Rob Byers wrote
Chordateslegacy
what to expect is not to be expected. It is unknown how and how much need of the earth was needed to separate the landmass.
I have no idea what you are suggesting here; but it looks as if you are suggesting the continents separated without the underlying mantle moving. This is dreaming in the extreme, for the continents to move and new crust to form you have to destroy older crust to make way for it. The only place the old crust can go is down into the mantle, which is were the material comes from to form the new crust.
In all literature it is a constant thing that melting lave poured into other rock forms showing great chaos.
WHAT LITERATURE: QUOTES AND REFERENCES PLEASE
It is here on the shield. Metamorphic rock all comes from the flood year .
QUOTES AND REFERENCES TO THE RESEARCH THAT SUGGESTS THIS.
The grat volcanos, now gone, came from the flood year.
How do you know there were great volcanos, and where did they go; QUOTES AND REFERENCES PLEASE.
The evidence of earth is exactly what creationist models expect.
No it is not; this has been explained here; the evidence all points to a very very old Earth, not a single piece of evidence supports the creationist world view; READ WHAT HAS BEEN POSTED.
Great depths of rock overturned, transformed, pulverized by the great undergound actions of a moving land mass.
Musings of a confused mind
The evidence for speedy movement is the result.
As already posted in this thread, there is absolutely no evidence for any cataclysmic plate tectonics; ALL THE EVIDENCE FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD INDECATES THE OPERSITE.
it should be the first conclusion.
Its a conclusion that no scientist has ever come to; other than those wallowing in the magical mysticism of creationism. If creationists were right, would you not thing that scientists from other countries and religions would support it. ONLY CREATIONISTS HAVE THE GAUL TO EVEN SUGGEST IT>
Your melt criticisms is beyond my intimate knowledge yet again your presuming movement would be a certain way. The earth is great in its underlying power. We see the results and know the history, the bible, and can fit the pieces together.
The Bible was written by Bronze Age man; who by any measure had limited knowledge of the natural world. Even the roman catholic church belives in an old earth and evolution.
Modern geology as others said here is just guessing about how plates move.
No; it is not guessing; that is what you are doing. Geologists and other scientists, observe, experiment and question everything before developing theories, which are then constantly tested.
They have to presume slowness. they can't and don't test their ideas.
No they are not presuming slowness, there are observing slowness and the outcome of the slowness of plate tectonics. These parameters are then used for modelling, and guess what, it explains everything we see most elegantly.
It is a big subject. However the result imply the means. Fast sudden movement in a great event. You have to do the work to show it was a slow process.
The work is done to show it was a slow prosess; including going down to these ocean ridges and observing the processes.
Likewise sedimentary rock shows a sudden great collections of sediment made into rock suddenly. Life in the pileup included.
Before we get onto sedimentary rocks, we must first understand igneous rocks and then metamorphic rocks.
I've been reading Hutton lately and its so clear that they rejected a young earth just because they couldn't see how rocks could be folded deep down and so .
The reason a young earth was rejected is because all and I mean all the evidence proved un-categorically that the earth must be at least millions of years old. This view has been further supported by work in biology, chemistry, physics, planetary science, cosmology etc.
No faith and no creative imagination and then research to figure the obvious thing to the eyes. Great sudden shakeups.
Having a creative imagination is fine, even good, but it the evidence is against it, it has to be thrown away, just like creationism.
Thank goodness continental drift(we say redeye) came by to give creationism a little help.
Continent drift does nothing for creationists, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you in your next post to submit some evidence to support your claims, something up to this point you have not done.
Chordateslegacy
what to expect is not to be expected. It is unknown how and how much need of the earth was needed to separate the landmass.
I have no idea what you are suggesting here; but it looks as if you are suggesting the continents separated without the underlying mantle moving. This is dreaming in the extreme, for the continents to move and new crust to form you have to destroy older crust to make way for it. The only place the old crust can go is down into the mantle, which is were the material comes from to form the new crust.
In all literature it is a constant thing that melting lave poured into other rock forms showing great chaos.
WHAT LITERATURE: QUOTES AND REFERENCES PLEASE
It is here on the shield. Metamorphic rock all comes from the flood year .
QUOTES AND REFERENCES TO THE RESEARCH THAT SUGGESTS THIS.
The grat volcanos, now gone, came from the flood year.
How do you know there were great volcanos, and where did they go; QUOTES AND REFERENCES PLEASE.
The evidence of earth is exactly what creationist models expect.
No it is not; this has been explained here; the evidence all points to a very very old Earth, not a single piece of evidence supports the creationist world view; READ WHAT HAS BEEN POSTED.
Great depths of rock overturned, transformed, pulverized by the great undergound actions of a moving land mass.
Musings of a confused mind
The evidence for speedy movement is the result.
As already posted in this thread, there is absolutely no evidence for any cataclysmic plate tectonics; ALL THE EVIDENCE FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD INDECATES THE OPERSITE.
it should be the first conclusion.
Its a conclusion that no scientist has ever come to; other than those wallowing in the magical mysticism of creationism. If creationists were right, would you not thing that scientists from other countries and religions would support it. ONLY CREATIONISTS HAVE THE GAUL TO EVEN SUGGEST IT>
Your melt criticisms is beyond my intimate knowledge yet again your presuming movement would be a certain way. The earth is great in its underlying power. We see the results and know the history, the bible, and can fit the pieces together.
The Bible was written by Bronze Age man; who by any measure had limited knowledge of the natural world. Even the roman catholic church belives in an old earth and evolution.
Modern geology as others said here is just guessing about how plates move.
No; it is not guessing; that is what you are doing. Geologists and other scientists, observe, experiment and question everything before developing theories, which are then constantly tested.
They have to presume slowness. they can't and don't test their ideas.
No they are not presuming slowness, there are observing slowness and the outcome of the slowness of plate tectonics. These parameters are then used for modelling, and guess what, it explains everything we see most elegantly.
It is a big subject. However the result imply the means. Fast sudden movement in a great event. You have to do the work to show it was a slow process.
The work is done to show it was a slow prosess; including going down to these ocean ridges and observing the processes.
Likewise sedimentary rock shows a sudden great collections of sediment made into rock suddenly. Life in the pileup included.
Before we get onto sedimentary rocks, we must first understand igneous rocks and then metamorphic rocks.
I've been reading Hutton lately and its so clear that they rejected a young earth just because they couldn't see how rocks could be folded deep down and so .
The reason a young earth was rejected is because all and I mean all the evidence proved un-categorically that the earth must be at least millions of years old. This view has been further supported by work in biology, chemistry, physics, planetary science, cosmology etc.
No faith and no creative imagination and then research to figure the obvious thing to the eyes. Great sudden shakeups.
Having a creative imagination is fine, even good, but it the evidence is against it, it has to be thrown away, just like creationism.
Thank goodness continental drift(we say redeye) came by to give creationism a little help.
Continent drift does nothing for creationists, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you in your next post to submit some evidence to support your claims, something up to this point you have not done.
Upvote
0