Plate tectonics and Pangaea

[pgp_protector]

witch version of plate tectonics theory are we going with for this pole ?

 

[Mallon]

witch version of plate tectonics theory are we going with for this pole ?

Just the part that says tectonic plates move and form supercontinents.

 

[pgp_protector]

Just the part that says tectonic plates move and form supercontinents.

But what timeframe
The overnight one, or the long term one

 

[USincognito]

In case anyone is interested.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/dynamic.html

 

[Mallon]

But what timeframe
The overnight one, or the long term one

Either one.

 

[Assyrian]

The feature of Pangaea is also a puzzle (no less than the Noah's Flood, if anyone cared to compare).

There are (abundant) "evidences" that suggest the feature of supercontinent repeated itself once every few hundreds millions of years. However, this is a fact (?) of statistic odd, if the plates moved randomly as it is assumed in the current theory.

Supercontinents are approximately the same size and should have broadly similar widths of ocean to cross before they meet again on the other side. The earth's mantle hasn't changed temperature that much so convection currents in the mantle should be causing similar amount of pressure moving the different landmasses.

On the other hand according to YEC the dates of these supercontinents are completely wrong because radioactive decay rate were much much faster in the past. What is statistically odd is that completely erroneous dating methods from exponentially decaying decay rates would produce such an orderly sequence of dates.

I presume the rates of continental drift in the past were broadly similar to what we measure today? If so why, if there was really runaway continental drift in the past as YECs claim, would the rate of drift fall in line with what we measure today when the runaway movement is matched to the erroneous dating methods?

 

[juvenissun]

Supercontinents are approximately the same size and should have broadly similar widths of ocean to cross before they meet again on the other side. The earth's mantle hasn't changed temperature that much so convection currents in the mantle should be causing similar amount of pressure moving the different landmasses.

On the other hand according to YEC the dates of these supercontinents are completely wrong because radioactive decay rate were much much faster in the past. What is statistically odd is that completely erroneous dating methods from exponentially decaying decay rates would produce such an orderly sequence of dates.

I presume the rates of continental drift in the past were broadly similar to what we measure today? If so why, if there was really runaway continental drift in the past as YECs claim, would the rate of drift fall in line with what we measure today when the runaway movement is matched to the erroneous dating methods?

The current model of plate movement is that the earlier the time on earth, the thinner and the smaller the plate and the hotter the earth. So, at earlier time, plates moved much faster than they do now. How fast was that may still be a question.

Let's assume this model works. And also let's assume the decay rate of radioactive elements was faster as ICR people suggested, then the change on the rate of plate movement (for example, in cm/yr) might not be very significant. If the runaway situation were real, then I think it would fit even better.

This is only a consideration in quality, not in quantity.

 

[horuhe00]

I wonder how the bottom of the ocean floor moved many yards during the earthquake and later tsunami in 2005 (or was it 2004?) without the explination through plate tectonics.

 

[birdan]

The current model of plate movement is that the earlier the time on earth, the thinner and the smaller the plate and the hotter the earth. So, at earlier time, plates moved much faster than they do now. How fast was that may still be a question.

Let's assume this model works. And also let's assume the decay rate of radioactive elements was faster as ICR people suggested, then the change on the rate of plate movement (for example, in cm/yr) might not be very significant. If the runaway situation were real, then I think it would fit even better.

This is only a consideration in quality, not in quantity.

And what, pray tell, happened to all that excess heat generated by the above processes? We know how much heat radioactive decay gives off and to "accelerate" it to fit the ICR timeline would turn the earth's crust molten. Ditto for "runaway tectonics". Where did all that heat go? (Maybe if I keep asking this question I'll get an actual response?)

 

[Tinker Grey]

It continually mystifies me that folks argue that God did thus-and-such in such-and-such a way.

The legendary poster dad once suggested (IIRC) that the excess water from the flood became the polar ice caps on Mars. Why bother? Why didn't God just make the water non-existent?

The essential two positions are this: 1) we see the physical evidence and this suggests what God did, and 2) we have divine revelation in text which we interpret in a particular way and we assume that any contradiction with physical evidence is merely apparent.

My essential question to my YEC brothers and sisters is this: Why bother with "any contradiction with physical evidence is merely apparent"? What difference does it make if the evidence contradicts? Why argue that it doesn't?

Position 2 says God spoke and it was. Why would this position argue about where the flod water came from? God made it ex nihilo for the purpose -- simple. Where did the water go? God snuffed it out of existence -- simple. Where did the heat go for plate tectonics on a YEC time-scale? Answer: what heat? God snapped his metaphorical fingers and kangaroos were suddenly isolated with other marsupials.

I think our YEC brothers and sisters need to ask themselves what their motivations are for even attempting answers.

 

[Mallon]

My essential question to my YEC brothers and sisters is this: Why bother with "any contradiction with physical evidence is merely apparent"? What difference does it make if the evidence contradicts? Why argue that it doesn't?

Scientism.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think both TE and YEC are subject to scientism. The first accepts what it sees; the second is compelled to answer that which doesn't fit with what it knows.

Ideally, I think Christianity would accept scripture solely as a guide to spiritual living.

(Of course, one could argue that the TE position exists to answer the YEC position. Certainly if the YEC position ceased to exist, the need for 'T' in TE would also cease.)

 

[juvenissun]

And what, pray tell, happened to all that excess heat generated by the above processes? We know how much heat radioactive decay gives off and to "accelerate" it to fit the ICR timeline would turn the earth's crust molten. Ditto for "runaway tectonics". Where did all that heat go? (Maybe if I keep asking this question I'll get an actual response?)

In the current model, the melting on the asthenosphere is only less then 5% even on a local scale. So, extra heat given by any process is not a problem. The more the heat, the more the partial melting and the fast may the plate move.

So, the anwswer to your question, there is no need to worry. In order to have a runaway plate movement, it could use all the heat it can find.

 

[juvenissun]

I think both TE and YEC are subject to scientism. The first accepts what it sees; the second is compelled to answer that which doesn't fit with what it knows.

Ideally, I think Christianity would accept scripture solely as a guide to spiritual living.

(Of course, one could argue that the TE position exists to answer the YEC position. Certainly if the YEC position ceased to exist, the need for 'T' in TE would also cease.)

Yes, spiritual need is the first. So, if a TE does not accept salvation, he or she is not a TE no matter what.

But for those who like to ask questions (on origin), the Bible could "also" play an critical role. Obviously TE denies this capacity of the Bible. While a TE would still be saved, he or she will lose some rewards from God on this aspect.

That is why it matters.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes, spiritual need is the first. So, if a TE does not accept salvation, he or she is not a TE no matter what.

But for those who like to ask questions (on origin), the Bible could "also" play an critical role. Obviously TE denies this capacity of the Bible. While a TE would still be saved, he or she will lose some rewards from God on this aspect.

That is why it matters.

Neglecting the issue of whether God will give any rewards for one's handling of this topic at all ...

The turn about would be true, too. While a YEC would still be saved, he or she will lose some rewards from God for imputing to scripture a purpose that God did not intend.

 

[juvenissun]

Neglecting the issue of whether God will give any rewards for one's handling of this topic at all ...

The turn about would be true, too. While a YEC would still be saved, he or she will lose some rewards from God for imputing to scripture a purpose that God did not intend.

This is a similar argument to the question of whether to believe: If I believe and it turned out not be true, I lose nothing. If I do not believe and it turned out to be true, I lose everything.

YEC does believe the Scripture is scientific, so YEC does try to relate the Scripture to science. If this turned out not be true, it does not reduce the glory of God. If this turned out to be true, then it glories God.

The difference is one does and one does not. Of course, the one who does would have better chance to be better off.

 

[Tinker Grey]

This is a similar argument to the question of whether to believe: If I believe and it turned out not be true, I lose nothing. If I do not believe and it turned out to be true, I lose everything.

I think I understand what you are saying here. Nevertheless, it sounds rather like checking the fire-insurance clause. Do you love God? Do you trust him to do what is right? Or, are you merely escaping hell? (These are rhetorical. The purpose is to encourage careful speach regarding our salvation.)

YEC does believe the Scripture is scientific, so YEC does try to relate the Scripture to science. If this turned out not be true, it does not reduce the glory of God. If this turned out to be true, then it glories God.

If it turns out not to be true, then you've misrepresented God to millions (well, not just you -- the YEC contingent).

While I suppose that the same could be said of TE, at least that position has the reality of physical evidence behind it -- an interpretation of which is consistent with Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, and atheists.

A simpler way of saying it: The TE position is less likely to inhibit others from coming to Christ.

For the sake of driving home the point: If [TE] turned out not be true, it does not reduce the glory of God. If [TE] turned out to be true, then it glories God.

To be clear about this, my own experience and that of others is that discovering the physical reality of our universe only causes more awe and reverence for our God.

The difference is one does and one does not. Of course, the one who does would have better chance to be better off.

I disagree. Quite emphatically I say that TE glorifies God and YEC limits and boxes him. (For example, the emphasis on 6 days implicitly binds God to time -- it constrains him to the physicality of the universe.)

Second, what do you mean "better off" and "a better chance?"

Is God more concerned with our scientific correctness than our character?

 

[juvenissun]

I disagree.

All right. This lane of argument is a dead lane, or a lane of no end. I am changing lane now.

....

Can't help to give my last kick here:

People said YEC boxed God (by Gen. 1 etc.). I think it is a misinterpretation:

YEC says: If God is real, then Gen. 1 is real.
(cf.
TE says: Even God is real, but Gen 1. is not real (because of [the stupid] science, which is ALWAYS wrong !!!)

Which one makes more sense? )


YEC does NOT say: Only if Gen. 1 is real, then God is real.

 

[shernren]

YEC says: If God is real, then Gen. 1 is real.
(cf.
TE says: Even God is real, but Gen 1. is not real (because of [the stupid] science, which is ALWAYS wrong !!!)

Which one makes more sense? )


YEC does NOT say: Only if Gen. 1 is real, then God is real.

Heh.

Furthermore, the theory of evolution is contradictory to the attributes of God. Evolutionist Loren Eiseley declared that ‘Man is a long chain of DNA accidents taking place over billions of years’. Carl Sagan was quoted in Time magazine as saying that ‘Only through the deaths of an immense number of slightly maladapted organisms are we, brain and all, here today’. These two statements incorporate two major features of the Darwinian mechanism of evolution: genetic mistakes and death.

... Would an omniscient, omnipotent, loving God use such a process to create man in three billion years when He could have created men instantaneously if He chose?

... The theistic evolutionist maligns God’s character and detracts from His glory.
​

Duane Gish (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp)

Here we first see the wisdom, goodness, and power of God, as well as the dignity and uniqueness of man in the Creation. But theistic evolution (and so-called ‘progressive creationism’ as well) undermines all this. It denies the plain biblical chronology and sequence of God’s creative acts (Genesis 1–2, Exodus 20:8–11). Even more seriously, it attacks the very character of God, identifying His creative activity with the violent, painful, deadly, and purposeless course of evolution.
​

Dean Davis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/theistic_evolution.asp)

And these are just examples. Answers in Genesis is littered throughout with statements to the precise effect that "If evolution is true then God is not worth worshipping".

 

[juvenissun]

And these are just examples. Answers in Genesis is littered throughout with statements to the precise effect that "If evolution is true then God is not worth worshipping".

To be fair, I would modify the statement to suggest what are they really saying:

"If human being is the product of evolution, then God is not worth worshipping"

I have no problem with this modified statement. If you want to accuse me that I boxed God up on this one, I will take it. I think this is also what AiG or ICR are really emphasized. Regards to the evolution of other life forms, I don't think it is that a critical matter.