Debunking Pangaea/Continental Drift Theory.

[Speedwell]

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

Yes, in my layman's confusion, I would have said the sea floor was basaltic magma covered with a layer of land erosion sediments. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[RickG]

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).[50/quote]
Being correct on the amount of energy to make it molten also keeps it molten today and long into the future. For the first half billion years after Earth's formation it was molten. The Noah's flood is perceived at around 4.5 thousand years. Yup! Still molten, not to mention an incredible amount of volcanic activity.

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.

Only if one ignores the straight forward principles of thermodynamics and geothermal properties.

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.

You are making stuff up. Lightning does not create rain (meteorology 101), nor does electromagnetism create lightning (meteorology 101, geophysics 101).

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.

Sounds like a SciFi movie. Ain't no way.

God Bless

 

[RickG]

"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.

No, Continental drift is not taught in the scientific community. How do I know, I spent most of my professional career in the scientific community. Continental drift was abandoned as I previously stated due to the lack of evidence of a mechanism to move the continents. Plate Tectonics has replaced the Continental drift theory.

 

[RickG]

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?

In a metaphoric way it is. Ocean crust is basalt which has been up-welled from from oceanic ridges and is pushed out basically equally on both sides of the ridge. The continents are in most part granitic, which is less dense than basalt. So yes. The continents are floating on the basalt and moving in the direction it flows.

 

[RickG]

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

What is this dirt composed of?

 

[miamited]

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.

Hi commander,

Right! As I understand it, that allows for two possible problems with such people. First, it does rob God of some of His glory. A god who just somehow starts everything and then stands back and says, "Well, let's see what it becomes", is not quite as awesome as the God who creates everything just as it needs to be. All perfect and complete in its construction and design to exist forever and ever. Now, those who hear this claim deny that it's true, but...the one who takes papier-mache and rolls it up into a ball is not quite as awesome as the guy who takes that same papier-mache and sculpts a work of art such as the Michelangelo.

Second, if the account as allowed in the Scriptures is true as described in its plain and simple form; that each day consisted of an evening and a morning just as every day has now for some 6,000 years; that God did mean to confirm to us in the law that He created everything that is in this realm in six days, then is the one who doesn't believe that faithful to God?

God declared Abraham righteous because he believed God. What if that's the way God will always measure a person's faithfulness?

The Scriptures speak of a great delusion sent by God upon the people. I honestly can't think of anything, at this point in time, that would qualify as such a great delusion than the long ages that science tells us is the 'true' age of things and the idea of evolution. Of course, the basis of evolution is the long ages of the creation. So, ultimately the age of the creation is the stumbling block that causes men to fall. The age of the creation that we are told by scientists comes through the study of all that God has made. So, ultimately God is the source of this great delusion.

Now, I can't support that idea with any verifiable or testable methodology, but...

I'm just taking what is found in the Scriptures and asking myself, "What could this mean?"

They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

So that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth. What is 'the truth' that the Scriptures are referring to here. Just that Jesus died for our sin? Or that Jesus was the Son of God? That all those who call upon the name of Jesus will be saved? Or is it all of it? Jesus said 'thy word is truth'. If he was referring to the Scriptures and calling them 'truth', then would it not be fairly logical that believing all that we are told in the Scriptures is believing 'the truth'.

Where do we draw the line? Under what circumstances do we allow that we can believe this but not that and still be one of those who is not condemned as those who have not believed the truth? Must we believe the 'truth' about the creation? Must we believe the 'truth' about the flood? Must we believe the 'truth' about the opening of the sea to accomplish the exodus out of Egypt? Or, is it really just, "Hey, you believe it's true that Jesus died for sin. You're in!" Somehow, when I read Jesus' words to his disciples concerning the day of his Father's judgment and his sending away 'many' christians, I don't think that's the case.

Finally, there's the matter of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that once we are born again that the Holy Spirit's job was to reveal to us 'all truth'. Why, if the same Holy Spirit is revealing the same truth to you and to me are we not in agreement?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Commander]

Yes, in my layman's confusion, I would have said the sea floor was basaltic magma covered with a layer of land erosion sediments. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Your welcome, but all of the sea floor is not covered by just basaltic magma.

 

[Speedwell]

Hi commander,

Right! As I understand it, that allows for two possible problems with such people. First, it does rob God of some of His glory. A god who just somehow starts everything and then stands back and says, "Well, let's see what it becomes", is not quite as awesome as the God who creates everything just as it needs to be. All perfect and complete in its construction and design to exist forever and ever. Now, those who hear this claim deny that it's true, but...the one who takes papier-mache and rolls it up into a ball is not quite as awesome as the guy who takes that same papier-mache and sculpts a work of art such as the Michelangelo.

Second, if the account as allowed in the Scriptures is true as described in its plain and simple form; that each day consisted of an evening and a morning just as every day has now for some 6,000 years; that God did mean to confirm to us in the law that He created everything that is in this realm in six days, then is the one who doesn't believe that faithful to God?

God declared Abraham righteous because he believed God. What if that's the way God will always measure a person's faithfulness?

The Scriptures speak of a great delusion sent by God upon the people. I honestly can't think of anything, at this point in time, that would qualify as such a great delusion than the long ages that science tells us is the 'true' age of things and the idea of evolution. Of course, the basis of evolution is the long ages of the creation. So, ultimately the age of the creation is the stumbling block that causes men to fall. The age of the creation that we are told by scientists comes through the study of all that God has made. So, ultimately God is the source of this great delusion.

Now, I can't support that idea with any verifiable or testable methodology, but...

I'm just taking what is found in the Scriptures and asking myself, "What could this mean?"

They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

So that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth. What is 'the truth' that the Scriptures are referring to here. Just that Jesus died for our sin? Or that Jesus was the Son of God? That all those who call upon the name of Jesus will be saved? Or is it all of it? Jesus said 'thy word is truth'. If he was referring to the Scriptures and calling them 'truth', then would it not be fairly logical that believing all that we are told in the Scriptures is believing 'the truth'.

Where do we draw the line? Under what circumstances do we allow that we can believe this but not that and still be one of those who is not condemned as those who have not believed the truth? Must we believe the 'truth' about the creation? Must we believe the 'truth' about the flood? Must we believe the 'truth' about the opening of the sea to accomplish the exodus out of Egypt? Or, is it really just, "Hey, you believe it's true that Jesus died for sin. You're in!" Somehow, when I read Jesus' words to his disciples concerning the day of his Father's judgment and his sending away 'many' christians, I don't think that's the case.

Finally, there's the matter of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that once we are born again that the Holy Spirit's job was to reveal to us 'all truth'. Why, if the same Holy Spirit is revealing the same truth to you and to me are we not in agreement?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

So it is a salvation issue for you.

 

[Speedwell]

Your welcome, but all of the sea floor is not covered by just basaltic magma.

Yeah, besides the basaltic magma, land erosion sediments, volcanic ash and various organisms, there's "dirt"

 

[Commander]

No, Continental drift is not taught in the scientific community. How do I know, I spent most of my professional career in the scientific community. Continental drift was abandoned as I previously stated due to the lack of evidence of a mechanism to move the continents. Plate Tectonics has replaced the Continental drift theory.

Well, I guess you forget from where you get your avatar picture from:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html
A quote from this site: "Nevertheless, Wegener's basic insights remain sound, and the lines of evidence that he used to support his theory are still actively being researched and expanded." Now, try again. Truth will set you free, brother.

 

[RickG]

First, it does rob God of some of His glory. A god who just somehow starts everything and then stands back and says, "Well, let's see what it becomes", is not quite as awesome as the God who creates everything just as it needs to be. All perfect and complete in its construction and design to exist forever and ever. Now, those who hear this claim deny that it's true, but...the one who takes papier-mache and rolls it up into a ball is not quite as awesome as the guy who takes that same papier-mache and sculpts a work of art such as the Michelangelo.

Second, if the account as allowed in the Scriptures is true as described in its plain and simple form; that each day consisted of an evening and a morning just as every day has now for some 6,000 years; that God did mean to confirm to us in the law that He created everything that is in this realm in six days, then is the one who doesn't believe that faithful to God?

So, should we just reject God's creation based on what man wrote? I prefer using the evidence left by God's creation, that is the physical evidence we find in the earth, evidence man cannot alter.

 

[miamited]

So it is a salvation issue for you.

Hi speedwell,

Yes! Based on this passage of Scripture:

They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

I believe that believing the truth is a very important component of our soon coming salvation.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Commander]

Hi commander,

Right! As I understand it, that allows for two possible problems with such people. First, it does rob God of some of His glory. A god who just somehow starts everything and then stands back and says, "Well, let's see what it becomes", is not quite as awesome as the God who creates everything just as it needs to be. All perfect and complete in its construction and design to exist forever and ever. Now, those who hear this claim deny that it's true, but...the one who takes papier-mache and rolls it up into a ball is not quite as awesome as the guy who takes that same papier-mache and sculpts a work of art such as the Michelangelo.

Second, if the account as allowed in the Scriptures is true as described in its plain and simple form; that each day consisted of an evening and a morning just as every day has now for some 6,000 years; that God did mean to confirm to us in the law that He created everything that is in this realm in six days, then is the one who doesn't believe that faithful to God?

God declared Abraham righteous because he believed God. What if that's the way God will always measure a person's faithfulness?

The Scriptures speak of a great delusion sent by God upon the people. I honestly can't think of anything, at this point in time, that would qualify as such a great delusion than the long ages that science tells us is the 'true' age of things and the idea of evolution. Of course, the basis of evolution is the long ages of the creation. So, ultimately the age of the creation is the stumbling block that causes men to fall. The age of the creation that we are told by scientists comes through the study of all that God has made. So, ultimately God is the source of this great delusion.

Now, I can't support that idea with any verifiable or testable methodology, but...

I'm just taking what is found in the Scriptures and asking myself, "What could this mean?"

They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

So that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth. What is 'the truth' that the Scriptures are referring to here. Just that Jesus died for our sin? Or that Jesus was the Son of God? That all those who call upon the name of Jesus will be saved? Or is it all of it? Jesus said 'thy word is truth'. If he was referring to the Scriptures and calling them 'truth', then would it not be fairly logical that believing all that we are told in the Scriptures is believing 'the truth'.

Where do we draw the line? Under what circumstances do we allow that we can believe this but not that and still be one of those who is not condemned as those who have not believed the truth? Must we believe the 'truth' about the creation? Must we believe the 'truth' about the flood? Must we believe the 'truth' about the opening of the sea to accomplish the exodus out of Egypt? Or, is it really just, "Hey, you believe it's true that Jesus died for sin. You're in!" Somehow, when I read Jesus' words to his disciples concerning the day of his Father's judgment and his sending away 'many' christians, I don't think that's the case.

Finally, there's the matter of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that once we are born again that the Holy Spirit's job was to reveal to us 'all truth'. Why, if the same Holy Spirit is revealing the same truth to you and to me are we not in agreement?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Yes, we are in agreement. But there are those who do not believe this, even though they claim they are something they are not. The theory of evolution comes from the Babylonians religious belief which can be read in the Enuma elish. It was a theory long before Charles Darwin. I am trying to use math to show how much of a fallacy the theory is. It is mathematically impossible for the continental drift theory to be even possible. There are other mathematical calculations that disproves the earth/universe is billions of years old. Have a blessed day.

 

[RickG]

Well, I guess you forget from where you get your avatar picture from:

Nope, I reposted it on purpose.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html

A quote from this site: "Nevertheless, Wegener's basic insights remain sound, and the lines of evidence that he used to support his theory are still actively being researched and expanded." Now, try again. Truth will set you free, brother.

What you keep ignoring is that Wegener lacked how the continents moved. This is the 3rd time I'm pointing that out. That is why it is not the Continental Drift Theory, rather the Plate Tectonic Theory. From your UCMP source:

"We now know that Wegener's theory was wrong in one major point: continents do not plow through the ocean floor. Instead, both continents and ocean floor form solid plates, which "float"..."

I am not denying Wegeners contribution, I have a lot of admiration for the man, that is why I use him as my avatar. Dude, I forgotten more about Plate Tectonics than you will ever be exposed to. My Masters Thesis on The Occurrence and Causes of Continental Glaciation' relied heavily on Plate Tectonic Theory in mapping out continental positions, timelines of movement, and geochemistry and geomorphology pertaining to paleoclimatology.

 

[miamited]

Hi commander,

A noble task you have set for yourself, however, I would caution that miracles cannot be proven mathematically or through the scientific methodology. They just happen. So, while it is certainly possible to 'prove' that continental shift does not happen if it doesn't, proving how the continents got to be the way they are is not provable if, in fact, God did it!

Unfortunately, the way men are today, and have been for millennia, if you are able to 'prove' to them that the continental shift theory is a fallacy, they will likely just move to some other natural explanation.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[RickG]

Hi commander,

A noble task you have set for yourself, however, I would caution that miracles cannot be proven mathematically or through the scientific methodology. They just happen. So, while it is certainly possible to 'prove' that continental shift does not happen if it doesn't, proving how the continents got to be the way they are is not provable if, in fact, God did it!

Unfortunately, the way men are today, and have been for millennia, if you are able to 'prove' to them that the continental shift theory is a fallacy, they will likely just move to some other natural explanation.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

To overturn Plate Tectonic Theory would win him the Nobel Prize. All it would take is for him to present evidence that can be tested and verified by the scientific community supporting his claims.

 

[miamited]

So, should we just reject God's creation based on what man wrote? I prefer using the evidence left by God's creation, that is the physical evidence we find in the earth, evidence man cannot alter.

Hi rick,

That's the error in your thinking. We are not to use the natural properties of the creation to prove anything. The only thing the Scriptures tell us that the natural creation 'proves' is the glory of God. The wisdom and power and majesty and love of the one who created all that is, is shown through what He has made. But we can't use what He has made to prove Him or anything that He has done.

If we only allow the natural properties of things to be our guide in what we believe about God, then we must discount the parting of the sea in the Exodus account. It tells us at least twice that they walked through on dry ground with a wall of water on their right and on their left. Now, friend, the natural properties of water make this an impossibility for any more than a split second. If you set off an atomic bomb in the ocean you might be able to produce a circular wall of water for a moment. There is no natural property of water that would allow it to stand as a sentinel for several hours and the Israelites trekked through the sea.

If we allow only the natural properties of things to be our guide, then we also have to disavow that for three days it was pitch black in the land of Egypt to where a man could hardly see his hand in front of his face, and yet, just a few miles away in Goshen the people enjoyed what are described as fairly normal days with regular natural light.

If we allow only the natural properties of things to be our rule of 'truth', then we can't possibly believe the account of the birth of Jesus as it is told.

Believe what you will, friend. Paul cautions us against accepting explanations for things based on the natural properties of things and not on the work and power of the Lord.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

To overturn Plate Tectonic Theory would win him the Nobel Prize. All it would take is for him to present evidence that can be tested and verified by the scientific community supporting his claims.

Hi rick,

Well, that's the task that he has set for himself and while I encourage him in such a noble work, I'm not sure the results of doing such a thing will turn people to Jesus. Man is wicked! That's really all of it. I'm wicked! You're wicked! Every man is wicked! The only way we can become less wicked is to believe God. ]

So, even if commander does succeed in debunking the theory that he's working on, the likely outcome will just be that science will move on to some other natural explanation. Just as yourself, you won't believe God because your steadfast rule of measure is the natural properties of things.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Wunderlust]

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.

No, that's not what the theory states.

Plates move at different rates.

Your post is profoundly demonstrative of not understanding the basic science you are trying to refute. In an almost childish map you point out you don't see central America? Why would you mention that? Is that an argument? You do understand that plate tectonics creates and destroys land, and transforms landscapes, correct?

You start with 4.5 billion years.... you understand that the Earth had to cool down and form plates, right?

Most importantly this topic is pointless because we can measure continental drift in real time. Ignoring geological evidence, fossil evidence, evidence from seafloors... etc etc...

Satellites and antennae have been used to measure increased/decreased distance between locations over time.

This topic is not up for debate. It belongs in the same group of absurdities as flat earth theories.

 

[RickG]

So, even if commander does succeed in debunking the theory that he's working on, the likely outcome will just be that science will move on to some other natural explanation.

Why do you say "the likely outcome will just be that science will move on to some other natural explanation"?

Just as yourself, you won't believe God because your steadfast rule of measure is the natural properties of things.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Careful.
http://www.christianforums.com/help/rules/