Super-Continent Pangaea

[joshua 1 9]

The Super-Continent Pangaea assembled from earlier continental units approximately 300 million years ago, and it began to break apart about 175 million years ago. Some Christians believe that the story of Noah is a shadow and a type of the break up of Pangaea. If people accept that or not, does not change the fact that the Super-Continent of Pangaea was destroyed and through continental Drift the world we have today was formed or created.

 

[florida2]

...and?

 

[Papias]

Yep, all true.

It's pretty cool to imagine what it was like for the first person to figure this out (such as the fossil ranges shown by the colored areas in the OP).

Can you imagine it? Something like....

Hmm, why? Why lystrosaurus in a band in Africa, India, and Antarctica, but no where else??? It's like they were on rafts or something. Hey, that's like Cynognathus. Odd. A fern like that too, with the same pattern. What if the continents were together like this....Wow, it all makes sense! The marine reptile too! Who do I tell first?

Papias

 

[Hieronymus]

------

 

[joshua 1 9]

...and?

Sorry I forgot to copy the question. But this had to do with how the dinosaurs were used by Edwin Colbert to prove the theory of Continental Drift that we now refer to as plate tectonics. It is a response to the liberals that claim I do not present evidence and that I do not know anything. This is all a part of the package of what liberals accuse conservatives even though they can not get any of it to stick.

 

[Robert Palase]

That's why the animals and plants in Australia and Madagascar are found only on those two islands and no where else on earth, ask you pastors about that and see what crazy answers they come up with..

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry I forgot to copy the question. But this had to do with how the dinosaurs were used by Edwin Colbert to prove the theory of Continental Drift that we now refer to as plate tectonics. It is a response to the liberals that claim I do not present evidence and that I do not know anything. This is all a part of the package of what liberals accuse conservatives even though they can not get any of it to stick.

But there is nothing in the Biblical Flood account that mentions anything about the break up of the continents from Pangaea. You are seriously just clutching at straws with your ideas.

 

[Shemjaza]

Sorry I forgot to copy the question. But this had to do with how the dinosaurs were used by Edwin Colbert to prove the theory of Continental Drift that we now refer to as plate tectonics. It is a response to the liberals that claim I do not present evidence and that I do not know anything. This is all a part of the package of what liberals accuse conservatives even though they can not get any of it to stick.

But this post is entirely consistent with deep time and evolution.

People question your science when you make unsupported assertions about science or medicine. You demonstrating that you have the ability to back up cleans will now make you seem dishonest rathe then ignorant when you next refuse.

 

[Jimmy D]

Sorry I forgot to copy the question. But this had to do with how the dinosaurs were used by Edwin Colbert to prove the theory of Continental Drift that we now refer to as plate tectonics. It is a response to the liberals that claim I do not present evidence and that I do not know anything. This is all a part of the package of what liberals accuse conservatives even though they can not get any of it to stick.

Nice one, don't let those liberals tell you what to do!

I notice you mention Noah in the OP, are you suggesting that the break up of Pangaea is related to that tale in some way? I'm curious to hear more.

 

[Loudmouth]

Some Christians believe that the story of Noah is a shadow and a type of the break up of Pangaea.

Funny how no one mentioned that before the scientific discovery of Continental Drift.

It seems that over and over, the interpretation of the Bible changes to fit the Science, and not the other way around.

 

[-57]

Of course, there is this.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It seems that over and over, the interpretation of the Bible changes to fit the Science,

The theory of evolution is constantly changing as new information becomes available. As new information becomes available then we have a better understanding of the Bible. Why is that a issue for you?

 

[Loudmouth]

The theory of evolution is constantly changing as new information becomes available. As new information becomes available then we have a better understanding of the Bible. Why is that a issue for you?

Why is it an issue for you? You are the one who rejects science that conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible.

 

[-57]

The theory of evolution is constantly changing as new information becomes available. As new information becomes available then we have a better understanding of the Bible. Why is that a issue for you?

The problem is....you need to change the bible to force it to accept the T.o.E.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The problem is....you need to change the bible to force it to accept the T.o.E.

You can not change the Bible. The Bible was written over 3500 years ago. Yet the Bible has a fresh and new application for each and every generation. "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever." Isaiah 40:8

 

[joshua 1 9]

Why is it an issue for you? You are the one who rejects science that conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible.

I do not reject true science at all, I have told you that many many times. Of course there are counterfeits and we need to be able to discern what is true and what is not. If your wife were to buy a Gucci purse would she be happy if it turned out to be a counterfeit?

 

[joshua 1 9]

I notice you mention Noah in the OP, are you suggesting that the break up of Pangaea is related to that tale in some way?

Yes, we went over this. The story of Noah in the Bible is a shadow and a type of what took place in Pangaea. Some people call this an allegory. There are different words we can use. In fact there is fairly universal acceptance that the story of Noah is some sort of an allegory because the story is so universal and timeless in nature. What people questioned is the literal truth of the story. Also you have to look at the Jung perspective of archetypes.

 

[Jimmy D]

Yes, we went over this. The story of Noah in the Bible is a shadow and a type of what took place in Pangaea. Some people call this an allegory. There are different words we can use. In fact there is fairly universal acceptance that the story of Noah is some sort of an allegory because the story is so universal and timeless in nature. What people questioned is the literal truth of the story. Also you have to look at the Jung perspective of archetypes.

I'd agree it was allegory, what confuses me is your interpretation which seems to change on a daily basis. One minute you're saying it's a shadow of Pangaea the next you're saying that man didn't age or get disease before the flood. To be honest I think you're just making it up as you go along.

The fact is this though, there is no scientific evidence to back up the flood myth as told in Genesis, only evidence that contradicts it.

 

[[serious]]

Sorry I forgot to copy the question. But this had to do with how the dinosaurs were used by Edwin Colbert to prove the theory of Continental Drift that we now refer to as plate tectonics. It is a response to the liberals that claim I do not present evidence and that I do not know anything. This is all a part of the package of what liberals accuse conservatives even though they can not get any of it to stick.

How is science liberal or conservative? Unless you are pulling out the old "reality has a liberal bias" line it doesn't seem relevant to Pangea.

 

[joshua 1 9]

How is science liberal or conservative? Unless you are pulling out the old "reality has a liberal bias" line it doesn't seem relevant to Pangea.

Actually the liberals are anti-science. They pervert Science and try to use Counterfeit Science as a tool for their agenda and propaganda. Although I tend to agree with your premise that true science is neither liberal or conservative.