Evolution in the Anarctic

wo wo wait a minute. Pangea? the super continent? 4500 years ago? this is a joke right?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"wo wo wait a minute. Pangea? the super continent? 4500 years ago? this is a joke right?"
--Sorry to disappoint you Ludvan, this is no Joke. I have found throughout my reading, that is there is no problem, and is infact, more appealing to the young earth theory with the inclusion of Pangea, or a relatively similar super-continent.

​

---

TC,whats the rate of continental shifting please?

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
TC,whats the rate of continental shifting please?

​

---

Oh...on second thoughts,i allready know what you're gonna reply(thats back then,the continents moved faster) so i'll skip to the next question immediatly. Do you advance that the continents began separating 4500 years ago because there is evidence that they began moving at that time or because they have to had begun moving 4500 years ago for your model to work?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"TC,whats the rate of continental shifting please?"
--The rate of 'continental shifting', or 'mid-oceanic sea-floor spreading', is currently estimated at about 1-2 inches a year, though other ridges have separation rates 5-10 times more rapid such as the East-Pacific rise. If I am in a car and I speed to 100mph on a slightly sloped road, and shift into neutral, I'm going to start to slow down, pretty soon you will be going quite slowely compaired to your rapid advancement some time back. So what is the argument?

​

---

You havent read the post that just followed that one o take it. My argument in that one was what sort of evidence do you possess that no geologist on planet earth has,that 4500 years ago,the continents all started to move?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"You havent read the post that just followed that one o take it. My argument in that one was what sort of evidence do you possess that no geologist on planet earth has,that 4500 years ago,the continents all started to move?"
--See my response to Mark24's post 18.

​

---

TC,i'm not talking about your wish list that you NEED for your model to work. I asked you to share with me...and everyone else here,this OBSERVABLE,QUANTIFIABLE,QUALIFIABLE evidence that you seem to possess that indicates to you that 4500 years ago,there was a super continent that DID break up into what we can see today. In other words,im not interested in what you BELIEVE happened or WANT to believe happened but on what you can DEMONSTRATE happened based on evidence observable TODAY. clear enough for you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"TC,i'm not talking about your wish list that you NEED for your model to work. I asked you to share with me...and everyone else here,this OBSERVABLE,QUANTIFIABLE,QUALIFIABLE evidence that you seem to possess that indicates to you that 4500 years ago,there was a super continent that DID break up into what we can see today. In other words,im not interested in what you BELIEVE happened or WANT to believe happened but on what you can DEMONSTRATE happened based on evidence observable TODAY. clear enough for you?"
--Right, I think you are commenting on a different post, I would like a reply to my post #28 in this thread. I give a very plausable explination based on known naturalistic science.

​

---

You give a good explanation of what MIGHT have happened IF certain elements DID all come into play as noted...and at the risk of repeating myself tonight,i'm still gonna ask you what EVIDENCE you can point to that would lead ME to believe that this explanation is the correct one...and then explain to me how come 200 years of geological studies simply "missed" it and needed the help of a highschool kid to open their eyes to the "truth"...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"You give a good explanation of what MIGHT have happened IF certain elements DID all come into play as noted...and at the risk of repeating myself tonight,i'm still gonna ask you what EVIDENCE you can point to that would lead ME to believe that this explanation is the correct one..."
--If I might quote myself from another thread with basically the same comment:
"and then explain to me how come 200 years of geological studies simply "missed" it and needed the help of a highschool kid to open their eyes to the "truth"..."
--Hey, I should start a new revolution. (they have a pre-consieved assumption on gradualism and uniformitarianism, everything must comply with that scale, and how can it not when it the time scale is so long?)

​

---

And you conclude that this "pre-conceived assumption" IS NOT based on very good deductive resoning or decades of experience in their respective field,i take it. You conclude that you are the only one among these many scientists who "ever thought outside the box",so to speak...that they never considered a point of view similar to yours and rejected it because it didn't hold water. lots of pre-conception here as well,if you dont mind my saying so.

​

[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 03-21-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 03-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"And you conclude that this "pre-conceived assumption" IS NOT based on very good deductive resoning or decades of experience in their respective field,i take it."
--This is an assumption based on uniformitarianism, that is, the idea that how it occurs today, is how it has always occured, and in doing so, reject any other notion on this fundamental assumption. So again I must ask, is there an objection toward my hypothesis, may it become a theory, as I see it at this point just as conceivable as the theory of plate-tectonics.

​

---

I'm not a geologist myself TC and neither are you so my objection to your theory stems from the fact that actual geologists completely disagree with it. You accuse them of assuming uniformitarianism and that may be true,to some extent,although,as i said,i doubt that you are the first to raise this issue. It is more likely that people have accepted the assumption of uniformitarianism AFTER pondering long and hard on the question and deciding that this assumption was quite valid. And you have your own pre-conceived assumptions,mind you. You assume that the Bible is the word of God and as such that no explanation that contradicts biblical teachings can be true. Because lets face it,TC,the pre conceived assumption of the Bible being INNERANT is the basis of creationism or creation science,whatever you call it. So i dont really think its fair for you to "condemn" others for doing roughly the same thing you do.

It's been my observation as well that TC seem to like extrapolating small factoids into actual rules when they should actually be considered exceptions to them (case in point,Tyke and cancer cells...ask him about those someday...or his pool experiment to "prove" that insects could have survived the flood)