Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 0/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   continental drift
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 50 of 65 (544569)
01-27-2010 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by hawkes nightmare
01-26-2010 8:51 PM


the scientific 4.54 billion years of evolution say that going at 1 cm/yr =28210.25213 miles.
Bear in mind that the breakup of Pangea is only the latest act in the drama of continental drift, and didn't start until the Jurassic period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by hawkes nightmare, posted 01-26-2010 8:51 PM hawkes nightmare has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 59 of 65 (544716)
01-27-2010 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by hawkes nightmare
01-27-2010 7:58 PM


as you can see, i've edited my first post due to me not looking at the othere ones before it. i accounted for the 200 mil. and it still doesn't come out even.
I make the figures just about spot on. Taking the distance between Norway and Greenland as the narrowest point between the plates, 60 million years since the rifting of Laurasia, and the figure of 2cm/year as the current measured rate of drift, I get that they should be about 2400 km apart. The true figure is 2200 km. That's a good fit of prediction to observation.
the i also added how evolution and the billions of years of the earth cannot be true because of other universal changes. in the 1500's astronomers also accounted that the earth moved farther from the sun and the moon from the earth
In the 1500s? A century before the discovery of the theory of gravity?
I don't suppose you could name any of these imaginary astronomers, eh?
you cannot argue with the facts.
So if only you could produce some facts, it would be substantially harder to argue with you.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by hawkes nightmare, posted 01-27-2010 7:58 PM hawkes nightmare has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 60 of 65 (544717)
01-27-2010 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by hawkes nightmare
01-27-2010 8:47 PM


therefore, if you are arguing with what i am saying, you are arguing with what science is saying
I don't know how to break it to you, but you are not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by hawkes nightmare, posted 01-27-2010 8:47 PM hawkes nightmare has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024