Scientific proof of flood.

[Mechanical Bliss]

There is evidence against the floating plate theory.

No, there isn't. Plate tectonic motions are well established. Are you seriously suggesting that they do not occur? We have data from global positioning satellites showing that the plate do move in relationship to each other. We have paleomagnetic data showing that this has occurred in the past.

If the plates floated around causing tropical fossil ferns to form under the ice caps on the poles it would stand to reason that the equator areas would have glacial conditions in the fossil record.

This is not the case.

Non sequitur.

The theory that the Earth was once all tropical, and water was added to the surface causing the continents to float and changing the weather at the poles fits the geological record better.

Absolutely absurd.

The earth cannot be "all tropical" in climate due to its shape and relation to the sun. Or are you suggesting that the earth was flat at one time?

Furthermore, water is not what causes "continents to float." First of all, the continents have a density greater than water. Second, it's not just the continents, but the plates of the earth which include the oceans. The continents are merely higher areas of these plates with a less dense composition. Third, the plates "float" on the mantle--molten material that behaves plastically. Convection currents and cooling plate edges facilitate this motion.

And since we have paleomagnetic data that Antarctica, for example, was once at a lower latitude closer to the equator, the current model obviously fits the geologic record better.

The water run off condition also explains the shape of the continents.

The margins of the continents match the shape of the marings of others.

There are regions of the same fossils found on opposite sides of the oceans on continents that would have been joined as one at the time (Glossopteris is often cited as an example here).

Oh yeah, and all the other evidence, such as paleomagnetics.

The size of the continents would be determined by the time required for the water to run to a low area. The slower the continents rose the larger the continent would be as the water has more time to travel. It should be expected that similar conditions of the stiffness of the Earth’’s surface and water run off times would cause a similar wave pattern in the surface of the Earths crust. The areas which have snow due to colder temperatures would not be expected to exhibit this condition as prevalently because the water run off time would increase or water run off would be prevented causing the wave pattern to shorten or vanish toward the poles.

Making stuff up, and most of it doesn't even sound coherent.

The condition above is exactly what is seen in the configuration of the continents.

Fantastical storytelling without evidence.

Your plate techtonics proof depends on the assumption that the Earth has remained in a steady condition for millions of years.

It's not an assumption. It is a well substantiated conclusion that the earth's processes have been largely constant over time. Radiometric dating also verifies this.

As with other creationists, you too are ignoring the relationship between the data, which invalidates your objection.

If I assume there was a catistrophic event then the data also fits my theory but just on a quicker time scale.

No, it doesn't, and you would have realized that had you, say, read the threads I pointed to or looked at your own post to see that you provided zero evidence.

Again, just fantastical storytelling without substance.

A theory is a "made up" idea that is intended to be proven or disproved by inspecting the facts.

You have demonstrated now that you do not know what a scientific theory is or how the scientific method works.

A theory is an explanation for all available evidence that can be potentially disproved. The inspection of the facts dictates what the theory (explanation) will be, not the other way around. Perhaps further inspection of the facts can alter or disprove the theory, but in order for that to occur, you have to produce not merely make stuff up.

It is hypocritical and arrogant of you to refer to another theory as "made up" when your own ideas are of a similar nature.

No, it's not hypocritical because my explanations are backed by evidence and yours are just made up stories because you have purely emotional, rather than evidentiary, objections to the claims of modern science.

 

[LittleNipper]

​

I don't think that a Jealous GOD wants us to ignore HIS presents and replace HIS revelation with our trivial imaginings.

 

[caravelair]

I don't think that a Jealous GOD wants us to ignore HIS presents and replace HIS revelation with our trivial imaginings.

what you want us to do is ignore HIS creation, and all the evidence contained therein. if god created you, he gave you the ability to think rationally, and i don't see why he'd want you to abstain from doing so.

 

[corvus_corax]

I don't think that a Jealous GOD wants us to ignore HIS presents and replace HIS revelation with our trivial imaginings.

Ahem.....
"ANY calculations that misses any data cannot and will not provide a correct answer. ANY calculations that ignore the GOD factor are doomed from their conception"...
Is false and patently so, as has been demonstrated time and again on this very thread.

 

[AirPo]

I don't think that a Jealous GOD wants us to ignore HIS presents and replace HIS revelation with our trivial imaginings.

Isn't nature one of his presents?

 

[duordi]

Wrongo!

A theory is an explanation of evidence.

Unfortunately for you, your theory has zero evidence and therefore is an explanation of nothing.

"Wrongo?"

Hmm... OK

The evidence is no glacial geographic evidence at the equator and tropic fossils at the poles.

Unless you are going to say the continents at the equator do travel to the poles but the continents a the pole don't travel to the equator.

But then where did the continent that was on the pole go when the one from the equator moved in.

So you see the continental drift idea is ......

Wrongo.

Duane

 

[LittleNipper]

Isn't nature one of his presents?

Which nature? Nature is presently in a fallen state. It is being manipulated by Satan. What we presently witness is neither what GOD created nor intends to remain...

 

[LittleNipper]

Ahem.....
"ANY calculations that misses any data cannot and will not provide a correct answer. ANY calculations that ignore the GOD factor are doomed from their conception"...
Is false and patently so, as has been demonstrated time and again on this very thread.

Well then sir, you cannot believe in the power of prayer.

 

[AirPo]

Which nature? Nature is presently in a fallen state. It is being manipulated by Satan. What we presently witness is neither what GOD created nor intends to remain...

Well if satan is messing with everything, how can you trust anything?

 

[h2whoa]

Well if satan is messing with everything, how can you trust anything?

It's a fair point. The Bible was written after the FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALL afterall...

h2

 

[duordi]

Not if they never floated in such a region. That they can float around does not automatically mean that they have been everywhere on earth.

So both the north pole and south pole have tropical fossils indicating that the continents floated from the equator.

But where did the continents on the poles float to?

Admit it, you can not accept anything that disproves your theory and so your ideas are not based on science but you are twisting science to meet your preferences.

The continents were formed recently and have not traveled far.

The fossils are the result of a pre-flood atmosphere condition which maintained the Earth a tropical conditions everywhere.

And the "you don’t have evidence" argument is getting old.

I have tropical fossils every where.

First, could you give references to this theory?

Oh, I forgot the first commandment of current theory.

"Thou shalt have no unique thought"

Second, this could be explained by a closer position of the earth toward the sun. We know from studies on global average temperature that this temperature fluctuates.

But we are moving closer to the sun due to the energy absorbed by tidal conditions not away from it.

I find it very interesting when a supporter of a proponent of a consistent Earth which has remained for billions of years must resort to a "changing" Earth to explain the geological record.

So your solution is that the Earth was all tropical at one time.
Hmm....
Why is it Ok for you to suggest it, but not Ok for me to suggest it?

Third, I don't know what the configuration of continents has been like, but if there were no continents on the poles, this could result in a tropical climate on all continents.

So for your theory to work there can not have been continents at the poles... ever.

Even though there just happens to be continents on both poles now.

Your faith is great.

Not without also using contental drift. The himalaya cannot be explained by water run-off.

But you also need to account for the high areas, which you don't do above.

From a magma/crust point of view, yes. But then, a catastrophic event would not be able to explain that away.

No it doesn't. It only explains the dales, not the mountains.

The run off and magma/crust condition causes the Earth surface to form a wave of thick and thin areas with cracks at the break points.

Something the size of a continent is not governed by a single mountain range.

By the way, I did not say the tectonic plates do not move.

This has been proven and measured.

I only said the plates have not have time to slide all over the planet.

It is a time and distance question that we are debating.

Duane

 

[LittleNipper]

Well if satan is messing with everything, how can you trust anything?

I trust ONLY GOD and GOD protects HIS WORD.

 

[AirPo]

I trust ONLY GOD and GOD protects HIS WORD.

Nature is his word also, why didn't he protect that??

 

[Vastavus]

I trust ONLY GOD and GOD protects HIS WORD.

As a Deist, I tend to view with extreme suspicion any efforts to claim divine authority, whether it be claiming to speak for God directly, being part of an order allegedly favored by God or citing so-called "sacred scripture" allegedly written by those who allegedly spoke for God. Only God speaks for God.

 

[duordi]

No, there isn't. Plate tectonic motions are well established. Are you seriously suggesting that they do not occur? We have data from global positioning satellites showing that the plate do move in relationship to each other. We have paleomagnetic data showing that this has occurred in the past.

I did not say the tectonic plates do not move.

This has been proven and measured.

I only said the plates have not have time to slide all over the planet.

It is a time and distance question that we are debating.

Non sequitur.

Absolutely absurd.

Only when you speak for both of us.

The earth cannot be "all tropical" in climate due to its shape and relation to the sun. Or are you suggesting that the earth was flat at one time?

No it was covered by a cloud cover.

Furthermore, water is not what causes "continents to float." First of all, the continents have a density greater than water. Second, it's not just the continents, but the plates of the earth which include the oceans. The continents are merely higher areas of these plates with a less dense composition. Third, the plates "float" on the mantle--molten material that behaves plastically. Convection currents and cooling plate edges facilitate this motion.

I see no errors in this portion

And since we have paleomagnetic data that Antarctica, for example, was once at a lower latitude closer to the equator, the current model obviously fits the geologic record better.

I did not say the plates did not move, only that they did not have time to float all over the planet.

The margins of the continents match the shape of the marings of others.

There are regions of the same fossils found on opposite sides of the oceans on continents that would have been joined as one at the time (Glossopteris is often cited as an example here).

Of course the same fossils are found they had the same climate and there was no ocean between them.

It's not an assumption. It is a well substantiated conclusion that the earth's processes have been largely constant over time. Radiometric dating also verifies this.

I believe the word used is theory.
as in "made up"

Radio acitive dating is a ruler without lines.
You have to assign the lines though another means.

Clip clip ( no personal attacks plesase )

A theory is an explanation for all available evidence that can be potentially disproved. The inspection of the facts dictates what the theory (explanation) will be, not the other way around. Perhaps further inspection of the facts can alter or disprove the theory, but in order for that to occur, you have to produce not merely make stuff up.

So why do you reject evidence that disagrees with your belief?

No, it's not hypocritical because my explanations are backed by evidence and yours are just made up stories because you have purely emotional, rather than evidentiary, objections to the claims of modern science.

So my fossils in the pole strata is made up, but your super continent is "not an assumption".

Well at least I understand you rules.

Duane

 

[LittleNipper]

Nature is his word also, why didn't he protect that??

Nature is HIS creation. For GOD to protect HIS creation the way you suspect, GOD would have had to destroy Adam the moment he sinned. GOD is also a merciful GOD. GOD loves man more then the rest of HIS creation.

 

[duordi]

As a Deist, I tend to view with extreme suspicion any efforts to claim divine authority, whether it be claiming to speak for God directly, being part of an order allegedly favored by God or citing so-called "sacred scripture" allegedly written by those who allegedly spoke for God. Only God speaks for God.

True but this is a sientific debate.
No Bible or other religous referances were given.

Duane

 

[Vastavus]

True but this is a sientific debate.
No Bible or other religous referance was given.

Duane

This debate wasn't really scientific from the begining, and LittleNipper blessed us with this post about the Bible, refering to it as "God's word".

I trust ONLY GOD and GOD protects HIS WORD.

 

[LittleNipper]

As a Deist, I tend to view with extreme suspicion any efforts to claim divine authority, whether it be claiming to speak for God directly, being part of an order allegedly favored by God or citing so-called "sacred scripture" allegedly written by those who allegedly spoke for God. Only God speaks for God.

That is why YOU need to be willing to have an intimate relationship with GOD. GOD then begins a work from the inside out, rather than as you suppose outside in. People who claim to speak for GOD can have the very same selfish motives as those who claim to be "scientific." That is why you need to consider GOD in everything you do and not just those areas that seem convenient.

 

[_Paladin_]

This debate wasn't really scientific from the begining, and LittleNipper blessed us with this post about the Bible, refering to it as "God's word".

We have all been Nipped.