Debunking Pangaea/Continental Drift Theory.

[RickG]

Like I stated you do not read the information that is provided to you, or do you just ignore it?

No Commander, you are the one ignoring your own information that does not support what you say it does. Obfuscation on demonstrates ignorance of the subject.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Thanks for your response I appreciate it, although I do disagree with respect to dating methods which I will explain.

I'm don't know where you obtained your information concerning dating methods.

First: What evidence would show a different physics in the past?
Second: Multiple annual rings will possess excessively large growth cells compared to normal grown which can easily be identified with magnification. Another method that yields past climate data and goes very deep in time is that of ice cores. Ice cores are not only able to yield annual rings, but seasonal rings within those annual rings.
Additionally multiple methods can and are cross referenced yielding the same dates. Questions?​

I quoted just enough so we can remember what we are talking about.

I get my evidence from lots of places. About 30 years ago Science News told of a dinosaur skeleton whose tail was 50,000 years older than his head. Ever since that, I have been a little suspicious of dating. Have you been following the archeological dating of the fall of Jericho? The DNA proves over and over again it was 1300BC, and that just won't wash with the Egyptian written chronology of 1500BC. This debate has been going on for several generations now. And look at the furor over the shroud of Turin. It's little things like this. But of course, all these have answers, we just don't know them all yet.

I'm not saying physics changed. I am saying fundamental physical constants may have changed. I simply don't know, but I know there is no way to prove it either way. I mentioned earlier that once you cross the Schwartzchild radius of a black hole, you don't know that time has slowed down for you. Maybe, or maybe not. (How much do you trust Einstein for example?) There are so many theories, it's hard to know what can change and what cannot. Your arguments about the atomic structure changing is completely valid. But I am talking about the rates that affect our observational potential. Al theories are from observations made today, and that's ultimately my problem.

Ice cores and tree rings measure number of annual cycles. But I've got written records that seem to imply massive weather change technology. If these are correct, use of the technology would multiply weather cycles per year. And we are in a thread talking about movement of Pangea and whether it cold occur in the time it supposedly did. If nay of that is true, then we cannot assume that today's tropics is yesterday's tropics.

Yes the theories are all very logical, and self-checking. But we seem to keep getting some anomalies. I am only too aware that people keep looking for what they want to find, and so every person feels that is thoughts are self-checking. Scientists as well as creationists. I just think we need to keep our options open.

 

[miamited]

Hi rick,

I prefer using the evidence left by God's creation, that is the physical evidence we find in the earth, evidence man cannot alter.

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

I always try to be careful when getting near the lines, but truth is truth. I was only confirming what you had previously written.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[RickG]

I get my evidence from lots of places. About 30 years ago Science News told of a dinosaur skeleton whose tail was 50,000 years older than his head. Ever since that, I have been a little suspicious of dating.

Wow! I never about that. Can you give me a little more information on the source of that news. I seriously doubt that it came from any professional science journal, rather just a news magazine that may specialize in science news. Unfortunately, magazines of that type tend to sensationalize aspects of what the article is about often giving the wrong impression. I am absolutely positive that no one in the earth sciences thinks that a dinosaur could live for 50,000 years. Additionally, 30 years ago the resolution of dating methods that go that far back did not have a resolution that tight. In fact, even currently the length of the Cretaceous Period is given at 66 million years (66 Ma) +/- 4 Ma. Do you get the idea? A plus or minus 4 Ma would be a range of 8 Ma. It doesn't sound quite right that a Paleontologist would provide a date of the same fossil a 50,000 year range. Also, dinosaur fossils are not dated directly. It is the "site" in which it they are located that is dated. So I'm pretty sure that 50,000 variation figure is a misunderstanding in which it was presented.

Have you been following the archeological dating of the fall of Jericho? The DNA proves over and over again it was 1300BC, and that just won't wash with the Egyptian written chronology of 1500BC. This debate has been going on for several generations now. And look at the furor over the shroud of Turin. It's little things like this. But of course, all these have answers, we just don't know them all yet.

I have not. If you wish to provide any links to it I would love to review them.

I'm not saying physics changed. I am saying fundamental physical constants may have changed.

I don't understand what you mean about "physical constants" many have changed. Could you elaborate a bit more on that? My perception of what you mean may not the the same as yours. Thanks.

I simply don't know, but I know there is no way to prove it either way.

I think that what I previously described about the structure of atoms definitely proves nothing has changed.

I mentioned earlier that once you cross the Schwartzchild radius of a black hole, you don't know that time has slowed down for you. Maybe, or maybe not. (How much do you trust Einstein for example?) There are so many theories, it's hard to know what can change and what cannot. Your arguments about the atomic structure changing is completely valid. But I am talking about the rates that affect our observational potential. Al theories are from observations made today, and that's ultimately my problem.

We don't have black holes on earth.

Ice cores and tree rings measure number of annual cycles. But I've got written records that seem to imply massive weather change technology. If these are correct, use of the technology would multiply weather cycles per year. And we are in a thread talking about movement of Pangea and whether it cold occur in the time it supposedly did. If nay of that is true, then we cannot assume that today's tropics is yesterday's tropics.

The concentration and Thesis in my M.S. in Earth Science was in Paleoclimatology with my thesis being on the Occurrence and causes of Continental Glaciations. Besides becoming familiar with paleoclimates and the tools and methods used to determine them, much of that work also involved Plate Tectonics. There is much more to Plate Tectonics than just moving the plates. We are also able to measure the rates of those movements and direction of them through a number of independent sources. Some of these include Paleoclimatology, Paleontological evidence, Stratigraphic evidence, Structural evidence, Seismology, Sea-Floor spreading, Correlation of rock units, Time-Stratagraphic units and the relationship between them. I'll be glad to elaborate on any of those if you like.

Yes the theories are all very logical, and self-checking. But we seem to keep getting some anomalies. I am only too aware that people keep looking for what they want to find, and so every person feels that is thoughts are self-checking. Scientists as well as creationists. I just think we need to keep our options open.

That is a valid concern.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Wow! I never about that.

I have not. If you wish to provide any links to it I would love to review them.

I don't understand what you mean about "physical constants" many have changed. Could you elaborate a bit more on that? My perception of what you mean may not the the same as yours. Thanks.

I think that what I previously described about the structure of atoms definitely proves nothing has changed.

We don't have black holes on earth.

The concentration and Thesis in my M.S. in Earth Science was in Paleoclimatology with my thesis being on the Occurrence and causes of Continental Glaciations.

That is a valid concern.

It was THE Science News, the weekly review of science, which at the time, was considered something that all good scientists read to keep up with Science generally outside their field of specialization. I'm certain the purpose was to call into question just how un-tight the tests were at the time. At least, that is what it said in the article.

I am a member of several Facebook groups that deal with Biblical archeology. Some are garbage (you may have noticed). Ancient Levant and Biblical Archeology are pretty good. About three months ago, there was a flurry of articles, as the new DNA evidence from food and fuel stored at Jericho had just been analyzed and final results published. Joining any of these groups and going back a bit will bring the original papers to your hard drive. You can just Google the fact that there are two positions and the argument has been going on for a long time. I'm sorry I can;t do better, but i spend several hours a day on internet working in several areas at the same time.

I'm working offhand, but light speed is about 186k miles per second, gravity is about -16 f/s^2, right? Suppose they were 185k and -15.5 in ancient Rome? That's what I mean. We could never know, because no one thought to measure them back then. The problem is complicated by the fact that change might not be linear. So, even if change looked linear from 3000BC until now (had someone measured it), it could be cubic, and we are just not near the inflection point (mathematically called a first order catastrophe). Mathematically, it could have been 185.9 and 15.9 in 3000BC, but 130 and -12 in 3200 BC if 3100 BC were the inflection point of a cubic, given the right equation, and we could not tell this now at all. It is possible, we cannot prove the contrary. Now, what would be the consequence? Maybe, (depending on what theorist you believe) the physical constants are related. One goes up, another must go down. Lots of ideas out there, and lots that no one has been able to talk down or provide data against. Change g, and you change the magnetic constant. Change enough, and the earth's magnetic field changes. Maybe enough to change the weather. Maybe enough to cause a flood. Various theories, but some say enough to imply that almost anything might happen.

Maybe teeny tiny black holes. Some people think so. I heard that they are so successful at teleportation of atomic particles, that they are now competing for who can do it farthest and fastest. It's no longer an if, but a how long. I didn't mention black holes for that, but only to point out that we could be falling through a black hole right now (as a galaxy) and never know it, and also because black holes might have baby cousins, not named yet, that do similar things, like maybe create/transform tachyons.

I am not trying to attack anything you know (I know you didn't say I am, but we do not know what the many onlookers are thinking), only trying to rationalize current theory with written evidence that seems to contradict it. Yes, everyone could have been crazy or deluded, or brains did not work right until recently. But then there is the ancient computer (antikythera) that really exists, and someone was able to get those pyramid blocks raised (at least proving tremendous administrative talent). I'm a mathematician and have a lot of experience in ancient mathematics. I've got a lot more anomalies that trouble me, things I can prove because they are written ideas, not experimental data. I deal in ideas, and I have the training to see what happens to a theory if a number changes. So I question everything. It's not so much a matter to me of whether evolutionists or creationists (or anyone else) are right, it's that they probably all are right from some kind of point of view, and we just need to sort it out. It matters to me when we assume something we cannot prove. I'd like to at least keep a side notation of that lack of proof, and not just let it be forgotten.

 

[RickG]

It was THE Science News, the weekly review of science, which at the time, was considered something that all good scientists read to keep up with Science generally outside their field of specialization. I'm certain the purpose was to call into question just how un-tight the tests were at the time. At least, that is what it said in the article.

As I mentioned, it is the site that is dated not the fossil itself. If multiple dates of the site were obtained and varied 50,000 years over a period of 65 + Ma, that would be well within any statistical error.

I am a member of several Facebook groups that deal with Biblical archeology. Some are garbage (you may have noticed). Ancient Levant and Biblical Archeology are pretty good. About three months ago, there was a flurry of articles, as the new DNA evidence from food and fuel stored at Jericho had just been analyzed and final results published. Joining any of these groups and going back a bit will bring the original papers to your hard drive. You can just Google the fact that there are two positions and the argument has been going on for a long time. I'm sorry I can;t do better, but i spend several hours a day on internet working in several areas at the same time.

Thanks, I'll see if I can find something about it in the scientific literature. Sounds interesting.

I'm working offhand, but light speed is about 186k miles per second, gravity is about -16 f/s^2, right? Suppose they were 185k and -15.5 in ancient Rome? That's what I mean. We could never know, because no one thought to measure them back then. The problem is complicated by the fact that change might not be linear. So, even if change looked linear from 3000BC until now (had someone measured it), it could be cubic, and we are just not near the inflection point (mathematically called a first order catastrophe). Mathematically, it could have been 185.9 and 15.9 in 3000BC, but 130 and -12 in 3200 BC if 3100 BC were the inflection point of a cubic, given the right equation, and we could not tell this now at all. It is possible, we cannot prove the contrary. Now, what would be the consequence? Maybe, (depending on what theorist you believe) the physical constants are related. One goes up, another must go down. Lots of ideas out there, and lots that no one has been able to talk down or provide data against. Change g, and you change the magnetic constant. Change enough, and the earth's magnetic field changes. Maybe enough to change the weather. Maybe enough to cause a flood. Various theories, but some say enough to imply that almost anything might happen.

The speed of light or earth's gravity would have nothing to do with the decay process or rate of decay of any radionuclide. And for what its worth, decay rates of radionuclides emitted from supernovae millions of light years distant have been observed and measured. The decay rates are the same as those we observe here on earth.

 

[Ken Behrens]

The speed of light or earth's gravity would have nothing to do with the decay process or rate of decay of any radionuclide. And for what its worth, decay rates of radionuclides emitted from supernovae millions of light years distant have been observed and measured. The decay rates are the same as those we observe here on earth.

Anything measured in time, the measurement changes if time changes. And most unified field theories link time to the other constants, in the sense that a change in one changes the others, often unpredictably. That's my point.

 

[RickG]

Anything measured in time, the measurement changes if time changes. And most unified field theories link time to the other constants, in the sense that a change in one changes the others, often unpredictably. That's my point.

And my point is you are questioning something where there is no basis for questioning it, much less any evidence. Even if time had changed it doesn't matter, what we are measuring are the units of time we use today with respect to the present. Also, don't forget that I have already explained how easy it would be for us to detect any change in physics in the past.

 

[Ken Behrens]

And my point is you are questioning something where there is no basis for questioning it, much less any evidence. Even if time had changed it doesn't matter, what we are measuring are the units of time we use today with respect to the present. Also, don't forget that I have already explained how easy it would be for us to detect any change in physics in the past.

My basis is that I know unified field theory proposals going on now. And I know how quickly but with what difficulty geocentric solar system was overturned. I also know how Archimedes overturned religious ideas of the Greeks with the "sand Reckoner" and how easy is was to overturn other ideas with the Pythagorean theorem. If these discoveries had not been publicized, Jesus would have been born into a world where we were created to be slaves of the gods, and no one had ever questioned otherwise.

 

[RickG]

My basis is that I know unified field theory proposals going on now. And I know how quickly but with what difficulty geocentric solar system was overturned. I also know how Archimedes overturned religious ideas of the Greeks with the "sand Reckoner" and how easy is was to overturn other ideas with the Pythagorean theorem. If these discoveries had not been publicized, Jesus would have been born into a world where we were created to be slaves of the gods, and no one had ever questioned otherwise.

I'm not sure what you are saying.

 

[Ken Behrens]

I'm not sure what you are saying.

You are completely correct that it is proven that physics did not change. But I am asking the questions I am asking because
Science is only part of life. Religion has changed scientific "truths" many times in the past. At this point we have many people who do not agree with science because it is making claims proven from science's point of view, but not acceptable to certain religious ideas that also seem to be important (like evolution for example, or for some non-Christians that God was a UFO pilot). But history shows that the rules of knowledge can change anytime society wants them to.

Did you ever stop to ask why the Copernican system replaced geocentrism at the time of the Reformation, and not earlier or later? Either system will tell you where the moon is going to be next year on this date. The philosophy changed because it was symbolic of God (symbolized by the sun as the source of energy and life) at the center, instead of the pope (symbolized by the earth as the civilized part of the universe where man is in charge). Pliny, in ancient Rome, says that there were people who believed in solarcentric then, but they were in error because "they deprived the gods of their personalities"). He also says gravity is heaven pushing things away. I know this way of thinking sounds silly to some, but all of our science would not occur without the Cartesian coordinate system. That was developed from the number line, which was invented by the monk who decided to make Christ's birthdate 0AD.

I know of a mathematical theory that is consistent with the idea that there is no motion or change at all. EVERY physical fact is consistent with we are part of a five dimensional painting at the fractal level made by a being six dimensional or greater. I think you can see how society's general acceptance of such an idea would be the end of science as we know it.

There are things in the Bible that have led me to read ancient writings (not known until very recently in some cases, and to find another way to explain Pangea That's what a started this long conversation we are having (hopefully for others to see and think about). But these things also lead me to questions about gravity, magnetism, and atomic structure. These things say that these forces were different at various times in the past. The laws of physics may not have changed, but something inspired those writings., and I'd rather that when the change occurs, it be reasonable and orderly.

 

[RickG]

Religion has changed scientific "truths" many times in the past. At this point we have many people who do not agree with science because it is making claims proven from science's point of view, but not acceptable to certain religious ideas that also seem to be important (like evolution for example, or for some non-Christians that God was a UFO pilot). But history shows that the rules of knowledge can change anytime society wants them to.

I think you are overlooking an important point there. Yes, what was once scientific truths in the past has changed, but why did they change. They changed because because scientific knowledge and the methods and instruments to test and understand that knowledge has consistently improved and become more accurate with time. And don't forget, what was once viewed as science hundreds of years ago was actually very little science if any at all. Even Issac Newton delved into alchemy once. He even came up with an age of the earth based on the bible, 4000 BC; as well as Kepler, 3992 BC. Geologic dating methods based on science were not available until the mid 20th century. And sure there were estimates in the millions of years by Lyell and Kelvin, but they were literally guesses.

I know of a mathematical theory that is consistent with the idea that there is no motion or change at all. EVERY physical fact is consistent with we are part of a five dimensional painting at the fractal level made by a being six dimensional or greater. I think you can see how society's general acceptance of such an idea would be the end of science as we know it.

But has no more basis than Zeus was a real god.

There are things in the Bible that have led me to read ancient writings (not known until very recently in some cases, and to find another way to explain Pangea That's what a started this long conversation we are having (hopefully for others to see and think about). But these things also lead me to questions about gravity, magnetism, and atomic structure. These things say that these forces were different at various times in the past. The laws of physics may not have changed, but something inspired those writings., and I'd rather that when the change occurs, it be reasonable and orderly.

However, we know about Pangaea and the supercontinents before and after it from physical evidence.`I once looked into GAP theory with excitement, but upon reviewing what it stated and the scientific facts it completely overlooked; I sadly, but honestly, saw that it did not work. Thus I look at the Genesis creation account as metaphoric or an allegory. That way I don't have for things into the bible I know to be wrong.

 

[Ken Behrens]

I think you are overlooking an important point there. Yes, what was once scientific truths in the past has changed, but why did they change.

Thus I look at the Genesis creation account as metaphoric or an allegory. That way I don't have for things into the bible I know to be wrong.

We are running out of new things to say, lol. Science has improved because people like that way of thinking more now. You can watch logic and time sense replace mythological thinking in the written record, as a sample of what I mean.

I wish people would read Genesis in Hebrew, and stop relying on translations. Genesis is about God's creation of purpose, not about the ball of dirt.

 

[RickG]

I wish people would read Genesis in Hebrew, and stop relying on translations. Genesis is about God's creation of purpose, not about the ball of dirt.

I would love to be able to read it in Hebrew, but English is my only language.

 

[Ken Behrens]

I would love to be able to read it in Hebrew, but English is my only language.

:-(

 

[dqhall]

I asked you to provide a link and we would discuss it. The offer is still open.



Oh I know a few:

Radiocarbon - Beta counting
Radiocarbon - AMS
Argon-Isotope - Potassium-Argon
Argon-Isotope - Argon-Argon - conventional or SLCF - Isochron technique
Uranium 238 Series (Alpha particle spectrometry or mass spectrometry / Isochron technique
Uranium 235 Series (alpha particle spectromerty or mass spectrometry / Isochron techique
Thorium 232 Series (alpha particle spectrometry or mass spectrometry isochron technique
Cosmogenic nuclide dating (CN) spallation

He3, Ne21, Be10, Al26, Cl36, C14​

Short-lived isotophes Pb210, Cs137, Si32
Optical dating - Thermoluminescence & Optically Stimulated Luminescence

Trapped Charge & Fission tracking
SAR & IRSL​

Electron Spin Resonanced (ESR)
Fission Tracking - population method & external dector method
Dendrochronology
Ice Core Chronology - O16/O18 isotope ratios, conductivity, acidity
Speleothems
Annual rings - corrals & molluscs
Cation-ratio
Obsidian hydration
Obsidian diffusion
Fluorine profiles
Amino Acid Geochronology
Tephrochronology
Paleosols
Marine Oxygen Isotopes (MOI)
Atomic Trap Trace Analysis (ATTA) 81Kr and 85Kr
ATTA Argon Detection Isotopic Abundance Level
ATTA Uranium - Throium series (U, Th, Pa, Ra and Rn).
ATTA 85Kr and 39Ar

And there are more, which one would you like to discuss?

Geophysical/geochemical dating can give the date of formation for an igneous rock. Not all rocks were formed at the same time. One might have been formed 300 million years ago, another 1 billion years ago. Igneous rocks are yet being formed as lava from volcanoes cools. Igneous rocks also cool from magma and solidify below the surface of the earth. Formations of these rocks cooled from subsurface magma are called plutons. If a potassium isotope is trapped in a bubble in an igneous rock upon formation (solidification), the bubble fills with argon as the decay of the potassium isotope progresses. Highly skilled scientists can measure these things.

It impossible for one to find what hour the first humans appeared from reading the Bible. Some are attracted more to the Sermon on the Mount and the Gospels than to the book of Genesis or laws requiring animal sacrifice in the Torah.

 

[BukiRob]

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.

I tend to think this is what happened. After all the primary cause of the flood was NOT the rain.

 

[Ken Behrens]

I tend to think this is what happened. After all the primary cause of the flood was NOT the rain.

Flood=mobal. Rain=girshim, or matir. In Hebrew. Why two kinds of rain?

Mobal=meaning unknown. Root=-bal, "vibration" or "undulation". Related linguistically to Jubal=jubilee, the trumpet sound from Sinai in Exodus. Related linguistically to Tubal-Cain, the worker in metal (drop the T- and you get the Greek equivalent Vulcan).

Gopher wood= meaning unknown. Jipar wood is the subject of a long story about the Sumerian "George Washington", a fellow named "Enmerkar", who wanted to get some of it from the "Lords of Arratu" (Arrarat?) because it served some purpose in the temple of their god, that made it "shine like the abzu (primordial sky)".

Book of Enoch says the nephilim experimented with metals and this is one of the causes of the flood. Fasold says he thought that he found gopher wood that contained metal. And Papyrus Chester Beatty IV speaks of "pyramids with iron stelae", a 19-th century translation that could just as well mean "mounds with antennas" if they had the words for that back then, just like suggested in certain Sumerian Cylinder Seals.

Curioser and curioser.

 

[BukiRob]

Flood=mobal. Rain=girshim, or matir. In Hebrew. Why two kinds of rain?

Mobal=meaning unknown. Root=-bal, "vibration" or "undulation". Related linguistically to Jubal=jubilee, the trumpet sound from Sinai in Exodus. Related linguistically to Tubal-Cain, the worker in metal (drop the T- and you get the Greek equivalent Vulcan).

Gopher wood= meaning unknown. Jipar wood is the subject of a long story about the Sumerian "George Washington", a fellow named "Enmerkar", who wanted to get some of it from the "Lords of Arratu" (Arrarat?) because it served some purpose in the temple of their god, that made it "shine like the abzu (primordial sky)".

Book of Enoch says the nephilim experimented with metals and this is one of the causes of the flood. Fasold says he thought that he found gopher wood that contained metal. And Papyrus Chester Beatty IV speaks of "pyramids with iron stelae", a 19-th century translation that could just as well mean "mounds with antennas" if they had the words for that back then, just like suggested in certain Sumerian Cylinder Seals.

Curioser and curioser.

I think much/most of it had to do with the corruption of mankind's DNA.

Yeshua says something on the surface that is quite odd... As in the days of Noah...... then something that is as common as Mondays.... eating and drinking, marrying and giving to marriage....

So what is both so common and yet so distinctive about "as in the days of Noah." What is unique about this period of time that is different than any other of mankind's recorded history? Our unlocking of the knowledge of the atom leading to nuclear weapons and our understanding of the human genomic sequence and the ability to manipulate DNA

 

[Ken Behrens]

I think much/most of it had to do with the corruption of mankind's DNA.

Yeshua says something on the surface that is quite odd... As in the days of Noah...... then something that is as common as Mondays.... eating and drinking, marrying and giving to marriage....

So what is both so common and yet so distinctive about "as in the days of Noah." What is unique about this period of time that is different than any other of mankind's recorded history? Our unlocking of the knowledge of the atom leading to nuclear weapons and our understanding of the human genomic sequence and the ability to manipulate DNA

Certainly. But how does this relate to the words used to describe it? Or is there a verse in this part of the Bible that suggests it? (Actually I think there is, for some good reasons, but I want to see if anyone else agrees without knowing the reasons I have, just on Scriptural evidence alone.)