Noah's Ark 2004

Continental Drift

I dont believe you actually understand continental drift.


By your theorising, teh animals would have had to run thousands of kilometers (knowing of course, exactly the direction they have to travel and the quickest routes around mountain ridges etc)

in a few years.

IF they are not fast enough they will have to travel across numerous strips of molten lava, which they consciously jump over, because their animal-reasoning is governed by the foresight that behind these searingly hot ridge lines, and after a few more thousand kilometers of sprinting, is a
much more fertile land than waht theyre in at the time.

Evolution


I dont think you quite understand evolution as well. It is much more complex than creationist theories, you cannot assume they are on teh same level of understanding.

'how do you explain dinosaurs evolving into identical litlte birds on opposite sides of the planet'

How many identical animals do you know that evolutionists claim evolved identical paths in seperate climates?

'evolutionists say that tehre was a complex form of evolution up until pangea after which a simpler form of evolution replaced it'

Where did you get the idea that "complex' evolution stopped at one point, then some other type of evolution copntinued after pangea split?

Animals dont morph. Thye also dont accurately, spontaneously evolve into suitable new forms that suit their environment.

This is the clear sign that you do not understand the nature of evolution as much as you like to claim you did.


in conclusion

stop telling biblebashers off for not knowing the intiricicies of the bible well enough when msot of youse dont comprehend evolution past the most prinicple ideas. Most atheists dont even understand evolution properly.

edited in italics, and paragraphs broken up for brocks limited mind power that cannot seem to grasp anything unless its in perfect grammar

 

Stonerbill
Yes, I do understand evolutionism.
You do not.
You are probably stoned and that would explain the weird rambling round-a-bout of a reply you directed.. at me?

Natural Selection after the flood and Continental Drift more than adequately explains what we see today.

The addition of new genetic information is a fine myth.
Enjoy that.

It was cute how you got daring and confused enough to try and copy MHS thing of 'Explaining' conjecture to the little non-science people.

Its called 'Posteuring' and its silly.

(and Aussies are particularly bad at it, just like humour or culture)

 

Brock-

So you are claiming that Pangea completely supports creationism and completely fails evolution...
(Meanwhile you haven’t even been spelling the word PANGEA correctly. I wonder how much research you have really put into this....)

Allow me to explain why I think you are entirely wrong.

4 feet of drift a day is impossible.
4 feet of plate movement a day would produce MASSIVE earthquakes, WORLDWIDE.

-Tidal waves constantly bounding across the oceans and crashing upon the land.

-All of earths active volcanoes would be spewing magma non-stop, shrouding the atmosphere with ash.

-The sun’s light would not reach earth.

And to believe this went on for what, thousands of years?

Terrestrial life wouldn’t stand a chance.

Noah and circus certainly wouldn’t stand a chance either.

YOU'VE GOT TO BE JOKING!

The Mid-Atlantic ridge spreads INCHES PER YEAR.

Im sorry, but your statement is just absolutely ridiculous.

Brock, would you like to explain how, after the flood, the vast majority of marsupials ended up only in Australia? And how was it that no rats came along with? How did the tree-dwelling Koala Bears make the 9,000 mile journey from Mt. Ararat to Australia, especially considering they only eat a few subspecies of eucalyptus? How did slow-motion sloths make it 16,000 miles from Mt. Ararat to South America? How were the continents repopulated by animals after the flood?

 

First,
Four inches a day is an average. Stop pretending like its not likely just because you WRITE IN BIG CAPS AS IF ITS INCREDULOUS.

Drift would be much faster than today for sure.

Gene pools answers your next question. Its not complicated at all.

Explaining to me how they morphed into new animals would be much much more complicated (and impossible).

Enjoy

 

dont tell me you know more about evolution when you continue to use words like


"how they morphed into new animals "

Give an example of an evolutionary step that you dont think is feasable.

you didnt answer teh question raised on how koalas traveled the distance. genepools is not an answer.

And according to you, evolution from a mammal to a marsupial is too much.

youve been watching too much pokemon

Where did 4 inches a day come from?

Well since the surface area of the edges of continents moving away from eacother increased as the continents moved away form eachother, continental drift would have actually accellerated from tis starting point, not decellerated.

however, that is too simple a model. There is no reason to say it would have been faster or slower at any point because faster movement on one end of a continent would be counterbalanced by the obstruction of continenets on teh other side.

Overall, continental drift of teh earth would have been very stable since pangea and variations would at no point reach 4 feet a day, at least for long enough to sustain the speed you require.


Notice how ive tried to keep my post to the smallest paragraph size jsut for you, Brock, to accomodate for your inability to understand things that arent written in a nice simple manner.

You display nothing by putting me down wihtout reason.

 

People wouldnt need to "try" to explain things to you brock if you didnt leave so many holes and errors in your shown understanding of the topics.

And show me how my post was round about, it seems clearly structured to me, how about i edit in some titles for you?

*edits subject post*

 

Brock,

With this last post of yours, you have reached an all time low.

To begin with, you are forgetting the details of your own (impossible) theory.
Before you quoted 4 FEET A DAY.
Now you quote 4 INCHES A DAY.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about in regard to plate tectonics or evolution.

We can all see this.

'Panagea'.

Way to completely discredit yourself. It really makes it alot easier on me.


And then, as stonerbill pointed out, you gave a totally bullshit answer to my questions.

I asked you how sloths made it 16,000 miles from Mt. Ararat to South America. How did they cross the oceans? How did they cross the deserts? How did they cross the ice?

You cannot give a real answer because Noah's Ark is a fairy tale.

And just think, 95% of the people around you know it's a fairy tale. You are behind...

 

hang on, more than 5% of people are christian or jewish arent they? wow

 

Exaplin to me how if by chance the continets moved 4 feet a day it would cause the light from the sun to stop shining on the earth.

God gathered the animals before the flood, so I am pretty sure he had the ability to redistribute them after the flood.

You guys keep talking, but neither of you(stonerbill or MNS) are saying anything. Everything here is a theory. None of you were around then so you can't proove our theories as facts.

It is sad really. To see the both of you so dedicated against God. Imagine how awsome your life would be if you focused all that energy into serving God.

 

I think a few people like just discussing the subject for the intelectual stimulus...when i and and others stepped in these people did not bother us or anything we had to say (much) .. I think i and others talked about it in the real world and not as some thesis .

Clearly the ark story does not hold up ..and can be postulated as much as people like..end of the day its a lovely story ...clearly flawed and based on hearsay.

 

Well I disagree. Besides, you have no proof showing that Noah never built the Ark. You have no proof that the world never flooded. You have no proof that non of this happened. Therefore, anything you say is just a theory, a best guess.

 

When continents move, certain areas do what is called 'subducting', where one plate is forced under another. When this plate is forced down and reaches a certain depth within the Earth, the rock melts into magma. This is the way rocks are recycled on earth.
As new magma is created this way, it in turn 'pushes' magma out through ridges.

Now, this process of recycling happens at measured rates of inches per year.

If you increase the speed of this process by... what, something like, over 35,000%... to attain 4 feet a day...

what's gonna happen, is that all geologic process involving magma are going to increase to the same degree.

Magma would be flowing so fast (impossibly fast), that normal cooling processes would not take place, and magma would be spewing forth from the neares outlets to the surface available.

So when you consider that 80% of volcanoes are located at plate boundaries where subduction zones occur, you really get the idea.

As far as the ash- it happens whenever a volcano erupts. Even when just a single large eruption occurs, gas and ash rise high into the stratosphere to be seen even from space. When this happens, high level winds often carry the ash thousands of miles through the sky.

With the frequency of eruption that would occur at 4 feet of movement a day, the atmosphere wouldn't have time to clear.

And not only this, but think about the strength and frequency of earthquakes that would occur if plates moved over 35,000% faster than they currently are... yea, HUGE problem there.

God vs. science. Completely different mechanisms. We are mostly concerned with science in this discussion.

Bandit, please understand that I am not 'dedicated against god'. I am dedicated against a certain version of a specific religion. I am not unspiritual person.

Yes, but not all chrisitians and jews support creationism. In fact, MOST chrisitans and jews do not support creationism.

 

For the benefit of MHS (and Crazy jr.) I was checking out some articles written by actual scientists:
Maybe the most interesting was this:

MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION

The earth's mantle in the numerical model is treated as an irrotational, infinite Prandtl number, anelastic Newtonian fluid within a spherical shell with isothermal, undeformable, traction-free boundaries. Under these conditions the following equations describe the local fluid behavior:


0= - (p - pr) + (r - rr) g + t

(1) ​

0= (r u)

(2) ​

dT/dt=- (T u) - (g - 1) T u + [ (k T) + t : u + H]/rrcv

(3) ​

where t =m [ u + ( u)T - 2 I ( u)/3]

(4) ​

and r=rr + rr(p - pr)/K - a(T - Tr).

(5) ​

Here p denotes pressure, r density, g gravitational acceleration, t deviatoric stress, u fluid velocity, T absolute temperature, g the Grueneisen parameter, k thermal conductivity, H volume heat production rate, cv specific heat at constant volume, m dynamic shear viscosity, K the isothermal bulk modulus, and a the volume coefficient of thermal expansion. The quantities pr, rr, and Tr are, respectively, the radially varying pressure, density, and temperature of the reference state used for the mantle. I is the identity tensor. The superscript T in (4) denotes the tensor transpose. Equation (1) expresses the conservation of momentum in the infinite Prandtl number limit. In this limit, the deformational term is so large that the inertial terms (as well as the rotational terms) may be completely ignored. The resulting equation (1) then represents the balance among forces arising from pressure gradients, buoyancy, and deformation. Equation (2) expresses the conservation of mass under the anelastic approximation. The anelastic approximation ignores the partial derivative of density with respect to time in the dynamics and thereby eliminates fast local density oscillations. It allows the computational time step to be dictated by the much slower deformational dynamics. Equation (3) expresses the conservation of energy in terms of absolute temperature. It includes effects of transport of heat by the flowing material, compressional heating and expansion cooling, thermal conduction, shear or deformational heating, and local volume (e.g., radiogenic) heating.

The Whole Article is found at: http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonics.htm

Also interesting to this disussion:

Before the 1960s, most geologists were adamant that the continents were stationary. A handful promoted the notion that the continents had moved (continental drift), but they were accused by the majority of indulging in pseudo-scientific fantasy. Today, that opinion has reversed—plate tectonics, incorporating continental drift, is the ruling theory.

(Interestingly, it was a creationist, Antonio Snider, who in 1859 first proposed horizontal movement of continents catastrophically during the Genesis flood.1 The statements in Genesis 1:9-10 about the gathering together of the seas in one place, which implies there was one landmass, influenced his thinking.)

That article at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/continental11.asp

BTW, Despite the fact that Evolutionists PRETEND 'they' are explaining continental drift to the world - the fact is, Continental drift is NO friend to them and IS A FRIEND to Genesis accounts of events.

This article gives a brief overview of why Continental Drift 'Squares up' with, what critics once called 'Mythical stories'.
The Earth was once all 'one place'?
The Earth was divided?

Yep.. and Genesis called it first.
http://new.jpdawson.com/daypeleg.html (non-technical)

Now MHS, you continue to state your 1981 textbook version of subduction as if it were the final word of God.
I notice you have a logic problem getting in your way .. You suppose a 'what if' Creationist model.
Then you 'test it' by trying to ram a portion of that model into the Evolutionist model.
That is simply BAD SCIENCE.

"Hmmm this part of a different model does not fit into my model... therefore it can not be true"

Good work Einstien!

You dont even want to entertain the idea that YOUR model (which is NOT the standard by which the Creation model will answer to anyway) is not as axiomatic as you want to believe anyway:

Two major difficulties are encountered by models supposing subduction to explain the modern tectonic phenomena in ocean trenches. First, if subduction theory is correct, there should be compressed, deformed, and thrust faulted sediment on the floors of trenches. Studies of the Peru-Chile Trench and the eastern Aleutian Trench,8 however, show soft flat lying sediment without compression structures. Second, seismic first-motion data indicate that modern earthquakes occurring approximately under trenches and island arcs are often tensional, but only rarely compressional.9


Full Article here: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-032.htm

And just to answer your question about Marsupials...
Oddly enough scientists and evolutionsts agree on this..
Marsupials were likely all over the southern region but when the gene pool was split up (Continental drift) and Ice ages and dramatic climate changes varied ... most Marsupials in (example) colder North America died off.
Some branches of Marsupial (in this example Oppossums) were hearty enough to stick around.

But ya,, you two leach-doctors can just keep on asking questions which embarrass your 19th centure evolutionism religion and eventually the truth of Genesis will find its way to the front and centre.

Not that Pangea has anything to do with morphing animals (btw.. yes you believe they morph and your books on MORPHOLOGY in Evolutionism do to).
Still.. I did find it amusing to watch Evolutionists scrambling to smash and twist their Evolutionist theory to fit the shocking Genesis described Pangea!
Good times!

 

jsut to skip back to this in this short time, stop using the 'no proof is proof' notion godammit!

ill repeat analogies ive used before

if a mudrered commits the perfect crime. Having no proof of his guilt doesnt make him innocent. It leaves room for the discussion of his innocence, however, no actual conclusion can ever be really made. Just like religion can never be actually proven wrong, jsut because of its nature, but it cant be proven true either.

your bible is not proof! Bible is the record of the religion, but in its nature, is no more proof of christianity as olf greek scripts were proof of anchient greek mythology or the quran is proof of Islam.

The fact that it is more popular and more consistent doesnt make it more true. Macdonalds is more popular and more consistant than Burger king but its not more healthy than burger king.

 

StonerBill.
In that case, please explain what the fossil record is a record of?

 

Also, if that is the case, then what does all that recorded information about the Civil War mean? Or the American Revolution. Or WWI or WWII? Just as it can be proven that either McDonalds is healthier than Burger King or vice versa, these wars can be proven just as easily as The Bible. You can read a book on one of the wars and never have heard about it before and choose to believe it or not. Same with The Bible.

 

A fossil record is a physical imprint, and this thread is about discussing the interpretation of pysical evidence. you could dispute that a fossil was unrelated to the supposed shells and plants that they are said to be formed from, but you wouldnt have a good try because there is more certainty for it. With situations like this however, it leads to this discussion over the last 15 pages or so.


However, the 'history records' 'proof' is not valid because there are -historic records- of events before many of thsoe in the bible. Historians were defined, and so were historic proofs, as historic wihtout religious views taken acount of. However where are the historic records of the bible? Where are the records that relate to the events of the bible, wihtout the religious undertone of the bible?

Also, the bible's records are mostly in story form, not in record form, which is not a modern thing, historic records reach back to the dawning of recorded language. Historic records are not written in story form. Many stories are true of course, but no stories that do no have historic records backing them up are accepted fully as the absolute truth, even if they may be.

It is not simply a matter of the writing genra. The nature of historic records is that important issues are recorded that way, many times, depending on how much written language was around at the time. No important records are kept solely as story form, unless that is the only form used, and in the case of the culture of the mediteranean and middle east, it was not.

Many fundemental parts of the bible, the torah, were from before the limits of recorded language. However, this is the very fact that renders them invalid as reliable historic references.

And finally there is the fact that in the many years bc, when the OT was written, so were many other religious scripts. They cannot all be correct, and it is most probable that none are, for the culture of those days was not one of truths, it was of the undeveloped, ignorant old human culture, that had no sense of science (even the sciences accepted by everyone today) whatsoever. Since they cant all be true, we can conclude that it was common of the cultures to create reality out of stories. The bible is therefor nothing more than a more widely accepted, elabourate form of these, that is, until more evidence is found to lift it -significantly- to a level above other religious stories.


The civil war has hundreds of certified historic references, with records of names, exact places, exact dates. Even if everyhting above is diregarded, the bible contains little to no exact details, past names of characters and names of cities and stuff like that. Nowhere near the magnitude of the civil war. the more sources and details, and the more correlation of details, the more credible the source. And so you cant compare the events we learn in class and stuff, with the events of the bible. It doesnt matter that written records were not common back then.

 

I cannot vouch for that post fitting brock's language requirements, sorry if it doesnt, but please get over that.

 

Mere inches a year of continental movement has been PROVEN; measured by NASA! I already explained this, post #134.

You call it silly and outlandish. The world’s best technology calls it fact!
Your position is completely indefensible.

IMPOSSIBLE.

You cannot argue with NASA's Satellite Laser Ranging systems, Synthetic Aperture Radars, and Global Positioning Systems; or radio telescopes at the world's largest astronomical observatory...

All of which agree that the continents drift a few inches per year.

Sloths are only found in South America.

Yes, there was a DRY bridge connecting Asia to North America, that appeared more than once throughout geologic history. And no, the cold in the north is not a problem. Reptiles and insects already existed on all the continents, and birds could fly between them. That leaves mammals, which do have fur and insulation -thank you for pointing that out. Mammals in Central and South American rainforests had plenty of time to adapt to warmer climates -millions of years-.


Similar land bridges are postulated between Britain and Europe, between New Guinea and Australia, between the Philippines and China, between Sri Lanka and India, and between the Southeast Asian mainland and the Indonesian islands.