Noah's Ark 2004

Dear MHS,

Your really need to stop and think once in a while.
Drift is now over.
Sure, several inches here and there now that the continents now back into each other.

As a rule, a theory supposes that something 'different' happened before.

Next time try and refute the actual issue at hand and not knee-jerk into ridiculous comebacks.
We all know the continents barely move anymore.
Thats not the debate.

This is not even close to the incredibly slow moving average that would have gone on in the beginning.

 

BTW..

Its hilarious that you insist Drift must have always been exactly the same as now - yet. .. you are willing to accept a completely imaginary story about Dry Land Bridges as 'fact' - even though there are NO land bridges.
(Nasa has proven this)

 

Can you please simply give a logical reason as to believe that continental drift would start fast (evidently started by god you would have to claim) and has now slowed to a spot?


and you cant deny that the continents are still moving? how? Do you think nasa has made this up as a joke?

 

Just a guess, but I'm betting that his defense is based on a misconception that the speed of light is not actually a constant. Once you start trying to disprove the results of tests conducted with rigorous scientific methodology, you have to start calling other tested and accepted sceintific ideas into question because the calculations which resolve the previous quandry are based on them - can't agrue with the empiric, measurable, documentable evidence so you have to attack the math. It's a domino effect. Pretty soon he'll be telling us that the theory of gravity is a misconception.

 

Nice insult post know1nozeme.

Your asking for a theory.
Not Math.

This is because no one (incl NASA) has been measuring anything for the last 5,000 years.

So you have no choice but to theorise.

If you want to pretend that its a simple as measuring the movement today and calculatng backwards then the earth meets in a Pangea and shrinks into itself at 4 inches a year.. until eventually being a superdense atom in the middle of a watery planet.

So if you run the film in 'Reverse' you would see the continents puzzle back together and eventually stop.

Again.. you have to use common sense when theorising. If the continents have spread so far apart they are now meeting each other in the Pacific Rim.. then its not surprising they have slowed down to an almost stop.

Hey if you want to take this stance fine.. but dont pretend like you believe in genetic evolutionism either.
Since there is Zero observation of novel genetic information being generated in animals today...
You do that math know1knozme

 

That doesn't make any sense.

 

Can you tell me what earthquakes are, then?

 

I fail to see any insult in my previous post. I'm just pointing out that in order to defend your theories concerning the events of the last 5000 years, you are willing to disregard any other established scientific theory.

If you have to claim that the speed of light isn't constant because we have no measurements of it taken from 5000 years ago in order to keep your own theory in play, you won't hesitate to do that. If it turned out that the theory of gravity could be used to mathematically "prove" (as much as it can since it is, after all, a theory) that the universe was several billion years old, you wouldn't hesitate to strike that theory because, as I said, it's just a theory.

Is that an insult, or is it an accurate portrayal of the methodology you employ to defend your beliefs?

 

Yes it does.
Please pay attention.
Thanks.

 

Now, that really didn't make any sense.

(please tell me you know Im refering to living people today right?)

 

What ever happened to that expedition?

 

Dont bother trying to switch and mix concepts thanks.
You mixed insults in with your poor comparative questions.

The Latter is a poor comparison (so its more insulting to people intelligence than anything).

Continental Drift has a beginning and an end.
At this point the continents are no longer drifting apart but rather, meeting together.

We can make an educated guess the Drift started.

Then we have no choice but to make some assumptions based on the way other things in nature work.
(Gravity or light are very very poor comparisons but I wont rub it in)

You might even look at some Lava flows and note they are moving at a certain speed.
Did it always move that slow?
No.
We remember when it was moving much much faster at the beginning.

We also look at basic laws of physics.
If something is meeting resistance, is it going slower than when it was not meeting resistance?
Yes.. that is usually the case.

So you see... we dont actually know how fast Continents Drifted (and/or the Earth expanded) but we can make good estimates based on Science.
Now we also look at evidence like Ancient Civilisations and their records.

In this case, ancient Jews refer to the Earth being divided (and before that the Earth being in one place.. and the waters in another).
We also look at things like Archaeology and even Botony etc.

Ooop... penultimate BigBrother 5 episode is on. .later.

 

You said,

referring to tectonic plate movements, right?

I'm really not trying to be sarcastic here, but; you mean to tell me that earthquakes aren't caused by tectonic plates colliding against each other, as detected by geological scientists?

If I'm misunderstanding your argument, please correct me.

 

Why are you pretending that earthquakes are 'your evidence' and why do you keep 'challenging me' to 'answer' for earthquakes?

Keep in mind.. Earthquakes are recorded in Genesis and throughout Scripture (something NASA didnt do btw)

 

Look through my posts in this thread, and find another question I have asked. Allow me to help you. Post #165 is the first post I've made to this thread. Post #169 is the second post, and this post (#176) is the third.

Of all three posts I have asked only one question; the one quoted above. It could be termed a comparative question, if you like, asking you to determine if my analysis was an insult or if it was, in fact, an accurate analysis. It is not, in my estimation, a poor comparative question, but a rather simple one, with a clear delineation between the choices (insult or accurate portrayal, respectively). You have posted something I like to call a non-answer. Simply put, you are attempting to ignore my question, by making a claim which is patently false. To begin with, you accused me of insulting you in the post before I asked the question and in point of fact, my question directly addressed this alleged insult. It is, therefore, impossible for me to have mixed insults into my questions.

I maintain, that you have not answered my question because a truthful answer will erase any shred of credibility you might have imagined yourself having. It will show that your argument roughly condenses into two fallacies: "My evidence is true because it is true." and "Your evidence is faulty because I question it."

Perhaps, now you would like to tell me, once again, that I don't understand "how stuff works." I offer you the opportunity to explain it to me.

 

a) You can explain yourself to me.
b) You can try and satisfy my questions.

[If you want?]

Your 'question' [which was rhetorical and based on absurd comparison] was not really a question but a scheme. [see above]

I have already explained that Continental Drift [note.. 'Drift'] presumes a beginning point.
The whole geometry thing about 'Spheres' is why an end-point must be in this.

Gravity or Light do not make good comparisons... even if I was to be theorise light speed is decreasing or Gravity has been different before [a different topic and one you have no idea my position because its a completely different concept.]

So really.. your analogy sucks and therefore your question [which was trying to dupe me into accepting your premise] was an insulting question.

It was cute though!

 

*Wrong Answer!*​

Thank's for playing, but... ​

No Cookie For You ​

This is your second non-answer in a row, but I have no need to press you further because you have provided me with this:​

​

In doing so, you have proven my point. This set of statements lines up perfectly with the fallacious method of circular argument which I've outlined. A method which anyone reading your previous posts can see that you employ.

You will not admit to my analysis of your methodology, however YOU CANNOT DENY IT. If you could, it would have been a simple matter for you to do so. Such a denial might have allowed you to continue appearing to be a reasonable person, worthy of engaging in debate until someone actually put you to the test. However, at that point, you would have been forced to either return to your circular reasoning or admit that your thesis was incorrect (which you will not do under any circumstances). You will stubbornly remain blind to anything which doesn't conform to your narrow view of the universe. There is no point in ANYONE engaging you in intelligent debate of any kind, because you have shown yourself to be among the willfully ignorant... Again.

 

KNow1knozme,

At this point you are fooling no one, especially me. Of course you were answered.
You made an invalid comparison and wrongly assigned it to me as my methodology.
You did not ask a question but rather insisted "Thats You isnt it? Isnt it!?"

Well of course its not and you have been told why.

Just formulating pseudo-articulate 'dismissals' and posing 'as if' you are replying to something different will not change the facts.

The fact is, you failed to 'slam dunk' me with your crappy rhetoric and now you have to live with feeling silly.
You should.

Enjoy.

 

Just in case you want to pretend you werent answered (and consider it a bonus for you)

Your 'question' [which was rhetorical and based on absurd comparison] was not really a question but a scheme. [see above]

I have already explained that Continental Drift [note.. 'Drift'] presumes a beginning point.
The whole geometry thing about 'Spheres' is why an end-point must be in this.

Gravity or Light do not make good comparisons... even if I was to be theorise light speed is decreasing or Gravity has been different before [a different topic and one you have no idea my position because its a completely different concept.]

So really.. your analogy sucks and therefore your question [which was trying to dupe me into accepting your premise] was an insulting question.

 

Now that the continents back into each other?

So they were once 'floating' across Earth's crust?

Your understanding of plate tectonics is elementary at best. And the nerve you have, to pretend that you actually know what you are talking about....

I never gave any exact numbers in regard to continental drift (once again you are being dishonest). I have always said that the continents drift a few inches per year. I recognize that continental drift fluctuates within a basic range. To be specific, the range is around 1-15 centimeters, or 0-6 inches, per year...

...Certainly not 4 feet a day as creationists may suggest.

Proof?




They are called magnetic stripes, and they can be found parallel to mid-ocean ridges on the sea floor.

They are created when magma cools and the iron contained within polarizes in either a positive or negative direction.

What determines the direction of polarization?

Earth's magnetic field. The stripes are actually alternating directions of polarized isotopes, caused by reversals in the magnetic field.



Through this geologic record, not only can we verify the existence of magnetic reversals and seafloor spreading, but we discover that neither of the processes have dramatically slowed down or sped up over the past millions of years.