the dry ground was one contiguous mass. We are then told in the account of the flood that the great springs of the deep burst forth. So, it seems that in order to provide enough water to flood the entire earth, the water contained hidden within the earth was called forth. I rather imagine, although again without any evidence to support such a claim, that this bursting forth caused quite a stir on the surface of the earth. This may well have caused the break up of the single land mass into the various land masses that we see today. This would explain why they all seem to fit together when we imagine pushing all the land back together.

There are even theories that explain that the first singular land mass was fairly flat and that pretty much all of the mountain ranges were a result of the massive upheaval of the land at this time. I readily admit that both of these are merely theories, but...

My bias is that the Scriptures are true. This realm of creation was created by my God and Father in six days some 6,000 years ago or so. So, everything that I see upon the earth and in the heavens must find its explanation within this parameter. However, let it be known that what I am proposing here are the miraculous works of God and not the regular works of natural progression. We can, through the scientific method, generally find answers to the 'how' of natural progression. We cannot, through any means other than faith, find the answer to 'how' the miraculous works of God were accomplished.

God bless you all,
In Christ, Ted

 

[Commander]

Dirt underwater connecting the continents? Wow! You're getting way too scientific for me.

Yeah, some are easily confused. Thinking that there is not any dirt under the water.

 

[Speedwell]

Yeah, some are easily confused. Thinking that there is not any dirt under the water.

What do you expect, when you use that kind of highly precise scientific terminology to describe the sea floor?

 

[Commander]

Hi all,

Just to throw my hat in the ring...

I'm pretty much in agreement with Ken. It has been my understanding for some time, although without any evidentiary proof of the matter, that when God separated the water and the dry ground appeared, that the dry ground was one contiguous mass. We are then told in the account of the flood that the great springs of the deep burst forth. So, it seems that in order to provide enough water to flood the entire earth, the water contained hidden within the earth was called forth. I rather imagine, although again without any evidence to support such a claim, that this bursting forth caused quite a stir on the surface of the earth. This may well have caused the break up of the single land mass into the various land masses that we see today. This would explain why they all seem to fit together when we imagine pushing all the land back together.

There are even theories that explain that the first singular land mass was fairly flat and that pretty much all of the mountain ranges were a result of the massive upheaval of the land at this time. I readily admit that both of these are merely theories, but...

My bias is that the Scriptures are true. This realm of creation was created by my God and Father in six days some 6,000 years ago or so. So, everything that I see upon the earth and in the heavens must find its explanation within this parameter. However, let it be known that what I am proposing here are the miraculous works of God and not the regular works of natural progression. We can, through the scientific method, generally find answers to the 'how' of natural progression. We cannot, through any means other than faith, find the answer to 'how' the miraculous works of God were accomplished.

God bless you all,
In Christ, Ted

Hey brother. Yes, most of what you have posted I do agree with. The problem is that not all here, see it happening in six literal days, as God tells us in Genesis. They think that it took billions of years to take place. Have a blessed day.

 

[Commander]

What do you expect, when you use that kind of highly precise scientific terminology to describe the sea floor?

Sorry, there is dirt under the water on the sea floor.