Debunking Pangaea/Continental Drift Theory.

[RickG]

Oh, really. It has everything to do with it.

Dating rocks comes under the discipline of Geochemistry, not evolution.

 

[Commander]

Dating rocks comes under the discipline of Geochemistry, not evolution.

There are no problems in geochemistry/geology/chemistry? You do understand that evolution goes hand and hand with science?

 

[RickG]

There are no problems in geochemistry/geology/chemistry? You do understand that evolution goes hand and hand with science?

All of the physical sciences have contributed and continue to contribute to the Theory of Evolution. ToE does not contribute to the age of the earth. And frankly Commander, I could care less if you accept or deny ToE. My only concern is the "intellectually dishonest" science we see in the "creation science" literature.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Unfortunately, no.

That's sad. i remember wondering about this as a child. I remember reading one person's idea that the Pacific ocean is where the moon came from. I think the idea is worth discussing further.

 

[imind]

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

but he's educated in math!

 

[Ken Behrens]

This is as absurd as Chariots of the Gods. Perhaps more so.

I agree is sounds a lot like it. And it is vonDaniken's writings that got me looking for an alternate solution. Von Daniken has only supposition, I have a lot more study into this. More importantly in this particular forum, vonDaniken spends an entire chapter in "Gold of the Gods" saying that he only developed his theory because of how much he was hurt by the (Austrian Lutheran, if I recall correctly) church. his theory is anti-Bible on purpose. Mine is consistent with the Bible. I'd say check out the sources before you reject it out of hand.

 

[Vicomte13]

That's sad. i remember wondering about this as a child. I remember reading one person's idea that the Pacific ocean is where the moon came from. I think the idea is worth discussing further.

I can show you on a good map, but I can't find a map that shows it already, because the closure of the Pacific Basin is not part of the standard theory. If you look at the National Geographic map of the ocean floors, and particularly look at the continental shelves, you'll see that the East Coast of Australia fits into the West Coast of South America, and you'll see how Japan and Kamchatka snug into North America and the Baja. just like the Atlantic. It's interesting.

Above, somebody explained that magnetic patterns mean that the puzzle pieces fitting is irrelevant. Obviously I disagree, because they really do fit, which means they were once together. And that is obviously a problem for Pangea...unless you take out both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and seal the planets together on a smaller planet.

Where's the water? Compressed, below. How did it come out? Look at the world-girdling crack that is the double-crest of all of the mid-oceanic ranges and you'll see where the water vented out, and you can see how, the integrity of the sphere being broken, hydraulic pressure from below blew up the world like a souffle, spread the continents, and opened up those basaltic plates at the ocean bottoms quite rapidly, until the world reached equilibrium and the water settled into the new ocean basins.

It's an interesting thought, the mid-oceanic mountain canyons as the "fountains of the great deep" that burst open and released the water from below, which both flooded the world and then expanded it.

The fact that the continents fit together in the Pacific and the Atlantic, on a smaller globe, gives a picture of HOW the Flood actually COULD have happened. Doesn't mean it DID, but there is at least a mechanism and visible traces that would explain a Flood and show why and how, and where the water came from.

 

[lesliedellow]

Then tell us Leslie, what is the age of the earth?

About 4.6 billion years.

 

[Ken Behrens]

I can show you on a good map, but I can't find a map that shows it already, because the closure of the Pacific Basin is not part of the standard theory.

I know what you mean; I noted that years ago. Maybe the key is to look at it all 3 dimensionally. I mean, some sections of the land masses may actually have rolled over 90 or 180 degrees after separating, and fit together some other way afterwards. Plato in Timaeus implies such things might have happened. And what if the moon really was ejected from the earth at that point? If this is so, then all bets about Pangea may be off. The fact they fit together might be a purely random coincidence? We certainly do not have the technology at this point to make a 3-D model of where all the land might have gone. But your theory is certainly as good as any. I have a cross check with the Pangea theory though, in that one can use the poem called Battle of the Stars (Christian Sybilline Oracles Book 5, if I recall correctly) to show that the Pangea theory was at least believed by the authors of this poem. Starting at Babylon (where astrology was "invented"), assign Pangea continent names by the star they are under (goat north) in the zodiac. The poem then gives a perfect description of the rotating of the continents caused by the coriolis effect assuming the model I gave of Pangea being struck from below, at a point about 1/4 of the way up from south to north between Africa and South America.

 

[Dig4truth]

Doesn't work. The energy needed to divide the continents and move them thousands of miles in such a short period would make the earth completely molten. (thermodynamics 101)

The next time you see contrails in the sky, recognize that escaping, hot, high-pressure gases (primarily water vapor) from a jet aircraft expand downstream so much that they cool, condense and sometimes freeze. The fountains of the great deep experienced much greater expansion and cooling in an environment a few hundred degrees colder than where jet aircraft fly. Recall that billions upon billions of tons of supercold ice crystals suddenly fell from the fountains and buried and froze many mammoths—and much of Alaska and Siberia, and, no doubt, other places (at least temporarily).

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes6.html#wp14800338

 

[lesliedellow]

The next time you see contrails in the sky, recognize that escaping, hot, high-pressure gases (primarily water vapor) from a jet aircraft expand downstream so much that they cool, condense and sometimes freeze. The fountains of the great deep experienced much greater expansion and cooling in an environment a few hundred degrees colder than where jet aircraft fly. Recall that billions upon billions of tons of supercold ice crystals suddenly fell from the fountains and buried and froze many mammoths—and much of Alaska and Siberia, and, no doubt, other places (at least temporarily).

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes6.html#wp14800338

Given the choice between using a geologist and a mechanical engineer as my source of expert opinion in matters geological, who shall I coose?

I know! I will choose the mechanical engineer, because he is tickling my ears with what I want to hear, whereas the geologist is saying something completely different from what I want to hear.

 

[Dig4truth]

It is apparent that you also chose to discuss the individual rather than the idea.

 

[lesliedellow]

It is apparent that you also chose to discuss the individual rather than the idea.

If an idea about geology, put forward by a mechanical engineer with a religious agena, comes into conflict with the views of a trained geologist, I would need very good reason for not giving greater credence to the views of the latter.

 

[Dig4truth]

You would need to actually look at the evidence first to determine which was better. Also, your religious agenda would need to be questioned. Some people have a great problem with that part.

Dr. Walt Brown began was an evolutionist but the evidence swayed him to believe in the creation account. He has demonstrated the ability to question his religious agenda.

Many such scientists are making this decision.

 

[lesliedellow]

You would need to actually look at the evidence first to determine which was better. Also, your religious agenda would need to be questioned. Some people have a great problem with that part.

I am not a geologist, and my opinion regarding matters of geology are of no greater worth than my opinions regarding brain surgery. For the former I rely upon the expertise of geologists, and for the latter I rely upon the expertise of brain surgeons.

If you needed brain surgery, would you want it undertaken by a mechanical engineer or a brain surgeon?

From a religious point of view, it would bother me not at all if Genesis 1-3 was history, but it isn't, and I am fairly contemptuous of creationism's intellectual dishonesty.

 

[RickG]

Given the choice between using a geologist and a mechanical engineer as my source of expert opinion in matters geological, who shall I coose?

I know! I will choose the mechanical engineer, because he is tickling my ears with what I want to hear, whereas the geologist is saying something completely different from what I want to hear.

Not only that, one must consider that he is a loaner and an appeal to authority conflicting with a total scientific consensus. I can't think of a single scientific consensus being overturned by any individual or group of individuals in modern geology. That is not to be confused with differences within details, not overall theories. And as for Walt Brown, it is more than clear what his agenda is. I'm pretty sure all engineers get more than a good dose of thermodynamics. All one has to do is look at the amount of energy and timeline for the hydroplate theory and do the math to see that such an action would put the earth in a molten state far in the future extinguishing all life including microbes and bacteria.

 

[RickG]

That's sad. i remember wondering about this as a child. I remember reading one person's idea that the Pacific ocean is where the moon came from. I think the idea is worth discussing further.

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​

 

[Dig4truth]

Not only that, one must consider that he is a loaner and an appeal to authority conflicting with a total scientific consensus. I can't think of a single scientific consensus being overturned by any individual or group of individuals in modern geology. That is not to be confused with differences within details, not overall theories. And as for Walt Brown, it is more than clear what his agenda is. I'm pretty sure all engineers get more than a good dose of thermodynamics. All one has to do is look at the amount of energy and timeline for the hydroplate theory and do the math to see that such an action would put the earth in a molten state far in the future extinguishing all life including microbes and bacteria.

Since when does science have a consensus?

 

[RickG]

It is apparent that you also chose to discuss the individual rather than the idea.

Discussing the individual is not off limits, criticizing the individual on a personal basis is.

For example, because Walt Brown possesses a PhD in Mechanical Engineering, the creation science community presents his credentials in such a manner as to suggest he is an expert in Geophysics, which nothing could be further from the truth. This is what is known as the "logical fallacy" Appeal to Authority. Much of what is seen in the creation science literature is what is termed as "Intellectual Dishonesty". That of course does not specifically mean that the person being described is a dishonest person, though he/she may or may not be. What "Intellectual Dishonesty" refers to is the method(s) applied to the research and conclusions performed, not the individual. Intellectual Dishonesty in practice utilizes what the person(s) wish for their research to show while ignoring all the research and evidence that shows their results to be invalid. From my professional point of view, I would view Dr. Brown's presentation of the Hydroplate Theory as "Intellectual Dishonesty". Why, he ignores or incorrectly manipulates some information he definitely, as an Engineer would know, Thermodynamics, completely invalidates his argument of the Hydroplate Theory. And never mind all the well known and physically documented Geophysics that is not included (ignored) as well in the theory.

Personally, as a Christian and physical science professional (retired), I am appalled at the "creation science literature", not so much that it is produced through "Intellectual Dishonesty", but rather, its intended audience; the non-scientific Christian public, who are hearing what they want to hear, and could not even verify the validity of it even if they wanted to.

 

[RickG]

Since when does science have a consensus?

Scientific consensus is not based on opinion or popularity. Scientific consensus of a specific topic (theory) is base on what the majority of published peer review research shows. Do you understand the concept and difference between the two?